Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Carmine,

This will probably fall under your area of expertise and experience, but all are welcome to contribute. As I transition from being unemployed to being self-employed, I am looking for more specialized services to offer my clients.

There are specialized 'rug dusters' for sale which tap the accumulated dirt, dust, sand, and grit out of Oriental rugs by laying them face down over a grid which gives the debris room to fall. These cost upwards of 4,000.00! These have been developed as an alternative to the huge stationary 240 volt dusting machines. All of this to replace regular vacuuming with a Hoover 300, 700, or 150, the ones with the dual divergent agitator bars, with shorter agitator bars and bristle strips in between on each side.

The magic of the Hoover was that the 5,000 taps per minute during slow motion vacuuming set up a wave pattern that  vibrated the rug, dislodging the dirt, sand, and grit. It was not accomplished with tremendous suction, though the airflow was good, it was the balance of enough suction to keep snapping the rug up after each tap. The sand was not actually beaten out of the rug as much as the rug was pushed down leaving the sand in mid-air to be caught by the airflow generated by the fan, as explained by the laws of Newtonian physics.

My question is this: Short of finding and restoring a few 150 Hoovers, is there any alternative? Would any later model Hoovers accept the dual divergent agitator? How late? A current Guardsman, maybe, with some alteration perhaps?

A Kirby with a cloth bag has been suggested to me. A G series will not accept a full-fledged sani-emptor, and probably is too powerful to sustain the tap/snap action. A cloth bag would yield too much airflow, and a hepa bag too little as it fills. A Heritage I with a cloth bag seems the only other possibility. The Sanitaire Vibra-Groomer I is not sufficient, about the same as the standard Hoover agitator with just one strip of beater bar per side.

The idea of being able to restore neglected Oriental rugs with simple thorough vacuuming for good pay is very appealing. As I understand it, Hoover abandoned this configuration of agitator because as area rugs gave way to wal to wall carpet, it did not grab and hold the wall-to-wall carpet as well as the newer, less expensive to produce version, which had just the one spiral strip per side. Hoover could have ruled if they had stuck to being a status symbol. Imagine being able to switch out the roller and bottom plate to adapt the vacuum to whatever carpet/rug/floor needed to be cleaned. The mind boggles, while the Hoover just beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans...

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

I used the word 'Dyson' in one of my posts, and that seems to be a red rag to a bull with Carmine! I've certainly tried to share all I can on the issue of pre-war Hoovers and efficient rug-cleaning. If you feel that was unhelpful of me, or not what you were looking for, I apologise.

Model2 wrote:

I concede that one fact is right.  The HOOVER 700 is the Greater HOOVER.  But in actuality all the 700 series are the Greater HOOVER.

If you state that your fave brand is an "overwhelming success" that is an opinion unless you have the dyson "facts and figures" to back it up.  Where are they?

I recall the ASA in 2008 [when it ruled against dyson in favor of Electrolux] that it did not have any confirmed research and any facts/knowledge to support dyson's claim in its suit against Electrolux that it was the leading selling vacuum in the UK.  Opinion, not fact and no figures with back up.

Carmine D.

Model 2,

I do appreciate your info and your willingness to share it. I just grow weary of the seemingly constant bickering over the relative merits of James Dyson's contribution to vacuum cleaner history. And it's more that that. The "discussion"  degenerates into thinly veiled name calling and questioning of forum contributors integrity and intellectual prowess. The whole topic has had more attention than it justly deserves. Let's move on guys!

Trebor

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

Trebor:

I'm ready, willing and able.  But when someone wants to fence with me, I thrust and parry. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Model 700 was 'The Greater Hoover'

Model 725 wasn't afforded specific a title.

Model 750 was 'The Two-Speed Hoover', part of the 'Silver Jubilee Range'.

Model 800 was 'The Sentinel', and in the UK, 'The Jubilee Hoover'.

Other than these Hoover-given titles, they were referred to by Hoover as 'the Deluxe Model', or 'The Standard Model'.

Since these models have official Hoover given-titles, this is why I do not use the term 'The Greater Hoover' for any model after the 700. The title does not appear in Hoover promotional material after the 725 was introduced in 1929.

But call them what you will- a rose by any other name, etc!

CarmineD wrote:

Point 1) Where did I say the term 'overwhelming success' was anything other than an opinion? As a member of the public, not an industry insider, I don't have access to trade figures for Dyson, or any other brand.

Point 2) I thought we'd cleared this up already - the ASA ruled in favour of Dyson, not Electrolux - I posted the report in it's entirety to clear that misrepresentation of the "facts" up. There was no official "ruling" about the DC14 being (or not being) the leading selling vacuum in the UK, it was simply commented on during the discourse of the investigation. The only ruling, ie. the ASA's ultimate decision following the investigation, was that Dyson's objection was sustained, and that Electrolux could not continue to run the misleading advert in it's current state. As an aside, on the American Electrolux website, the section on the Intensity, where the performance claim '50% more suction than market leader' is printed, it's followed by' '*Dyson DC14'. I'd post a link, but for some reason the server's being slow and won't let me access the page in question. You're welcome to check it out for yourself.

And I do apologise, Trebour. I'd much rather talk about the Hoover 725!

Model2 wrote:

Yes, I thought I did clear it up.  Dyson filed against Electrolux Intensity for claiming it has 50 percent more suction.  ASA ruled in favor of Electrolux and said the evidence proved it had 50 percent more suction with a full bag than a DC14.  What ASA said was that Electrolux could not say it gave a deep down cleaning w/o submitting more proof. 

ASA also said it did not have any evidence to prove that dyson was the leading vacuum seller in the UK which dyson imputed in its claim against Electrolux. 

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

I use Greater HOOVER for all the 700 series.  Always have and always will.  And the only person who could and would persuade me otherwise is not around anymore to do so.  When I see him, I'll be sure to ask him.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

My final point which seems to elude you.  If the dyson facts and figures were as good as some here claim, including you, they would have been plastered all over the news media and internet early and often.  They are not and haven't been for some time now.  The only reason I can offer is that after coming out of the gate so well, your fave pick has faded quickly and lost steam in the final stretch.  Now, if I'm wrong, I ask you and anyone else here with the information on the current dyson sales to ante up.

Carmine D. 

Carmine wrote: ...during my professional career...

During your jubilantly and phenomenally successful career, Dear Carmine, I'm sure you had to forego indulgence in 'thrust and parry', however tempting and entertaining it might have been, and just 'let sleeping dogs lie'. They scratch and growl, but if you leave them alone they settle down. They dream they catch the rabbit and all is well. If you have forgotten, please tell your dear wife you need a longer leash, and to let you out of the doghouse more. Throw us all a bone and let the Dyson bunny rabbit go.

Regards,

Trebor