Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Apparently to be available at BEST BUY Stores soon.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8773393&type=product&id=1204331806923

Carmine D.

Hello Severus:

Interesting isn't it.  I noticed that too.  Mole and I had a discussion about variable speed uprights.  I'm wondering if these are them.  Initial start up takes more, then operation speed requires less, then finally even less for shut down and off.  Perhaps increases for attachment use.  Not really sure.  I had hoped to see and ask BEST BUY about this feature.  But alas the Anniversary models had not made their way into the store yet.  To my knowledge no other vacuums on the market today except the HOOVER WT has this designation.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

To my mind, the little bit that there is I mean, energy savings as far as vacuum cleaners are concerned is just a selling ploy for the silly.  You use far more energy when making use of heat producing appliances -- irons, electrric grills, electric ranges, clothes dryers, etc. However, thoughit was never part of my religion, there are those who feel that a high power draw vacuum cleaner will allow you to vacuum more effectively, pass for pass, and therefore manage the task in shorter time.  As for me -- don't know what I'm doing wrong but -- I somehow don't seem to vacuum in any less time with a 12 amp vac than I did with a 6 amp machine. 

Vacuuming over the years has not become less work intensive in recent years than it was 60 years ago.  We've got dishwashers with soft food disposers that require only dumping what's on a plate into the trash before its placement into the machine.  We even have washer'dryer combos to cut steps but vacuumiong is still basically vacuuming save for the Roomba and other devices.  However, those devices are not yet effective at thorough cleaning.  Anyway . . .

If energy savings were really an issue to vacuum manufacturers they'd use motors using less amperage but make better designed attachments and machines. 

Here's your cue to yawn . . .

But no, I'm not going to preach.   I merely would suggest that those concerned about energy use look at an old Lux Model XXX or Hoover uprights from back in the day and old Filter Queens.  None of these were big power eaters but all were great at helping achieve a job well done.

But speaking of modern times, more is always considered better.  Suggestions of sizable power set most consumers drooling and, Lordy me, adding the term "green" can lead to such wonderful illusions of "having it all."

Best,

Venson

The only thing about going green is the green stuff being made off this new twist on the same old,old...............Arm@ Hammer baking soda in the bags,this is what started it all for the vacuum business,too bad for the bagless machines, they cant add this to their list of advertising and marketing HYPE..........

  My toaster hass 1450 watts though,more than any vacuum sold in the U,S,A,, it doesnt clean my floors to well though.

LET'S SEE WHAT THE NEXT NEW USELESS TWIST IS, I THINK LOWERING THE PRICES MIGHT BE NEW AND INNOVATIVE,

MOLE

Going green is about "social responsibility" not just saving [or as Mole prefers making] money.

Carmine D.

If it is any consolation, the EU is gearing up for energy efficiency ratings on vacuum cleaners, too. There are upright cleaners available that have 2000W motors. Far, far too much, in my opinion, as you cannot use the onboard tools properly, because there is no form of suction control.

Electrolux seems to have pre-empted the legislation, by producing the 'Enviro-vac' machine, with a 700W motor. Supposedly able to clean as efficiently as a machine with twice that power.

Hoover UK has machines that employ 1800, 1900 & 2000W motors, but use a flimsy brushroll.

Would it not be more sensible to downgrade the motor power and fit a decent agitator, like they used to have? This would also reduce the irritating, screaming noise that emanates from modern machines.

Hi Trilobite,

That's what I meant.  Ability to clean well is a more a design issue than one regarding motor power.  A 500 watt vacuum that can channel air flow well can serve as well as one employing a thousand watts any day.  I know that because I have a Lux 1205 that just amazes me with its ability to do real work. 

Nonetheless, I still maintain that vacuuming whether with a high or lesser-powered machine doesn't make that much of a dent in an electric bill.  They are not usually used for all that long a time and, God knows, not usually used that often in many homes.

On the other hand our wonderful frost-free refrigerators burn up a lot of juice.  It is claimed that their power consumption has been lessened but at one point in time my local power supplier, Con Edison, claimed they cost about a dollar a day to run.  Now we're talking money -- $356.00 a year.  It's doubtful that you'll come near that at year end because of your vacuum.  The biggest drop in power consumption in my home has been due to switching to compact flourescent bulbs.

People are being played with. I am not saying that real conservation issues do not exist but this is much the same as all scare tactics used to send us scrambling about to hoping to buy a sense of safety.  Safety, in the bigger sense of the word, cannot be bought but simply being practical can move us closer to it.

Venson

Originally thought there were 3.  Then 4.  Come to find out there are 5.  4 ups and a cann.  Nothing new as I said save colors and marginal design changes.  But certainly of interest to vacuum collectors and historians despite the HOOVER TTI union  and/or because of it.  100 years is a special celebration for a company in the vacuum industry.  Not many [royal another TTI sub] in the past have gone that long time.  If longevity is a sign of popularity, as dyson Matt says, then HOOVER must be the most popular in the industry at least for 2008! 

Carmine D.