Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Carmine and I suggested a new thread.

Let's hear all there is about Filter Queens.  All I basically know is they are exclusively appointment only DTD.  They are expensive, and they last for freeking ever.  I have heard they have gone plastic, but other than that the basic design hasn't changed. 

Did Royal once build them?  Or did they build Royal?

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I believe on the website it shows the Majestic as the current model.  If it's the same one I saw at the vac shop when I purchased my Riccar the motor case was metal but the tank portion was plastic.  I was super impressed by how quiet it was.  I don't buy "It can clean and purify the air in your home. . . ."  When my furnace/air-conditioner with a much bigger blower, a vastly larger air duct and HEPA quality filter can't get the fish order out.

How can they claim to be an air cleaner (same with Rainbow) when the machine is only running about 30 minutes or so a day, it only moves what 80 CFM through a 1 1/2 inch hose and the main air intake is on the carpet?

Now that is, with my limited knowledge of this machine, my biggest criticism.  I am positive it is a great vac, and one of the first "bagless" machines available.   They are just something that isn't seen too much of anymore.  I hear they are quite pricy, more than a Kirby.  However, who pays retail for a Kirby.  But I hear that the Filter Queen Natzis will not budge from their price point, and are extremely high pressure.  This again is heresay as I have not witnessed it myself.   Besides I can get rid of a salesman pretty quickly--I show them my bank account balance.

Hello Just:

Thanks for the update.

The clean/purify air pitch is a variation on the original Rexair [Rainbow] sales pitch:  Relieves and resolves allergies to dust and sinus conditions.  An exaggerated claim which Rainbow was forced to revise.  Very similar to today's halo claim that it is the only vacuum to kill germs.  The CEO, Garcia, commissioned a new study to show that halo users suffer less from allergies.  Nice to commission a study and determine ahead what it is to prove!

Quite expensive: $1800 to $2000.  My gripe beside the price is with the vacuum's enormous maintenance after use.  It's just too difficult for users and too time consuming.  Have to say, just like a bagless dirt bin that has to be dumped [with water].

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi,

During its heyday FQ was probably one of the few vacuum cleaners that actually delivered on its promises and was doing this way before high-filtration had become a significant selling point.  Please keep in mind at that time most of us were buying into pitches regarding a vacuum's ability to pick up -- not by its minimization of dust blow-back. 

The cellulose filter cone and motor filter actually worked in Filter Queen.  Imitators like Lewyt fell short of the mark.  I say this because having owned FQ -- and still having a couple stored away -- I know the cleaner stays clean where it counts if properly maintained.  The manner of dust disposal wasn't ideal but not overly complicated.   Filter cone in place, you either carefully cover the dust container with newspaper or a trash bag and gently upturn it and lift the dust container away or just dump it into your trash can outside.  Replacing the filter cone only requires that you position the pointed end of the cone in the holder centered in the container's bottom and make sure that all three tabs at the top of the cone are visible when you seat the motor unit.

The older straight-suction models did well regarding surface litter removal and also provided better dust capacity than most vacuums 'til the day of cleaners like the Hoover Celebrity canisters with the humoungous bags. However, FQ power nozzles left a lot to be desired until as of late.

Modern times considered. the down side I see is that, for one, Filter Queen gave up on the cord reel it took so long to adopt and, if the dust containers are now plastic, employs more plastic than I prefer for a cleaner this costly.    As well, for our fast-moving, encumberment hating society I think by manner of design just isn't "it" for today.  Not many are impressed by the attachment "crown" or the zillion options for special tools, etc., offered by the company.  This did well for niche brands like FQ, Electrolux and Kirby back in the day but is not considered of great importance now.

Best,

Venson

I have to agree with Venson on the power nozzles. The new one on the Majestic 360 model seems to be an improvement. I personally like the older machines when they were entirely all-metal down to the bucket and caster set, but I never understood why FQ wouldn't put a larger motor in the machine. Probably the noise issue. I think the older machines run quieter too. I'd take one of those older Princess canisters in a heartbeat!

If you wanted to make many enemies,the F.Q. was the machine to sell , the profit margins were astronomical, the aggravation level afterwards was equally astronomical,

This machine should be sold by the door to door [urban terrorists], just like kirby,by the time the customer comes out from under the ether,the sales people are long gone,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

MOLE

Mole,

I have heard this as well.   Actually it was "Cult Like' what one said in a review.  They felt they had to give into the saleman or he would stay the night.  

Wouldn't many of these DTD sales prosper more from lowering their prices/commissions, being a little more user friendly themselves, and not leave such a bad taste in peoples mouths.

In a slight defense of Kirby, I have not ever been treated badly by a Kirby person.  If I say "No thanks' they pack up and leave.  I will add that most are young college kids trying to earn a quick buck, so their experience levels are low and sales skills lower.  I have always bought my Kirby's at the shop.  Our local Kirby dealer has a big sign that says "NO SALES MADE FROM THIS OFFICE, IN HOME DEMO/SALES ONLY"  To this I reply "Oh, that's too bad, I had my checkbook."  I have always gotten what I wanted.  (I go in the shop to buy my bags and belts as I try to buy from the local guy.  I will buy from ebay on occasion, but not on a regular basis).

Now back to FQ, I have always been fasinated with this machine, but they are as rare as hen's teeth in my area; I guess their sales natzis haven't hit my are in a while.

Just wrote:

Hello Just et al

Kirby sales people developed a very bad reputation and deservedly so.  Spoiled by a few rotten ones.  To his credit, when Warren Buffet purchased the Kirby company [as part of Berkshire Hathaway], he made sure they cleaned up their sales act.

Carmine D.

Mister_Bojack wrote:

Hi,

Though the earlier FQs proved heat endurant, I think a bigger motor would up the heat production factor and possibility of early breakdown.  Without the muffling material, which also held in heat as it cut noise, FQ would rank as average regarding noise levels.  That is not news -- Electroluxes, prior the G, were quieter because of the exhaust filters they used.  However, I have to defer to craftsmanship as FQ and the old Luxes remarkably seemed to endure when a lot of others didn't.  I know of few people who ever thought to change the exhaust filters on early Luxes or the secondary filters on FQ but these machines kept on going and going.

Best,

Venson early

The reason F/Q did not put in bigger motors is: a more powerful motor tips the airflow/suction ratio toward suction, meaning more of the fine dust clings to the filter, causing it to run hotter. It IS possible to clog a F/Q w/ drywall, plaster, concrete, or road dust. Seen it happen,.Sold model 31X in undergrad years. Those were really, really good vacuums, even on carpet w/ straight airflow nozzles