Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Has anyone seen this yet?  It just hit the shelves a couple of weeks ago at Wal-Mart (not even on the Hoover or WM website at this point), I picked one up around that time after speaking to Tom G. (who was the first one to tell me about it) but had neglected to post about it on here until now.  I finished posting a review in the Reviews section, needless to say I am very impressed with the machine now that I have been using it for a couple of weeks and highly encourage everyone to at least head to Wal-Mart and check it out. 

For those of you who haven't seen it, TTI/Hoover has finally jumped on the multi-cyclone bandwagon after experimenting with dual-cyclone for a couple of years with the Mach series, and only recently getting *that* right with a redesigned shroud for the Mach 3.  This Whisper is completely different, it's a copy of a Root Cyclone Dyson and a damn good one at that.  At $120 I am blown away by the type of machine it is, very substantial and not cheap-feeling by any means.  It's a completely new design, and appears to contain elements of the Mach series, the failed "One" cleaner in the UK, and, oddly enough, the LG/Kenmore Premalite.  At first glance it appears to be a dual-cyclone machine, until you either look at the side of the box or separate the two halves of the cyclone assembly.  Indeed, there are 6 high-efficiency cyclones hidden above the bin, and they look just like a Dyson's.  You will also notice the cyclonic "arrows" on the Hoover logo in front, for added emphasis

Carpet performance is good, it handles very nicely (positive weight) and the double-chevron brushroll helps pull the machine along; the bristles are soft but still effective.  What sets it apart from the Dyson though is above-floor cleaning convenience.  You push a button and the handle wand releases, you do not even have to let go of the handle; you're using the SAME ergonomic handle you just vacuumed the carpet with.  The wand is long as well, and does not need to be inverted for use.  There are only 2 attachments, and the wand isn't adjustable, but the brush/upholstery tool is, I presume to reach tight spaces.  I suppose if worse comes to worse other standard 1 1/4" attachments could work, it appears to be the same though I have not tried it.  I'll check that out further and post the findings.  The motor is soft-starting (like the Hoover Z), and the brushroll (driven by a separate motor) automatically starts and stops when the handle is lowered or raised, if the brushroll switch is on.  There are also 2 indicator lights showing when the brushroll is on, and when the suction is blocked.

This machine is basically a Dyson DC07 or DC14...at a third of the price.  Being a Dyson fan I hate to say it, but Dyson may be facing some competition with this machine as far as regular uprights are concerned, once it is more widely available and more people find out about it.  It's no match for the DC17 in terms of performance, obviously, but I can't see any reason why the 7 or 14 would be more desirable, as strange as that sounds.  If it was inexpensive and worked well but cheaply made, then it's obvious the Dyson would be the clear winner (as it usually is), but that's the thing...this machine does not seem to be cheaply made at all.  Definitely no WindTunnel here and I can't see why it wouldn't last a reasonable length of time.   On the other hand, while possibly not-so-good news for Dyson this could be some positive news for Hoover, perhaps the first of many machines to come?  It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

-MH

CarmineD wrote:
Okay, so you're switching back to supporting the Hoover brand now?

Motorhead,

I appreciate the review.  I must say it is hard to watch a man (Dyson) work so hard, spend huge sums on engineering, spend huge somes on advertising and much time educating the public, then only not to protect himself with some additional patents that could of/should of prevented Hoover, Bissell, Vax, Dirt Devil from having Dyson like technologies.  I would have thought James would protect these assets with vigor by securing additional patents.  James’ vacuum future will be one of competing against his own technologies in the market place.  Watching his clear bin copied by much of the industry must have been hard.  Watching his cyclone and bin reconfigured must be even harder, harder because it could or should of been prevented.  Samsung has 4 to 5 multi-cyclonic patents pending, but will most likely use only one of the designs in a future product and use the other 3-4 patents as insurance by keeping others locked out of these designs.  Perhaps this is a downside to James having so many young and inexperienced (to the worlds ways) engineers and/or patent attorneys.      DIB

M00seUK wrote:

No M00seUK, never switched.  But you made me laugh. 

I'm a vacuum man.  Bagged, not bagless, except for specialty models. 

HOOVER and ORECK have the names and reputations in the vacuum industry in the USA.  Just giving credit where credit is overdue.  HOOVER is the premier carpet cleaner and groomer.  That hasn't changed in 100 years in the USA.  ORECK, coming on the half century mark, is a worthy, but very distant, second.  IMHO.

Carmine D. 

DIB:

I mentioned before that the patent thinking and laws are a changin in the USA.  The discussion was in regards to drugs.  But same applies across the board.  Can't make marginal product changes at the time of expiration and extend the patents forever.  Like the good old days. 

Isn't it Tom G that always says in the vacuum industry no one remembers who did it first but the one who copies the best and sells it for less.  If I recall correctly.  Or was it Motor?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

Extending his patents serves no use here.  Writing entirely new patents that would lock out clustering cyclones above the bin is both legal and prudent.  There is very little room on an upright to place 5 or more high efficient cyclones cleanly and now others have them.  TTI and Bissell did not put the money or work in! - James did!  He will be competing against himself because he left the patent doors wide open.

Unfortunately it is probably true, consumers do not care who stole, copied or reversed engineered from who.  Bill Gates was proven to be a predatory monopoly and do the majority of people care?  No.        DIB

This HOOVER first caught my eye last week, when I was at Walmart.  

If you want to know what it looks like, go to  the link below. Walmart's website does not have it up yet.

http://www.vax.co.uk/shop/upright-vacuum-cleaners/Vax-VZL-501-Turboforce_Zero-vacuum-cleaner

Two key features that could be deceptive 

* Non-stop suction

How many vacuums actually stop sucking as opposed to just a substantial decrease in suction. If Dyson made this claim the red flag would already be dropped on them.

* Washable lifetime HEPA filter - no replacement filters to buy

Are replacement available.  If so this must not be a lifetime filter. Again Dyson has been criticized severely on the forum fot this claim.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

I agree completely with what you said here.  Being a Dyson fan this is bittersweet; I'm glad that cyclonic bagless is slowly becoming more mainstream (and will continue to be) for everyone to use and that TTI/Hoover did it RIGHT this time around, but at the same time it is painful to watch Dyson potentially become another "me too" company; the one feature that stood out for the longest time is starting to become incorporated into other manufacturers' machines.  However, Dyson has many innovative designs besides cyclonic separation (the Ball design for one, and the DDM), and knowing Dyson they learn from their mistakes quickly, so I'm sure they will continue to innovate and secure future patents so this will not be the case the next time around.  Not to mention that Dyson will continue to be highly respected among enthusiasts as the FIRST with this technology, even if it now isn't the only one.

-MH

HARDSELL wrote:
Hi HS,

Since Dyson now isn't the only one that never clogs or doesn't lose suction (TTI and Bissell have been using these statements as well), not to mention the filters, greedy competitors such as Oreck will not have much footing for a dispute in the future.  That, and the idea that other manufacturers (both low and high-end) will not want to hold out with outdated technology much longer and keep losing more and more sales, will eventually lead to more companies jumping on the cyclonic bandwagon one by one and adding at least one bagless model to their lineup.  Even Oreck, with its direct-air version, complete with 30 MPH high-efficiency cyclone...

Motorhead wrote:

Hello MH,

The link that Mike provided only says ' non-stop suction ' .  To me this is not the same as no loss of suction.  Unless a vacuum is clogged it should produce suction regardless how full the bag or bin.  Suction will, however, decrease with a bagged or most bagless as they fill.  I think the key word is STOP.

Is the life time filter a pleated one?