Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The 'Freedom' and 'Slalom' uprights, and the 'Xarion' cylinder cleaner. All employ 'Airvolution' technology.

You'll have to wander about the Argos site yourselves, as I can't be bothered battling with the silly formatting of pictures on this forum, and the website linking didn't work either.

Interesting!  I wonder what this 'Airvolution' technology is, deeper clean so it says!   The 'Freedom' Uprights looks light parts taken from the current PurePower\Dust Manager range (which has been around since the mid 90's!) and the base to the 'Slalom' Upright looks like it was taken from the Hoover Turbolite from the Late 80's\Early 90's!

The Slalom looks like it could be lite and compact!  Designs taken from the Hoover 'The One' range too!

DC18

Now on the Hoover UK website:

www.hoover.co.uk

Trilobite,

Did Hoover invent a new technology or just a word - "Airvolution"?        DIB

I like the styling, it's a lot more original than other bagless copies.

Hi Trilobite,

Thanks for the heads-up.  I like the styling too.  My main concern is that I can't access anything other than spec sheets for the Xarion, Freedom and Slalom and it is hard to determine if these have pleated filters inside the bin or rely on actual cylonics to initially separaet dirt from the air stream.

Per the specs the Slalom is 8.37 (around 17 pounds) kilos out of the box.  The Freedom (8.98 kilos) is close to 19 pounds and the Xrion is about 12 and a half pounds (6.3 kilos).  I hate math and you should check my calculations on this to be sure I'm not wrong.

The Slalom appears to pivot up and side to side as well.  If it provides consitantly good suction, it might well be a low price competitor versus Dyson which promotes maneuverabilty as one of its main features.

All three of these models, per the website, provide a version for households with pets or allergy sufferers.  Neither version of the Xarion canister has a power nozzle option.  I know this not uncommon for European canister vacuums but considering that pet hair removal is the issue I'd imagine they would as I noticed Miele is now beginning to offer "power-team" canisters on it European site.

As an aside, I also noted that Miele UK is pushing, pardon the pun, the SBDH 285-3 "Allergotec" straight-suction nozzle.  Nothing new other than this is the first time I've seen the like used this way -- it's a sensor activated display that goes from red to green on the area you're cleaning is "clean". 

In any event, it would be nice to see some of the Hoover models head this way.

Best,

Venson

The Slalom on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDL85A06yAU

Dusty

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Venson:

As far as I am aware, they do not employ pleated filters as the primary filtration system. Instead, they use a standard low-efficiency cyclone, followed by higher efficiency '12 V-cell separators'. The air is then filtered by primary filters situated in the top of the cyclonic array.

Not having seen the the machines in the flesh, I'm presuming that the technology is similar to Vax / Dirt Devil / Hoover USA implementations. Hopefully trying to avoid infringing anyone's patents in the process!

Trilobite wrote:

Thanks Trilobite.  I'm glad to be reassured we're talking new technology instead of the same old stuff.  The information per the online spec sheets didn't quite explain it all and user guide PDFs aren't yet on the site.  Nonetheless, It's an interesting machine.. The patent infringement thing is a big issue I suppose.  Machines with real promise like the LG/Kenmore Iridioum, Samsung's Silencio and Euro-Pro's Infinity all had to find a different look for the same thing.

Best,

Venson

dusty wrote:

Fantastic!  I watched the video and this machine appears as unique in design as anything I've seen in a long time.  You usually only see multi-pivoting in stick vacs.  Attachment use also appeared to be very, very uncomplicated and convenient.  At last it seems someone somewhere is looking to make money off giving people actual smart and practical invention. 

As well, I am anxious to see if this will influence any of the major American manufacturers of low and moderately priced machines -- Eureka, etc..  Maybe this manner of more facile mobility and maneuvering will become the new front from which other slightly more inventive uprights will begin to come.

Venson

So Venson,I take it that you like the machine.......................................

MOLE

mole wrote:

Hi Mole,

Kind of.  It at least is a slightly different approach.  I wouldn't wonder if it's development doesn't have something to do with the Miele S7 which claims to have the same ability to pivot and swivel.  As I mentioned before, I think Dyson's Ball has now set forth maneuverability as a selling pitch and other companies will jump on that band wagon same as they did when "baglessness" got to be flavor of the day in the vacuum market. 

Of course, you and I both know that a good idea is one thing and turning it out as effective, quality product is another.  It ain't what you do -- it's the way that you do it that tells the story every time.

Venson

Hey guys, take a closer look…

 

Has Hoover UK (vacuum cleaners) somehow been rehabilitated and can now invent their own problem solving products?

The Slalom at a glance…

Filtration:  Washable HEPA (per their site)

Maneuverability:  The Sebo Felix has already been doing this swivel/elbow w/ limited maneuverability for sometime; power nozzles on canisters also have this same swivel/elbow w/ limited maneuverability.

Twisting turning:  Where’s the right angle (to the body) handle grip?  A average size and strength woman must have a gorilla grip like hand to squeeze the handle so it does not slip while attempting to twist n turn this vacuum.

Weight in use (language used t Hoover site):  Slalmon – 18.45lbs.  Dyson DC15 – 19lbs.

 

The Slalom is a problem solving disaster.  Dyson is way, way ahead of the industry and does it much better…  Buy a Dyson DC15 vs. Hoover Slalom or buy a DC24 or DC25 for a lighter and highly steerable vacuum (more than Sebo and Hoover UK).

 

Hoover (vacuum) UK have a proven track record as *schemers not inventors.        DIB 

 

*Remember the free flights w/ purchase fiasco?  Stealing Dyson’s Dual Cyclone and then lying/misleading about it at trial – Mr. Dyson testified in detail how he invented the dual cyclone.  Yet not one Hoover UK engineer or designer testified at trial to the Triple Vortex’s originality, the judge was not impressed. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hi D.I.B.,

All the votes aren't in yet.  We're speaking of new to the market machines. The public will decide and pricing as well as claims will strongly influence purchase decisions.  Please also make note that I was not comparing upright maneuverability to that of canister power nozzles between which there is much difference. 

As for stealing, I have heard that song for so long and truly have come to feel it's about time to flip the record.  There's nothing new under the sun.  There are any number of vacuum cleaner innovations that have been borrowed from but not necessarily stolen over time to produce a product meant to provide cleaning possibilities that are either equally as good as the competition's.  It's hard to define "larceny" when each case has a different face on it.  Any number of companies would be legally pleading their causes daily if this sort of thing was eay to prove.  Dyson nor anyone else has the time or money to run crying into court every time another manufacturer seemingly borrows but does not actually duplicate  what it may claim to have originated.  This applies to bagged vacuum makers as well who have over the years often embellished on an idea in the hope a similar result. 

Think back to Eureka and the "Disturbulator" -- my best example this monent.  Hoover, reigning king at the time had its "beats as it sweeps as it cleans"  all metal agitor with brushes and beater bars.  To have outright copied this at the time probably would have led to some sort of letigious squabble but somebody at Eureka put on his thinking cap and decided that a couple rows of short dense bristles would offer the "beating" action while another set of softer bristles would suffice for the "sweeping" action.  Eureka uprights cleaned just about as well as Hoover's did through use of it and stayed  in the running.

That said. does Rainbow have a case against Delphin or Hoover against the Air-Rider?  In both cases the same ideas are employed.  There's merely a slightly different look to things

As for Felix, the Felix is not a good example in this case as it is more a high-powered stick vac and, as well, it's center of gravity is different that of full-sized uprights that have their motors situated low to the floor.  Also, don't forget that Miele and Emer also offer similar spins on the idea.  Matter of fact Miele's variable speed 1,000 watt S168 stick can be fitted with either of the company's high-end power nozzles for enhanced rug care.

I maintain there is no ultimate machine when it comes to vacuums. To each his own.  Buyers decisions will continue be based on what they rightly or erroneously feel is a good deal which means Dyson, Hoover and the myriad other brands out there aren't going anywhere any time soon.  And, believe it or not, many a happy camper will be made whether or not you or I think they could be better satisfied.

Venson

Venson,

Do not take my criticism of Hoover UK personal.  Their thieving, dishonesty, scheming and un-innovative ways is their doing, not yours.  While Hoover UK’s stealing from the much younger, smaller and much less profitable Dyson is celebrated and/or dismissed by vacuum enthusiasts and their “independent dealer” buddies who have DC07’s and/or DC14’s nailed to their floors. - The public, some Universities and those who teach patent law do not agree nor appreciate the giants (Hoover UK) taking what does not belong to them - taking from the little guys - taking Mr. Dyson’s intellectual property.  Search vacuum sites and Hoover UK stealing from Dyson is dismissed, search Google and Hoover UK stealing from Dyson is hated.

 

Thanks for the brushroll story (Hoover Eureka).  Hoover worked hard, pioneered, proved and promoted a better way to clean carpets, but they left the patent door wide open and allowed Eureka to figure a legal way around Hoovers patents.  Like I posted here before, it is Dyson’s own fault for not securing additional DC14 styled cyclonic patents that could have made building a competitive upright multi-cyclonic much more difficult or costly.  His patents narrowly defined his cones to be placed inside the receptacle (bin).  So what did the genius’s at Bissell, and TTI do?…  They simply pulled the cyclone out of the bin and they beat Dyson’s patent.  Dyson poured the R&D money and time into developing multi-cyclonic’s, poured $37 to $50 million annually in advertising dollars here in the U.S. telling the cyclonic story (its benefits) and now Bissell and TTI can enjoy/profit from Dyson work and money.

 

I’m quite familiar with the DC15’s up and downsides.  I have researched steerable vacuum cleaner patents, here in the U.S., Europe and in Japan.  The Hoover UK steerable upright will prove to be difficult and not practical for a woman to use easily on carpeting.  Dyson comes out with lightweight steerables and Hoover UK comes out with a clogging upright, that’s just as heavy as the DC15, yet harder to turn steerable, which is scoffed at here by anti-Dyson independents and enthusiasts.  - Is Hoover UK on drugs?  Maybe not, maybe the steerable DC15 is a winner in Hoover UK’s eyes.         DIB

So D.I.B. should the general vacuum cleaner buying public consider your post as you liking the hoover machine and hating the company, or visa versa?

Am i trying to read to much into it?And in the grand scheme of things what are really trying to say?Do you like the latest HOOVER offerings or not.

MOLE

Mole,

I dislike the suits and/or owners much more than their vacuum products.  I probably would say nothing of them if they played fair.  I hate cheats and hate the rich and powerful cheats all the more.        DIB

DIB, i can understand where your coming from,But you have to realize that your dealing with theHUMAN element here,This business has always been this way.Every industry known to mankind operates this way. Including Dyson.

MOLE

Hi D.I.B.,

I certainly don't take it personally but I fear for loss of clarity regarding the bigger picture.  I just don't buy into the theft thing even in the realm of intelletual property.  Televisions are more or less the same device, but who defines what or actually knows what features or manner of construction is significantly patent worthy?  The Rexair started out as a "bagless" machine many, many moons ago.  The use of water happened to come into play after the fact.  Central vacuums were using cyclonic dust separation long before JD was out of diapers.  Whether one "cyclone" or ten is employed, does this mean that Dyson owes someone something?  And . . .

Don't underestimate the strength of women.  I don't think any will be laid low by the use of the Slalom and that those who don't like this new spin on mechanics will certainly say so.  I'm sure that you're aware that womankind comes in all sizes and shapes and even the smallest among them have been known to execute and endure all sorts of tasks -- even childbirth.  Not often privileged to delegate duty, they are also known to lug kids, strollers, groceries, the dog, etc., up, down and around all through the day with little or no help from their "helpmates".  After all that, most amazingly, the larger part of the group actually live long enough to see grandkids.

There are thousands of the same  who swore by unwieldly old Hoovers,  Kirby or Rexair/Rainbow or Lux XL and went back to buy more of the same after they'd worn the first one out.  It's all a matter of who buys into what hype or that which is perceived as most useful. 

The most interesting conversation I've had ocassion to listen in on occurred in the floor care section at Bed Bath & Beyond.  The Dyson Ball was on display and apparently upon viewing the price, loud enough to be heard throughout the store, a female voice boomed, "I'll never spend $600 on a vacuum cleaner."  There was an ensuing discussion involving this person and another equally disdainful woman shopper.  The second party summed the whole issue up by stating in regard to what was to her just one more chore to tackle, "It's about getting the job done."  Men are about the same I think.  When I attack my bathroom, I don't think about state-of-the-art.  I think about how soon I cant get it properly done but quickly over with.  There are a large amount of folks who merely want an affordable floor care machine that will offer the same.

IF they are of relatively durable material, I don't imagine the new Hoovers will prove a problem for those who may like them.  By the way, what's your opinion regarding Consumer Reports' current of the DC24?

Best,

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

The Triple Vortex was apparently designed in conjunction with BHR Group, who are specialists in the oil industry. They specialise in cyclonic separation of the oil from sediments, and had a recycling system to amplify the amount of sediment recovered from the oil. Hoover apparently stated at the trial that their machine was derived from the oil industry technology.

The Hoover Triple Vortex had an intermediate cyclone, called "the involute vortex separator", situated between the low and high efficiency vortices. This did not deposit dirt in the normal way, by spinning it out of the airflow. Instead, it took the soiled air filtered by the perforated shroud, and allowed the air to follow a spiral pattern up the inside wall of a smaller diameter cyclone chamber, exiting tangentially via ducting, which led to the high efficiency vortex chamber, where the dust was spun out of the airflow.

The clean air (which might still have dust particles in it) exited up through the vortex finder of the high efficiency chamber, right into the 'eye of the storm' of the involute chamber. The idea being that the dirt particles would rejoin the airflow in the involute chamber, to go for another scrubbing through the high efficiency chamber. The clean air from the high efficiency vortex finder traced a vertical path, right through the involute chamber, until it encountered another vortex finder at the top of this chamber. The air exited to a foam diffuser pre-motor filter, then into the motor. The exhaust filter was washable foam, on the basic model, or washable HEPA on the top model.

Here is a link to the involute vortex technology:

http://www.bhrgroup.co.uk/bhrsoln/process/isep.htm

Trilobite wrote:

Thanks Trilobbite,

If a picture paints a thousand words then the PDF certainly did the trick for me.  I also noticed that the BHR listed one of its applications as vacuum cleaners.  However, I got to thinking somehow I'd seen this before and then it struck me that this may be the same idea used in bagless vacuums that claim multiple cyclones.  Your final description of how one  works also describes how the dozen or so in my LG-cloned Kenmore bagless work.  The votes aren't in as to whether more is better but  I wonder if it might prove a legal loophole.

Venson

Trilobite,

I have not seen the Vortex vacuum but the term “trumpet” shaped cyclone or alike came up often and that was where the infringement took place.

 

Venson,

The question amongst collectors most always is…  Others invented the [dual] cyclone before Dyson.  I have seen an upright (possibly Rexair?) patent, but I was not able to determine how it filtered exactly.  This is very important to note...  Hoover UK countersued Dyson and attempted to get the Dyson patent voided.  Hoover’s position was - there was (much older) prior art out there.  If I rember correctly, no Rexair patents of any sort were not used to demonstrate prior art, but instead 2 other and much older (than Dyson) U.S. patents (canisters, I think) were presented and the judge and he find prior art that pre-dated Dyson.

 

I have some personal things that need attending and so in the future I may or may not be posting much.        DIB

Here is an X-ray type photograph, showing the trumpet-shaped cyclone. The involute separator sits above this. This is the photo that was printed upon the sales brochures, item cartons, etc.

http://www.bhrgroup.co.uk/bhrsoln/process/sephome.htm

Trilobite,

Thanks the link.  If the Hoover Vortex’s x-ray image is enlarged, Dyson’s patented technologies arrangement is clearly seen.        DIB

.

Some news on Hoover UK and this line...

http://www.prweek.com/uk/home/article/841343/lawson-dodd-hoovers-vacuum-brand/

Hi guys,

This may be equally edifying.  Please use the following link -- http://service.hoover.co.uk/fault-finder/FaultFinder.aspx?Section=43

I could not find a URL to download a user's manual for the Xarion but did find a page that links to aids for maintaining and trouble shooting this canister. 

This next link leads to a downloadable PDF of the Slalom's user guide.  http://service.hoover.co.uk/manuals/pdfs/SL8127-PETS.pdf

I will say up front that the Slalom does not provide a carpet height adjustment.  Instead it features a suction relief valve underneath the base of the cleaner which is claimed to be set at low at the factory.  Users may use a coiin to turn the valve from low to medium or high to suit their needs.  This is the manner in which you would make pushing the machine easier.

To facilitate fairness and an even playing field in regard to what's wonderful and what's not, I also include a link to Dyson's user page for the DC25. http://www.dyson.com/support/help.asp?article=1169&product=DC25-ALLFLOORS

Best,

Venson

Hello Venson:

Thanks for taking the extra effort to post the URL's.  The HOOVER cann [Xarion] and upright [Slalom] appear to be very worthy and competitive bagless vacuums.  I gleaned the Web Site for the Xarion and User Guide for the Slalom and will go back to both and spend some more time to read and digest.  And looked at the dyson DC25 Support Web Site you posted too.  Thanks for your assistance and efforts.

I like the step by step breakdown of the troubleshooting directions for the Xarion.  Very detailed and explicit yet simple and easy to follow and understand.  Nice aids for the vacuum buyer/consumer.

I'm sure it is strictly coincidental and my own perspective.  The images of the new Slalom put me in mind of the HOOVER Lark stick vacuum from the early 60's.  Do you remember that model?  Especially in the images of the upper [off the ground] part of the vacuum.  A more recent similarity with the Slalom that comes to my mind too is the HOOVER Floormate, especially with the upper part of the vacuum. 

I still haven't seen the new HOOVER TTI Whispertone yet.  And would like to match the two new HOOVER's [USA:Whispertone and UK Slalom] for differences and likenesses. 

Carmine D.

I've seen the New Hoover Freedom Upright in a shop, very heavy to lift on brief inspection it had an info leaflet attached to the handle detailing the 'new' airvolution technology.

I've not seen the Slalom as yet but on first seeing some pictures of it looks very impressive!  It reminds me a bit of the Sebo Felix and the way the cleaning head\nozzle protrudes the cleaning base bit like the Dyson DC18 Slim!  I see you have to call hoover to have the belt changed\replaced on the Slalom!

I noticed no one has found the below links having done some searches myself on the Hoover Slalom a few weeks or so ago, I thought I would post them as they may be of interest to some of you:

Pictures someone has posted (notice the brush bar in one picture!  Look very plastic, not like the normal Hoover Brush Bars! Also note the Airvolution Cyclone pictures where it has been pulled apart to view):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chestermikeuk/sets/72157606427015333/

Link to Video of the Slalom in use on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDL85A06yAU&feature=related

DC18

Thanks again DC18.  The links were great.  My only problem with the You Tube clip is that the guy's house was too darn clean to tell how well it performed.

I notice that the Slalom has no front wheels or rollers of enough size to give it significan support meaning the front end of the cleaner has to "float".   Is it possible that carpeting with deep pile might be a challenge for it?  I don't know what carpeting preferences are like in the UK or Europe.

Best,

Venson

Your welcome Venson.  I know what you mean, least you get to see how it operates to a degree and the sound of it!   Yes I noticed that about the Slalom but it has that air release valve not sure how much help that is to the floating effect!  It will be interesting to see how light this vacuum is compared to the Freedom!  Deep pile could be an issue, the brush bar wasn't much to shout about from the pictures!   As for carpeting preferences in the UK (Europe tends to be hard floors, like tiles with rugs!), back in the 90's and ealry 00's laminate floor was the 'in thing'!  Still is to a degree, with tiled flooring in kitchens and hallways etc..  People still have carpeting, in fact carpeting I believe in the UK is having a bit of a revival!  I would say most carpets in UK homes is of medium pile.  So the Slalom may cope ok!

I noticed the hose on the Freedom comes out from the front, can not see the vacuum moving with the hose very easily!   Simiular to one of the Vax Upright here in the UK (no longer available!)

DC18

Has anyone noticed the Hoover UK has become very 'dyson-ised' ?

The "agitator" is now described as a "brushbar" on the Hoover 'Slalom'.

Vax also has been guilty of calling it a brushbar. What happened to the term "brushroll"?

Trilobite wrote:

Hello Trilobite:

Interesting observation but let's go a step further.  HOOVER coined the terms 'agitator' and 'beater bars' for its brush rolls.  The latter being the metal bars on the agitator that performed the 'beats as it sweeps' part of the famous HOOVER slogan.

Dyson IMHO adapted [read copied] the generic industry term of brush roll with the HOOVER specific term of beater bar to come up with its own term 'brush bar.' 

As already discussed on here, TTI owns both HOOVER [USA] and VAX. 

Carmine D.

I still think "agitator" is the more elegant term.

"Brushbar" really grates on me!

Trilobite wrote:

Hello Trilobite:

I inferred from both posts that you are "agitated."   The best solution when vacuum manufacturers, either by their ego/lack of knowledge, skirt the vacuum vernacular in favor of their own less meaningful terms is to continue to use the accepted and long standing industry ones instead. 

I think 'agitator' has an iconic meaning in the vacuum industry.  Worthy to be kept alive and well forever. 

Carmine D.

The U.K. calls it a brush bar,the U.S.A, calls it a brush roll,or for the old guys a beater bar brush combination.

Shouldnt a vacuum cleaner really be called an electric sweeper?????????

MOLE

mole wrote:

Yes. If it is an Oreck.

mole wrote:

Hiya Mole,

From the very beginning, the vacuum cleaner was named erroneously. Why?  Because this machine actually only uses a partial vacuum to accomplish its work. Even in that case, if you're a stickler for words, it's probably still not rightly named because I have never set out to clean a partial vacuum with one of these machines.  Dust collector or something like that would probably be the more correct. 

The title "vacuum" I assume taken as we usually shortcut to a linguistically easy way out regarding reference to just about everything -- is like going from automobile, to auto, to car.  Imagine uisng a mouthful like, "Excuse me Joe, I have to go partial vacuum clean the living room rug," to get yourself off the phone.

The sweeper, the vacuum, the cleaner, "the machine" and any number of references to the vacuum, including "it," seem to depend a lot on what neck of the woods you're from and how you "gerundize" (please forgive me Daniel Webster) the name of an object  or its use.   "Sweep the rug," usually means get the vacuum cleaner and clean the rug -- not go for the broom.  "Sweep the floor," is a wide open field for interpretation  unless you have an understanding of the context of the command.  "Have the girl pass the machine in the hall," in Brooklyn's earlier days, meant have the cleaning woman vacuum the hall -- not walk by the vacuum. And so we sweep, clean, "go over" and vacuum.

Most interesting to me is how those in the UK came to use Hoover as noun and verb and whether there use of similar terminology in regard to other devices.  I'd be glad to learn how many brand names have been used here in the U.S. as a noun and verb.  The only example I have, which must have been more advertising influenced asI never heard it used by anyone, is Osterizer and Osterize.

Have a fun holiday.  Doing anything special?

Venson

HARDSELL wrote:
Hi H.S.

You know your probally correct in your assumption,I know of many dealers who just refer to oreck as just oreck,and not a vacuum cleaner,

Heres another one for you to ponder why is a steam cleaner called a steam cleaner,when it uses hot water injected into the carpet and does not create steam. Why is a rug shampooer called an rug cleaner?

Venson more than likely knows why.

Hi Venson ,were going racing this weekend,Hope we have enough money left for gasoline to get home.........

Take Care

MOLE

Venson wrote:
Hi Venson,

Not so much verbs, but I've heard brand names used as general nouns many times.  I've heard older generations refer to the refrigerator as the "Frigidaire" before.  Same with "Disposall" for garbage disposer and "Mixmaster" for mixer.  And, while not appliance related, there's of course the ever-popular "Kleenex" used as a general term for facial tissue. 

Ironically enough, I've also seen the phrase "Dyson Hoover" many times on websites across the pond (such as eBay UK).

-MH

Hi MH,

Thanks!  You're absolutely right. I'd completely forgotten "Frigidaire" and "Mixmaster."  Though I was born long past the them it was in use, my grandfather referred to our refrigerator as the ice box and I picked it up from him.  It took years for me to graduate to a more sophisticated "fridge."  Only goes to show that you can take 'em out of the country but you can't take the country out of them.

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:

Selling and delivering blocks of ice was a pretty good business back in the day before refrigerators.

BTW, many of the old movies [read 20's and 30's] refer to vacuums as electric sweepers.  In fact even some of the ads for vacuums in the magazines of that era do the same.

Carmine D.

The Royal Warrant upon British appliances had Hoover referring to "vacuum cleaners", and Electrolux described them as "suction cleaners".

Hello Trilobite:

Your post refreshed my memory.  I want to further clarify my earlier post.  Early Hollywood movies used the term 'electric sweepers' for upright vacuums not tanks/canisters [cylinders for the UK].  

I suspect with 'carpet sweepers' around long before the advent of household electricity [thanks to companies like BISSELL and catalogue retailers like SEARS] , referring to electric rug/carpet sweepers was a natural transition for the electrified version of the previously hand powered device. 

CarmineD.

Speaking of carpet sweepers, you refreshed one of my memories.

My grandmother once told me that her mother had a machine called a 'Whirlwind'. This apparently looked to all intents and purposes like a Hoover, but did not use electricity. Instead it had a friction-drive and gearing, to turn a fan to generate suction.

Apparently relatives were visiting my Great Grandmother, and were surprised that she didn't have a Hoover. She later got a Hoover 'Junior' 375.

Trilobite wrote:

Hello Trilobite:

A similar make/model in the USA is probably called the "Tuec."  Hand powered with a fan for suction.  Very rare.  One vacuum collector, Jim Kirby, [related to the founder of the famous vacuum and who unfortunately no longer posts here] made mention of it to me privately and on several vacuum Forums.  It was indigenous to Ohio, if I recall correctly, much like the pre-electric hand pump sweepers were indigenous to local areas with metal factories/foundries across the US in early 20th Century.  And too, many of the non-BISSELL hand powered carpet sweepers which were made/marketed out of wood in local geograhical areas throughout the USA in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

BTW, in the USA, HOOVER did not use the term Junior [which appeared on the name plate of the UK HOOVER]. Instead 'Baby' and 'Apartment size' were the terms used by HOOVER going back to the first baby HOOVER model in the 20's, the 105.  And for the model 115 in the USA made in 1949 [US version of the UK model 119].

Carmine D.

Hi Carmine and Trilo,

The "friction" vacuum cleaner got carried into at least the 1960s as I recall.  I remember a relatively modern looking UK-made machiine with a houndstooth check dustbag being sold in a Philadelphia department store around 1963.

AND -- if it was ever totally gone from the market -- the friction vacuum may be coming back.  A Mr. Tom Mannington has developed a working model that is said to produce about 6,000 RPM, about half the speed of a leaf blower.  Why would we want a non-electric vacuum? 'Cause its green.  See the following link:

http://www.gizmowatch.com/entry/sleek-friction-vacuum-cleaner-runs-sans-electricity/

Best,

Venson

Hello Venson:

Terrific.  But, where does the dirt go?  And how does the user empty?  And the all important question: Price?

Wondering too based on UK bagless product experience, if the friction vacuum cleaner price will be a premium due to the lack of electricity costs?  Like the premium bagless price for the lack of bag costs!!!! 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I wondered about that myself.  I guess he's getting around to that.  Just a plain old shake-out dust bag would be kind of anticlimactic. Gotta have a big finish.

As for the price -- who knows what the mark-up for genius is when all "new" may mean is re-emerged doo-dads so old that only a few will remember.  Anyway . . .

Back in the day -- the 1940's and earlier -- when electricity was not fully accessible to some rural areas., friction vacuum cleaners and gasoline powered washing machines may have been seen as great to have by those who couldn't avail themselves of fancier electric devices.

Best,

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
Actually, they did, as early as the 1910's, alongside the "Baby", "Hooverette", "Senior", and so forth.  The Junior (a misnomer in this regard) was still a full-sized upright (12" cleaning width) but intended for smaller homes.  The Senior was considerably wider (15"). 

Then of course came the Junior 115 in the 1940's.  After that, I do not believe the Junior name was applied to any later cleaners, even though the actual Juniors were sold here in the 1970's...those I believe were referred to as lightweight uprights, or apartment size cleaners.

-MH

MH:

Come to think about it, you're right.  HOOVER used the "Junior" designation in magazine ads for the 115, tho I must say in the vacuum industry jargon, 'Baby' and/or 'Apartment' size was more prevalent.  Lightweight was the description name often used for the HOOVER 'Larks' models 12 and 14 which were downsized versions of the HOOVER upright models of the day.

Carmine D.

Was the 115 hoover strickly a shake out bag or have the optional paper insert?

MOLE

mole wrote:

Hello Mole:

Original equipment on the HOOVER 115 was the cloth bag and bag slide.  Several parts' suppliers made after market zipper units with F&G paper bags to fit the 115.  To my knowledge, HOOVER never offered the paper bag option in the 115 even as after market.  Paper was offered as standard equipment, however, on the HOOVER Larks models 12 and 14, which took the HOOVER C [convertible] paper bags.

Carmine D.

Thanks Carmine.

Was the lark a popular seller?

Out of all the HOOVERS i have serviced this model was the most elusive was the color burgundy?

Mole

mole wrote:

Hello MOLE:

Your welcome.  The Larks were not real popular sellers for HOOVER.  I would say the HOOVER 115 is/was more prevalent than the HOOVER 12 and 14 [aka: Larks].  The 12 was burgundy [maroon] like the HOOVER 29.  BTW, the HOOVER 29 came with a cloth/paper bag [the reusable HOOVER paper like that used in the 60/61/62].

The HOOVER Lark 14 was white with blue trim.  The Larks used full size HOOVER agitators like their HOOVER counterparts.  But lighter and smaller in size and weight than the full size HOOVER models.  Performed well.  As I recall, Jim Kirby's family replaced a HOOVER model 25/26 [?] with a HOOVER Lark and they were pleased with the results.

HOOVER just had too many models available in the 1940/50's IMHO and all of them lasted for a generation/more easily.  Consequently, some models, especially niche ones like the Larks, came and went without alot of fanfare.

BTW, in the early 60's HOOVER revived the Lark name for it's first stick vacuum cleaner.  The colors were two tone light and dark blue.  The same blue as the trim color on the model 14.

Carmine D.

This link to Comet electrical stores website has a little more information on the Airvolution technology:

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/advice/453/Hoover-Airvolution-Buying-Guide

Thanks for the URL Trilobite.  The price looks nice too as the price on the allergy version equates to about $265.00 in our currency.  A first for me, one of the models smal turbo nozzles is listed as being made of plastic that contains silver ions.  An interesting change, as LG had instead used this kind of material to make just the dust bin of at least one of its bagless canisters a while back.  Germ killing claims are the same for both.

I want to check back at the Comet website in a week or two to see if any customer reviews are posted.  Thanks again.

Venson

More info on the Airvolution technology:

http://www.hoover.co.uk/airvolution/

Hi Trilo,

I'm impressed that they stuck out their necks regarding the 97% separation claim.  I wish them well.

Best,

Venson

I enjoyed the play on the name HOOVER and 100 years.  Very clever and eye catching marketing with a definite point which it makes very well.

Carmine D.

Hi,

Here's a link to an October 1st article announcing a TV ad that "unveils" the Hoover Air-Volution series.

http://iclanarkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/reformer/news//tm_headline=new-lines-launch&method=full&objectid=21932579&siteid=50144-name_page.html

Venson

Thanks Venson,

HOOVER UK is right to promote these aggressively.  I suspect they will be very huge sellers among cost conscious vacuum buyers on a budget.  May even catapult HOOVER UK vacuum sales to the lead and ahead of others.

Would anyone care to explain the physics of Air-Volution!  Let's see:  Is it Cyclonic and/or Centrifugal?  Maybe it's a Wind Tunnel?  None of the above?  Shucks, scrub the terms.  Does it pick up household dirt on all surfaces quickly and easily with no fuss and no bother so their users can get on with their daily lives?  Now, IMHO that's the real test of vacuums' success not just words/terms that change with time and usage. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

The real test will be:  CAN IT PICK UP BAKING SODA ON A HARD SURFACE. 

Have a great day Mr. C.

HARDSELL wrote:

H.S. you make my day.

To quote a friend of mine in the business,do you really care how it does it as long as its does?

And do i have to really go through a big long story that doesnt mean anything?

I am somewhat of a bullxxxxxxx myself but will take the time out to listen to a real professional, please carry on.........

have a nice day Mr D.O.E.

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:

Thanks Carmine.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

The principle is similar to Dyson's Root Cyclone Technology, but instead of five or seven small cyclones (as on the Dyson uprights) or the ten or twelve as fitted to the Dyson cylinders, there are twelve small cyclones fitted to both the Hoover uprights and cylinders.

The Hoover blurb mentions something about balanced airflow, and seems to show the rising airflow being split into two streams to feed two small cyclones. I presume that the airflow is divided up before it gets anywhere near the small cyclones. Maybe there are six main airflows that are then each split two ways. Who knows?

Dysons on the other hand, have a central rising airflow that is then split seven ways, or whatever number of cyclones are fitted.

p.s. 'Windtunnel Technology' cannot be used on UK Hoovers: the technology is used on the UK Vax machines.

Thanks Trilobite for the excellent descriptions of the technology.

Carmine D.

Hoover Candy invented nothing, although they did skirt Dyson's patents (maybe)... Look close to the Airvolutions animations (steps 2 and 3), you will see Dyson's technologies there. The high efficient filtration is almost a mirror copy of Dyson's DC08's high efficiency filtration. Not to mention the many other Dyson discoveries, Dyson firsts and/or what Dyson made popular and proved out a market... the clear bin, the fine dust collector and its location, the shroud, the bin being modular and removable, etc.

I say the high efficiency cyclones on the Airvolutions are hidden by design, because folks (especially in the UK) would realize yet again, Hoover Candy is copying.


DIB

http://www.hoover.co.uk/airvolution/

Just something to think about,since T.T.I. owns HOOVER and many dyson parts are T.T.I. made,does anyone believe that DYSON and T.T.I. are working jointly and HOOVER is part of the mix. Lets face it T.T.I is bigger than DYSON and HOOVER together.Its well know that dysons parts are outsoursed from T.T.I and others.

If using your thinking D.I.B would you go as far as saying DYSON stole the motor technology from rainbow/rexair thats been using the brusless motor computor controlled system since the E2 2 speed came out 5 years ago?????????????

MOLE

The new Hoover UK advert has been on for the Airvolution Slalom.

DC18

DysonInventsBig wrote:

The site is not functioning.

Carmine D.

mole wrote:
Mole,

Dyson is no fan of China taking American and British jobs.  I do not see where Dyson needs TTI or wants this.  A British backlash would be huge, he is an icon in the UK, he is much more than a manufacturer, aligning with a Chinese company would hurt him (IMO).


The DDM does 100,000 plus revolutions per minute, I know little of this Rainbow motor, but the lack of talk makes me believe Rainbow was out-invented.  And per the article Moose posted, James Dyson has even made his DDM smaller, which should shrink the size and weight of vacuums too.  The DDM vacuums price points are brutal, he needs to get his price down to sell more main stream (sell more product, IMO).        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Excuse me for chiming in here.  I have a few questions for you to consider/reconsider based on your above post.  You don't have to answer in a post, if you don't want. 

What do you consider Malays/Malaysia? 

Why do you think dyson's Engineering High School is getting the bureacratic blockade by the UK authorities and has since dyson announced its plans in 2005?  Wasn't it supposed to be done by now? 

Why has dyson's market share waned since 2004?  What is it now?  25 percent? 

If that's the way the UK and the Brits treat their national icons, then it's no wonder the American founding fathers broke away from the good King in 1776.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hello MOLE/DIB:

The Chinese are Asians.  Malays are southeast Asians.  Malaysian labor costs are one-third less than the UK.  James uses contract personnel to build dysons not employees.  Why?  Doesn't have to pay health costs, payroll taxes, and retirement benefits.  James got approval from the dyson Board [in a late night meeting on April 30] to withdrew $289 MILLION the day before the UK capital gains tax increased by 8 percent.  Why?  To avoid paying higher taxes to the UK.  National Icon?    

MOLE, your point is well made and taken.  Vacuum makers HAVE TO work together to survive especially in the present times.  Again, as above with the move to Malaysia, dyson is no different.  Where better and else for dyson to look for outsourcing than TTI?  The largest vacuum maker in the world.  Lest DIB believes all the dyson parts are home grown? 

I am not as informed as you DIB on all things dyson like the school.  Save what you and others post here.   But, not all here and in the UK view James Dyson as a national icon, like you DIB.  A savvy business man!  Evidence the above: Malmesbury to Malaysia, $289 MILLION late night withdrawal, parts outsourcing, and contract labor staff.  

The UK dyson backlash is real.  Witness too the recent ASA rulings [you posted them here DIB].  Decisions against dyson by a UK based ruling authority.  

Consumer Reports' ratings of dysons, while important in the USA, is not the problem/issue for the significant new dyson sales declines in the UK.  Dyson backlash is. 

Excellent timing for HOOVER UK to intro new bagless vacuum competition.  Coincidence too that it coincides with HOOVER's 100th Anniversary.  Timing is everything!  

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Take it easy Carmine, you’ll blow a gasket.  In the beginning, Dyson the tinkerer knew less than many vacuum repair men, but it was his belief system (faith) that made him a billionaire.  Nice guys do finish first... he remains a nice, giving fellow too.  Jealous?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Lord, please make us all billionaires so we can be nice too.

Amen,

Venson

Venson wrote:
I wrote nice guys can do well and in that order, did I not?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I was merely exercising my faith too.  It is written, "Ask and you shall receive.  Knock and the door shall be opened."

Venson

DIB:

It doesn't take genius to parlay $7.5 MILLION in legal winnings into $1.6 Billion in 7 years.  I could have done just as well, if not better, right at my computer with an investment in Berkshire Hathaway. 

Jealous?  Of money?  Me?  You're the one that always brings it up.  Not me.

Money is never a measure of human success.  At my age, I measure my success by the number of people who I want to love me;  if they actually do.  Not to worry.  You are not on the list.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Why didn't you do it .  You definitely are not a genious.  May not take a genious but apparently it takes more sense than you have.  

HS:

How do you know I didn't?  Maybe I did. 

Maybe it was McDonalds.  100 shares in 1965 for $2200 were worth 18,000 shares and $500,000 in 1987.  Or maybe it was Genentech in the 1980's?  Or was it Valero in 1990's?  Or maybe it is Celgene in the 2000's and still?  Maybe it was commodities: Like gold?  In 2002, it was $250 an ounce, and today it's over $800.  Maybe it was gold mining stocks too?

Or maybe, just maybe it was all of the above AND Berkshire Hathaway too!  You don't know for sure, do you?  It only takes one of the above and the right market timing. 

Let me reiterate for you HS: At my age, you don't measure success in money.  You measure by the number of people that you want to love you; if they actually do.  Not to worry.  You're not on the list either.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

 HS: 

It's genius!  And........you don't know that for sure, either.  I may not be a member of MENSA, but that doesn't mean that I don't meet their requirements.  It just means I choose not to join. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

If you are a genius you do a dam fine job of hiding it.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

This is the second time you claim to have what it takes to become a billionaire (or at minimum, a multi-millionaire).  Stop.  Please.

Google - billionaire + "James Dyson".  Lots and lots of people like a good come from behind story...  see for yourself.        DIB

DIB/HS:

I'll respond to you offline, so this thread stays intact and on subject.

Carmine D.

Below are 2 screen captures from 2 television commercials/adverts...
Top photo:  Dyson DC24 “Ball” advert.  Launch date: April, 2008 (approximately).
Bottom photo:  Hoover UK “Slalom” advert.   Launch date: Sept, 2008 (approximately).

•   Both women are wearing the same style of skirt.
•   Both women are wearing the same colored skirt.
•   Both women have the same/near same styled shoes.
•   Both women are pushing their vacuums around block-styled white/off white furniture/cabinetry.

Hoover UK,...  lazy or leaders?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

It's the same old lesson for you and dyson to learn [aka Economics 101]:  It's not who does it first.  It's the one who copies the best and sells it for less!  

I suggest dyson get a new macro/mico economist. 

BTW, the "Slalom" looks and sounds much more exciting and appealing than the "Ball."  Maybe dyson needs a new marketer too.  Not to mention the 475 dyson engineers who thought it was clever to use all the leftover ball wheels from the barrows on the dyson vacuums.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hey Carmine,

It is a proven fact those who are first usually own the market.

Your love for communist sponsored Chinese "rip the throat of margins and jobs" TTI, is well...  un-American.  You speak like a poor man (always on the side of cheap goods at any cost) and not like the rich man you claim to be or can be obtained easily.  It is the same old lesson, just another day...  jealousy of Dyson.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

First doesn't mean anything in the market except first in the market.  The owner, your term, of the market goes to the brand/brands who offer the best products for less.  The facts are that TTI Floorcare sells the most vacuums yearly and GE in the 1960's was the first to market with a vacuum using a ball wheel [which failed miserably].

BTW, the Headquarters for TTI Floorcare is located in Glenwillow, Ohio.  That's in the USA, not Communist China. 

And alas, I'm just a poor old retired American living the life of luxury in Las Vegas, Nevada!  That's in the USA too.  Now tell me again: Who exactly should be jealous of whom?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You should hgve learned a lesson in the past few years.  Hoover (your almighty brand) was a first to cut prices.  Also first to go under.

Dyson did it to you again.

CarmineD wrote:
Hey Carmine,

After Dyson brought to market his DC15 “The Ball” he looked around and saw he had absolutely ZERO COMPETITORS in his innovative, all new, and all to himself category...  the steerable category.

After Dyson brought to market his DC18 “Slim” he looked around and saw he had absolutely ZERO COMPETITORS in his just established, and all to himself category...  the steerable category.

After Dyson brought to market his DC24 “Ball” he looked around and saw he had absolutely ZERO COMPETITORS in his 3 year old, and all to himself category...  the steerable category.

After Dyson brought to market his DC25 “Ball” he looked around and saw he had absolutely ZERO COMPETITORS in his 3 year old, and all to himself category...  the steerable category.

... since 2005 Dyson continues to own or monopolize and make great profits from the category he invented...  the steerable category, all the while his lazy competitors do nothing.  Too funny.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Just because a brand produces and markets a product with a feature and/or gimmick that is unique/first to market is of no sales consequence unless and until the general buying public embrace it and purchase.  I hear that the new dyson ball models [DC24/DC25] like the DC15 before are among the hardest dysons to sell and worse for sales.  The filter requirements for maintenance are more time consuming and burdensome on these new dyson ball models than the older DC15 ball, which add to their unpopularity.

You'd think after the DC15, the DC18, and the DC24/25, dyson would cut his loses and forget the steerable vacuum market, as you call it.  But, typical of privately held companies run by engineer/designers who control the thoughts and actions of their Boards, they just keep trying until they get it right.  Dyson did the same with the contra rotating washer for years.  It sold 1400 units in its best year [before returns].  A major dyson sales flop.  And the reason engineer/designers make terrible CEO's.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Sorry HS, I missed this post from you.  I was not ignoring you.  HOOVER was and still is a mighty brand in comparison to most, including dyson.  Did I tell you, in a match off of the $549 DC17 Animal vice the $70 HOOVER TEMPO at the local BEST BUY store, the sales people picked the TEMPO hands down.  I agreed to buy whichever was the better of the two.  That's why I bought.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB:

Bingo!  I suspect that many Brits feel this way about dyson relocating his production plant from Malmesbury to Malaysia [Southeast Asians just like the Chinese who are Asians].  Hence the backlash for dyson in the UK.  Just substitute un-British for un-American.  The competition is capitalizing on this anti-dyson mood among Brits IMHO.  And the reason in part dyson is no longer the number one seller of vacuums in the UK.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You always tell us that the big box stores ( BB is in this category ) do not have knowledge that independents have. Therefore it is better to buy a more expensive vac from an independent.

Now you tell us that you ( a self proclaimed know it all ) let BB influence your buying decision.  You also got an Oreck on your wife;s recommendation.

I don't think I would tell those things publicly. 

BTW, I did not expect you to admit that Hoover was a failure and had to have expertise to salvage them.  Didn't you tell us for years that the old Hoover would be the demise of Dyson?

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HS:

Read again, my friend.  I said to the BEST BUY store sales staff I would buy the better of the two vacuums. Matching the most expensive vacuum at BEST BUY, a dyson DC17 Animal for $549, against the least expensive, the HOOVER TEMPO for $70.  With a panel of BEST BUY store staff as judges.  The TEMPO won hands down based on the judges conclusions, and I bought.  

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS you pat yourself on the back too quickly.  TTI Floorcare, Glenwillow OHIO, HOOVER's parent, is number one in vacuum sales.  

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

And I am sure it is full of still employed hoover execs that failed.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

Sounds like some HOOVER execs creamed you on the golf course recently!  It's not the $2000 golf clubs that makes the difference.  It's the skill of the golfer.  Just like vacuums.  It's the not the price that makes it perform better.  It's the ability of the vacuum operator.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Sounds like you are still doing the pay toilet dance and avoiding the subject matter.  How many hoover execs and engineers stayed after the sell out?  If they had skill they would not have had to sell.  Maybe Dyson knows that it takes engineers and not idiots renaming the same old thing hoping the buying public will think something has improved. 

Of course no need for engineers when you simply let Dyson do the work and steal their innovations.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HS:

Sadly your facts are askew.  MAYTAG, owner of HOOVER, sold out to TTI.  HOOVER was bought up by TTI.  There is a difference.  MAYTAG management not HOOVER is culpable.  The $2.1 BILLION price tag paid for HOOVER plus assumption of all its outstanding liabilities [including health and pension costs of the employees] speaks highly of the HOOVER brand name and its products.  Not many companies in the industry, save TTI, could come up with this dollar amount, either in cash/financing and both.

Dyson on the other hand over-engineers and over-prices its products.  Remember it wasn't business acumen that catapulted dyson to success.  It was winning 2 lawsuits and using the proceeds thereof to expand and export.  The current economic conditions make dyson vulnerable to competitors like HOOVER UK, TTI Floorcare of Glenwillow Ohio, and BISSELL.  Dyson can't compete in hard times.  It doesn't have the right product mix and prices.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,

In the “Big Picture” innovation is king and not cheaply priced knock-off goods (TTI).  Classrooms are taught and history books are filled with many heros who go by names of inventor, scientist, doctors, teachers, visionaries, leaders, etc.  Knock-off artists are not portrayed here in the U.S. as heros, maybe as a necessary evil like creatures who feed off of dead things, but certainly not heros, although in China I am sure they are.

DIB

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

When a man builds himself a potential revenue making enterprise and it is stolen and proven so by way of a past history, patents and then a settlement.  This money was earned and not gifted or begot by dumb luck.  What is your motivation to state or suggest otherwise?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Innovation, if affordably priced, rules the market place.  Dyson over-engineers and over-prices dyson vacuums.  Knock-offs make the technology available to all who want it.  Same economic principle applies:  Who does it best for less is the market winner.  Especially in the current hard times.

Truth is the motivation and never goes out of style regardless whether all or noone believes it.  Dyson was floundering for years with his bagless vacuum until he won his first lawsuit against his US partner/licensee.  He plowed all the proceeds from the suit into the Malmesbury, UK plant in 1990 and dyson flourished in the UK.  It wasn't profits from the sale of his vacuums that were used to build the UK plant.

Similarly, dyson was strictly a UK vacuum due to the constraints of the Malmesbury plant.  When dyson won his second lawsuit against HOOVER UK, he used the proceeds to relocate production in Malaysia in 2000 and went global.  Globalization catapulted dyson into the Forbes BILLIONAIRE club which you always like to call attention to.  But it won't necessarily keep dyson there.  Now it will be profit from sales.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

DIB,  when you read carmine's reply do you think he may have gotten in the pay toilet too late.  Something sure stinks.

Dyson wins a legal suit and investes the money.  Others steel his ideas and spend the money on themselves.

BTW, hoover had to drastically reduce its over priced products and still sunk.  One day you may get it right carmine, but not yet.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hi HS:

Nice to see you still keep a sense of humor when confronted with the truth even if it hurts.  But humor doesn't change the facts.  W/O the 2 lawsuit proceeds dyson as you know it today would not be.  Remember also that BEST BUY Execs convinced James to launch dyson vacuums in the USA in 2002.  Dyson wanted to wait a year or more.  Fortunately for dyson, James trusted BB's business judgement and timing over his own. 

The less expensive competition [knock-offs as DIB calls them] is carving away steadliy at new dyson sales with a host of worthy affordable bagless contenders: BISSELL, VAX, TTI and HOOVER UK.   Especially in today's economic hard times.  Add to the fray now, MIELE with a bagged versus bagless matchup on the big box stores' turfs!  The vacuum industry has the makings of a potential one-two knock out punch delivered against the highest priced bagless brand: your very own dyson.  Plus the latest two ASA rulings which have clearly put dyson in a very low industry standing: Losing to less expensive Electrolux Infinity and TTI/VAX models.

I trust you and DIB will still be around to act as pallbearers at the funeral. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
You have more of experience as a pallbearer.  Rember all those dead hoovers.  What type urn are the Z9 ashes in?

Carmine and Hardsell.  Go see the movie “Flash of Genius” quickly before it leaves the theaters.  It vividly tells what Dyson must of gone thru as he was ripped off by the global giant - Amway.  A David versus Goliath story or small inventor versus the Ford Motor Company.

Trailer:  http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/flashofgenius/

DIB

Electrolux stole and settled with a backyard inventor (link below).  Unfortunatly it happens (the giants take what is not theirs) all too often.
http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/4571/Inventor_cleans_up?PHPSESSID=c0d56e49192f0155eeb5071ccd40c63d

CarmineD wrote:
Hardsell,

As usual, the facts differ ever so slightly than Carmines many claims .  I have the TTI press release on their purchase of Hoover and getting through the monopoly hurdles.  The sale of the company became greater than preventing a monopoly and all the downsides that go along with that.

DIB
http://mynetimages.com/f7a9f49c.gif

Hello DIB:

It's unreadable and can't be enlarged.  BTW you may want to read the TTI/HOOVER innvovations on the site posted by TTIpowerT.  Amazing how the vacuum industry survived and flourished for so many years with such lazy companies! 

Hello HS:

I suggest you view the Web Site too ..............and keep that unused urn ready.  It will come in handy.

Wouldn't it be ironic if TTI Floorcare Glenwillow OHIO buys HOOVER UK and consolidates the brand back to the way it use to be!  What better present to celebrate/commemorate the HOOVER Centenial !Time will tell.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
A web link instead.....

http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1776

Dusty

dusty wrote:
Here is the TTI file (PDF) - "...Will Combine Hoover with Dirt Devil Creating Largest Floor Care Business in North America."

http://www.keepitamerican.biz/documents/TTI%20aquires%20Hoover.pdf

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Hoover as you knew it and as history books recorded it is DEAD.  It is now red...  communist red or at least red sponsored.

DIB

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Do tell...
Please point out the [many] problem solving patentable innovation/s Red Hoover has turned out (invented in-house).

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello Dusty:

Thank you.  I stand corrected.  Whirlpool bought MAYTAG for $2.1 BILLION and assumption of all liabilities for pension and healthcare costs for the employees [which included more than the HOOVER brand].    So................I restate:  Whirlpool "sold out" to the TTI Group which "bought up" HOOVER.  My sincerest apologies to all who were offended by my use of HOOVER rather than MAYTAG and MAYTAG rather than Whirlpool. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

If you are talking about "Boss" HOOVER and his family members, they are deceased.  Corporations don't die.  People die.  I suspect that is the prime reason the HOOVER family sold to MAYTAG.  So the HOOVER brand and its products, as a publicly owned corporation, would have perpetual life.  As it does under the umbrella of TTI Floorcare, Glenwillow, OHIO, USA, which is celebrating HOOVER's Centennial.  

To answer your second post, read the FACT SHEET on HOOVER Innovations which is posted by TTIpowerT.  It does a much better job than I can do, since my memory is very fuzzy going back 100 years.

Carmine D.