Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Rainbow-SE-Bagless-Water-Vacuum-Cleaner-Refurbished/3402181/product.html

Thank you.  A sign of the today's times when high end vacuum cleaner store brands are refurbed and mass marketed to the vacuum buying consumers.  The times they are changing.  Even for vacuums.

Carmine D.

Well before my time I believe, as well as the new regular brands of the day, catalog houses like Spiegel sold rebuilt Lux model 12s and 30s along with some early day Hoovers.  Nonetheless this is an interesting development to learn of.  I wonder how well they are doing.

By the way, in the vacuum market, exactly what is "refurb" in comparison to "rebuilt"?

Best,

Venson

Hello Venson:

"Rebuilt" is old school vacuum vernacular.  "Refurb" [short for refurbished] and "repack" [short for repackaged] are new school vacuum vernacular.  Refurb/repack became more pervasive in the vacuum industry in the early 90's.  Why?  Regina's CEO and CFO were in cahoots cooking the books to inflate Regina's stock price on Wall Street.  How?  By double counting re-sales of the returned new Reginas.  In essence, this overstated Regina's profits/net income and understated its expenses/cost of goods sold. 

One of the permanent judicial imposed consequences [after both the CEO and CFO went to jail] was for Regina [and the US vacuum industry] to clearly mark the cartons/boxes of the re-sales of returned vacuums as 'refurbished/repackaged.'  The terms stuck in the industry and are frequently truncated to 'refurb/repack.'

I still like the term "rebuilt" better.  I'm from the old vacuum school.

Carmine D.

Hello MH:

By reading the specs which I excerpted and highlighted here.  And also presuming that 'Warrick' is bad German spelling for Werk.  

Carmine D.

Rainbow SE Bagless Water Vacuum Cleaner (Refurbished)

Carmine D.

I suspect that Filter Queen never bothered with the USPTO.  In part, the reason Lewyt copied FQ bagless cann including the 'conical assembly' and filter cones.

Carmine D.

Hi Carmine,

To your recall, did Health-Mor, maker of Filter Queen, ever follow through legally due to Lewyt's use of the filter cone?  We do know that Lewyt eventually gave up on it for a change to disposable bags and subsequent new designs.  I wondered if the initial reason for that was some legal mandate or just getting on thebandwagon by way of more convenience.

Best,

Venson

It was kind of ironic that the lewyt designed look alike, never really worked very well.I know i sold and serviced them.This technecally put lewyt out of the vacuum market.

I believe the amount was 3 million awarded to health-mor at the time.

Is immitation the highest form of flattery?????????????

MOLE

Hi Venson:

Yes, Health-Mor pursued a remedy in the courts and prevailed with a cash payment from Lewyt for its copying.  Not sure of the actual amount.

Lewyt went to bagged cann vacuums [round and square] and scrubbed the bagless cann in the mid 50's.  Disposable paper bags were all the rage.  People did not like to dump cloth bags and dirt canisters.  We mentioned on another thread recently that Lewyt around this time intro'ed the Speed Sak with a see thru window so users could see how full the paper bag was.

American households were also going more often with carpets and rugs for floor furnishings.  Lewyt dropped out of the market along with other vacuum makers [like GE and Westinghouse] who couldn't provide the latest vacuums needed and wanted by US buyers for their household cleaning needs: i.e.: uprights and power heads with brush rolls.

Carmine D.

Did filterqueen go bagged?. I know they had optional bags that could be purchased but never really promoted them, i think because it would totally blow their whole sales and marketing pitch.

Please give us the LOWDOWN and your insight on this..........

I would say that your right [people did not take to kindly to the bagless portable systems],you notice i said portable.........

MOLE

Hi MOLE:

Wow that woke you up.  Just a mistyping my good friend.  Read again.

Carmine D.

I cant believe it you made a mistake, but redeemed youself[my bad],

Did you hear about the passing away of the great STAN KAHN?

MOLE

Hi Carmine,

Lewyt first came out with some sort of push-powered mechanical device that was merely a carpet sweeper that hooke up to the vacuum.  I've only seen advetisements of it.  Also, Lewyt did make one early try with an electric power nozzle for a square "big wheel" model as did GE with a model it put out in the early 60s, same style as the green C7.  Its PN was appeared to be made in-house though years later they tried a generic add-on..  I did see the GE in a department store but never saw the Lewyt with power nozzle anywhere but in magazine ads. A case of I came.  I saw.  I fell flat on my face.

Venson

Thanks DIB,

I downloaded the article in PDF form so I can keep it.  I don't think "cyclonic" has much to do with issue as centrifugal force is really the action to be described.  Matter being flung away tries to follow a straight path but is affected by its confines, or lack of confines and gravity.  "Cyclonic" is of better use, metaphorically speaking, on the sales side of things.  It's something like the contained "rain storm" Rexair/Rainbow reffered to for many years of pitching.  Interstate Compact had the term "Cyclonic" stamped or molded in to its floor tools though any sort of cyclonic or centrical action was actually obvious or described..

Not saying the whole world is stupid, I think if the average lot is told, "This vacuum uses centrifugal force . . ." they would need to stop a minute to get a grasp of exactly how the statement applies.  On the other hand, we all know cyclones -- Pecos Pete even rode one.  They're the great powerful columns of swirling air that suck up houses, barns, cars and the like and toss them away.   Yes, little columns of swirling air do influence the traffic and placement of airborne dirt inside the dust containers of bagless vacuums but all roads lead to Rome though this time the name of town is Centrifugal Force-ville.

Best,

Venson

Lewyt argued unsuccessfully that Health-Mor couldn't claim patent and exclusive rights since the components of the vacuum were not new and different but old and already in use [off the shelf technology as one likes to say].  The courts disagreed with Lewyt.  I excerpted this from the decision [1950].  It summarizes the court's reasons.   

"In this case then, even though the use of a replaceable paper filter, or a conically shaped filter, or an air intake which set up a centrifugal force was not new, still it seems to us that there was patentable novelty in Yonkers' combination of these elements. This novelty lay in the form of and cooperation between the air intake and the replaceable conical paper filter, which operate together to produce a combined result not disclosed or suggested in any of the prior art patents. That the result achieved is both useful and desirable is evidenced by the machine's commercial success, attributable, obviously, to the fact that it eliminates inconveniences and disadvantages inherent in the older cleaners. 

The highlighted portion almost sounds like:

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Save one exception.  There are no caveats for overfilling and no full line on the Filter Queen cann base.  Seems to you [and me also] based on the court's decision in 1950 that Health-Mor's Filter Queen [circa about 1940-ish with the models 200 and 350] was the first to the vacuum market with cyclonic air [centrifugal force] flow.

Carmine D.

Hello MOLE:

I didn't know Stan passed.  Thank you for the info.  May his soul rest in peace with the angels and saints +.

WRT your above statement, I used a Lewyt bagless cann as my under bench vacuum for awhile and thought it was fine.  I liked to use both the suction and blower ends for servicing vacuums.  Lewyt was convenient for this purpose.

I converted to the GE swivel with a cloth bag/and no paper insert as my under bench vacuum [keeping the Lewyt too as a spare].  Used the GE up until the time I sold my business and still had both GE and Lewyt until I moved to Las Vegas a few years ago.  The GE clocked 50 years of service easily w/o any repairs other than plugs/cord/hose/tools.  Although not used as much, the Lewyt cann was still going strong when I gifted it away before moving here to LV.

Carmine D.

Hi Venson:

I recall even GE tried its hand at a power head but fell flat.

In the mid-50's HOOVER launched its Convertibles [2 speed motor with the higher speed for tool/attachment use]: HOOVER-s 31 and 65.  With these and the proven HOOVER agitator: Beats, As it Sweeps, As it Cleans, and American consumers increasingly buying rugs/carpets in the USA, many of the straight suction tank and canister vacuum makers fell by the way-side.  They were psyched out by HOOVER and rightly so.  HOOVER"s stock rose in the industry.  Even vacuum brands with decent uprights, like GE, Singer, and Westinghouse [Lewyt was strictly canns and sticks], dropped out of the industry.  Couldn't compete.

Carmine D.

Hi DIB,

Your point is well taken but the Devil is in the details.  I think the better a thing is described the more clearly it is explained -- wherever.  Of course, I do not in any way imagine that persons involved in debating like issues in a court of law spend a great deal of time opining the finite detail of the mechanics of a vacuum cleaner or using one for that matter.  However, whether the comparison is to natural phenomenon or popular brand, I'd much prefer they eased off euphemistic reference and leaned on basic physics more. 

The big problem is that myriad brands are taking on the term "cyclonic" -- which can be owned by no one -- and all should be expected to well explain how the term applies to their product lest the public be mislead.

Venson

Hi DIB,

What is brilliance? The Hula Hoop, the Cabbage Patch Doll and the Pet Rock made a lot of money for the folks who thought them up.  That as remarkable ingenuity as I've ever witnessed.

There are still other vacuum makers who diligently strive to provide quality product and appear to be prospering because there are people who gladly buy them.  I appreciate your enthusiasm but Dyson is not and never will be running the only game in town. It's all a mattter of choice.  The best vacuum is the one your happy to make frequent use of.

As well, originality remains a moot point as, like beauty, its all in the eye of the beholder.  If "cyclonics" is the subject I don't necessarily think of Dyson first.  I think of Filter Queen, maybe not to you the perfect instance, that took its user a long way when it came to lasting, usable cleaning power and could probably even plead the case in regard to Electrolux's Model XXX.  I think of central vacs that used the full-blown idea back as far as what feels like Year One.  If Dyson fine-tuned the idea, shrunk it to portable machine size  -- plus made some money -- wonderful.  Nonetheless, there are other companies that bear large and equally illustrious histories by way of less unique product without much dispute over who had first dibs on the cloth dust bag.  The only original "vacuum cleaner" will probably be the one that snatches up dirt and disintegrates it with no moving parts involved.

In regard to what's interesting, though I am a great lover of science, I am interested in any vacuum that promotes thorough cleaning with minimum effort and maintenance.  That's still a dream waiting to be realized.  Though we may now dump our clothing into automatic washers and put the dinner dishes in our dishwashers and walk away, vacuuming remains nearly as labor-intensive as working with a broom and dust cloth.  So far Roomba is the visionary leader in the area of at least lessening the effort of floor cleaning and Dyson and everyone else has long way to go.  However . . .

My main concern, as I stated, is the lack of clear explanations of how products work or don't work  -- in court or out.  Since the makers of appliances and those who sell them, no matter who, are all mortals just like us I think we may safely assume as my beloved Aunt Lucy used to say, "Their mouths aren't prayer books and their backsides aren't stack of bibles."  Therefore, some skepticism and questioning are never out of order until some sort of requirement by law regarding accuracy of description is firmly set in place.

Venson

Carmine D.

The price should be determined by the quality of the rebuild,who does the rebuilding,the reputation of the rebuilder,Is there a difference between rebuilt and reconditioned?

There is alaways the customer that only buys NEW, Has anyone on the forum ever used the KIRBY rebuild policy, They are without a dought the best in the business at this.Aerus/formerly electrolux,had a factory rebuild program,i've seen model XXX, model G's, model L'S, its a shame they dont do it anymore,i quess this is called progress?

Anyone remember the metropolitan rebuilt luxes?, Model R's, with new paint,attachments,hose,with 2 year warranty parts and labor for 69.95.

MOLE

I took a shot at a response.  Let me know what you think.

Carmine D.

A little food for thought,whats wrong with rebuilt vacuums that are rebuilt right with a warranty just as good as when they are new?.Are repacks reconditioned?

The price should be determined by the quality of the rebuild,who does the rebuilding,the reputation of the rebuilder,Is there a difference between rebuilt and reconditioned?

There is alaways the customer that only buys NEW, Has anyone on the forum ever used the KIRBY rebuild policy, They are without a dought the best in the business at this.Aerus/formerly electrolux,had a factory rebuild program,i've seen model XXX, model G's, model L'S, its a shame they dont do it anymore,i quess this is called progress?

Anyone remember the metropolitan rebuilt luxes?, Model R's, with new paint,attachments,hose,with 2 year warranty parts and labor for 69.95.

MOLE

Thanks MOLE for the post with the information and questions.

Carmine D.

Hi MOLE:

Auction houses in the 50's and 60's on the Jersey shore would sell the Metro rebulit lux 30's as new in a box for whatever they could get.  If the buyers ever looked at the underside of the Lux [after it was out of the box], they would see the Metro rebuilt paste on labels.  Some never did see the labels until I pointed it out.  Lux tried to put an end to it, but couldn't.   

Carmine D. 

I certainly wouldn't class IRobot's Roomba as lessening the effort of floor cleaning. They need quite a lot of hands-on maintenance to keep the brushes free from hairs which can cause the bearings and gear boxes to knacker up. The cheap plastic that makes up the Roomba seems to attract the dust excessively. Carpet fluff gets into inaccessible areas; you have to hoover it out. Complete waste of time. It is basically a motorised carpet sweeper, with a separate suction intake.

No, if you want a decent robot cleaner, the Electrolux Trilobite is a much cleaner machine. All the fluff released by the agitator goes up the suction tube, because the suction port is within the agitator cavity. The Trilobite's plastic seems to be far more anti-static than the Roomba's. The Trilobite has a far better filter system too.

Hi Trilobite,

It was not my intention praise one one brand above another nor do I know all the particulars between brands.  I also have to admit bias regarding either as neither is a match for a full-sized vacuum.  However, they are a beginning and who knows where they'll be in five to ten years.  As for maintenance, there's many a full-size vacuum that presents the same problems.  The issue is that robotic vacuums -- regardless of brand -- to some degree do make floor cleaning less labor intensive as regards the person keeping house.

They do not "deep clean" but can help a household look presentable with less effort.

And apparently investors like the stock too:

iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ)
13.11 +0.66 (5.30%)  Oct 17 4:00pm ET
Open:  12.02 High:  14.11 Low:  12.02		Volume:  0 Avg Vol:  181,000 Mkt Cap:  323.68M
Disclaimer

After Hours: 13.11 +0.00 (0.00%)  Oct 17 4:15pm ET

Main Street and Wall Street in agreement.  That's highly unusual in the present financial environment. In the spring of 2005 when iRobot went public it sold for $12.50 a share.  Albeit 3 plus years later and a precipitous drop in market value of over 30 percent, iRobot has maintained its high/low range well.

Intro'ed in the fall of 2002, the iRobot robotic sweeper has sweeped USA households IMHO.  Roomba made the sweeper, as well as its sister the scooba [for washing floors], affordable to the masses from the start.  To its credit, while iRobot's follow the leader competitors priced their products high to recoup R&D quickly, iRobot priced theirs low to recoup R&D slowly.  Long term view rather than short.  iRobot had the background for making robots but lacked the vacuum cleaner expertise.  Electrolux had the vacuum expertise but lacked the robotic expertise.  Obvioulsy the latter is more pricey and untested from an R&D perspective than the former.  I'll vote for the robotic experience first then the vacuum cleaning experience second.  And I'm an old school vacuum man through and through.

I suspect 5 to 10 years down the road, the iRobot will improve.  Its quality and performance has gotten better with each successive generation: Now in the 5 th generation models.  Not worst like some.

Robots are the latest and greatest vacuum product/technology in the industry in over 100 years.  One of the few/only niche vacuum products doing well in the big box store venues.  While some here post all interesting vacuum news for a certain brand, here's one that's been conspicuously overlooked:

http://robotstocknews.blogspot.com/

BTW, I'm guessing that Consumer Reports will do a more thorough review of the robotic vacuums soon since the October 2008 CR did not.

Carmine D.

It apparently had the vacuum cleaner parts designed by Hoover USA.

I checked out the company website.  It seems they have abandoned their robotic vacuum for robotic lawn mowers.  (Poetic justice????)  I placed a call and was advised to ring a man named Ames in sales here in hte States. (800-293-2923, Ext. 107)

The UK website is here -- http://www.friendlyrobotics.co.uk/

I'll reply if I get a callback.

Best,

Venson

Still haven't heard from the "friendly Robotics" guy but here's a link that might be informative.

http://www.earthority.com/robotics/robomow/rv400.php

Venson