Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

On housekeeping, maintenance and carpet care sites are dire warnings NOT to use a rotating brush vacuum because it will 'untwist' and 'fuzzy' the tips.

On the Shaw site, it uses the word "shag" in quotation marks, implying cable,shag, and frieze fall under the same maintenance requirements.

So, what would your top picks be, both vacuums and attachments, for vacuuming frieze,cable, and shag carpet? Some include berber in this suction only maintenance category, along with handmade rugs. So, what do you say should be used, considering some carpets have a 10yr. appearance retention warranty provided the care instructions are followed.  

We had a shag carpet in the 70's. It never wore out and was vacuumed with a hoover converible model 70. That model had normal and high. We used the normal setting. Never did hurt the carpet and the carpet never wore out. When it was replaced it was because my mom redid the whole living room. We put down a plush carpet, never held up near as well as the shag. I have thought about shag in my home and I would still use a brush roll on it. In my opinion straight suction is only good for area rugs and hard surfaces.

Thank You, Mole for answering my question so succinctly. Several weeks ago there was some intense discussion about Mohawk voiding the warranty of certain carpets if a Dyson was used to vacuum them. There is indeed a prohibition against using a Dyson vacuum on a particular fiber carpet. This info was NOT easy to track down. Who is to say there are not exceptions to the provisions for useage of a rotating brush on ceratin carpets, but they are buried in the fine print?

The whole issue is rather vague, and fraught with the possibilites for misinterpretation. Does one swipe with a prohibited vacuum void the warranty? What if someone accidentally forgets to raise the height agjustment? How bad does the damage to the carpet  have to be before it will be replaced by the manufacturer?

It is ultimately the manufacturer that holds the trump card, and it does no matter what the salesperson said in the store. That individual does not work for the manufacturer of the carpet, and the retailer will not involve itself in a warranty dispute.

Before the purchse of any of the types of carpet discussed in this thread, it would be most adviseable to get it in writing from the manufacturer the type of vacuum to be used on the chosen style of carpet.

The first vacuum cleaner manufacturer to devise a rotating brush approved by manufacturers and CRI for use on frieze and shag carpet likely have will have a winner.

SEBO already has a delicate brushroll for handmade rugs, I wonder how it would do? What about the OLD Royal brushrolls, the ones without the stiffeners? And old Hoover (any with an actual beater bar) with soft bristles, or, there was a vacuum (Nortech?) produdced by Hoover that had no brush at all, just two sets of beater bars.

I'd like to see the vac and carpet industries get together on this and specifically state which carpets need to be cleaned with which types of vacuums, with samples of the damaged carpet on hand in the store to show what happens when the guidelines to keep the warranty valid are ignored.

Thank you, Venson, and all who responded with helpful information.

One of the carpet fibers being produced now is a step beyond stainmaster, it actually keeps dirt from sticking to the fiber.

I remember on old Electrolux tool for shag carpet that had 5 elongated small suction 'mouths' that extended down into shag carpet. Maybe that type of tool will make a comeback

Trebor,

I hear you on the old Lux five finger shag tool.  I remember using it at my uncle's in the 70's on his shag and filling his vac bag.  The only other tool that might work, (haven't tried it though) is the Lux flip tool that flips over from barefloors to carpet.

In regards to carpet warranties:  A couple of years ago I purchased a commercial carpet extractor, a small five gallon unit with two, two stage motors producing 150 inches lift, 105 CFM and an external 2400 watt (6 x 400) heater as we were tired of rentals and poor contractors.  The carpet cleaning industry has been trying to solve the problem of detergent residue causing premature soiling.  Hence, rinse solutions and the "Green alternatives".    I have jumped on the Green band wagon and have had excellent results.  I called the manufacturer of the chemical, as I knew his products were CRI and Green Seal Approved.  Not only has he got these approvals, he has sent his chemicals out for further certification, especially to the carpet manufacturers.  From what I gather, CRI has a set of limited parameters.  Now in regards to warranties for carpets--FORGET IT!!

Sorry, hit the send button too soon

From what I was told in regards to warranties, by the time you followed each manufacturers check list, how often do you vacuum, how do you vac, what type of bristle brush do you use, how quickly do you attend to a stain, what did you use to clean the stain, what temperature of water did you use to clean, by the way, did you try club soda to remove that wine stain on your carpet.  What about the carpet cleaner that comes to clean your stain resistant carpeting and notices that it's extremely dirty and uses a ph of 12 instead of below 10??   Warranty void.  How many people will follow everything to a "T" inorder to claim warranty coverage, how many people even know what their requirements are.  At the end of the day, you come out with the short end of the stick. 

Vernon

Trebor wrote:

Hi,

Only when shag is noticably in vogue again.  Just about everyone had a shag tool at the time it seemed and none worked very well all round.  Kirby, FQ, Rainbow and just about all the store brands had a spin on the idea. The Lux tool was supposed to get at the stuff down at the bottom usually not too dense shag pile and you flipped it to clean away surface litter.  For me the big problem with shag carpet was keeping it looking good.  It felt no matter how much I vacuumed it lost that wonderful "fluffy" look it had been bought for and went back to looking mashed flat in a matter of hours.

My aunt had a sizeable piece of beautiful beige broadloom that had maybe one-half or three-quarter inch pile that she sent out for storage and cleaning around late spring every year and had brought back to the house every fall.  Most amazing thing was its fibers were made of good old cotton.  It took well to any kind of vacuuming straight or upright and thrived on a good cleaning every three or four days -- with no padding -- and she had it for many years.  It was great for us but, after me, she was the youngest thing in the house.  She was in her mid-fifties at the time.  Her mother and father, also living there were in their late 70s.  Not a lot of romping on the rug going on.

Venson

Trebor wrote:

If you are referring to the HOOVER Norca, and my memory serves me correctly, the Norca's agitator used brushes only [strips] with no beater bars, as all the traditional HOOVER-s of that era did use beater bars [unlike today's].

Carmine D.

Sorry Carmine,

I was going off the memory of an old post, thank you for setting me straight.

Trebor

CarmineD wrote:

Here is a Norca owned by a good friend of mine. You're right, Carmine - they had a 4-brush brush-roll. But you can't really call it an Agitator, since it lacks beater bars! They were sold through stores in towns which already had Hoover Dealerships and door-to-door sales, so Hoover wouldn't be competing with their own product. 'Norca', or course, is derived from NORth CANton.

You're correct on the agitator term, NORCA did not:  Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans.  Tho, "agitator" is a HOOVER specific term for it's own brushroll, because of the bars.  I suspect HOOVER called the brush rolls in NORCA-s "agitators" too in order to distinguish them from the industry's term "brushroll."  Later, the vacuum industry accepted and used the term "agitator" in the vacuum vernacular to generically identify brushrolls, not just with beater bars, but in general.  As is currently the case. 

Note the similarity between the NORCA pictured and the traditional HOOVER model 305 with an agitator.  Also of note, no suction port on the side of the base of the NORCA to fit attachments.  The hose pictured, while a hose for a HOOVER upright, is not for the NORCA.  If I recall correctly, the H-305 had no attachments.  NORCA-s were less expensive than the traditional HOOVER uprights of the day.  Marketed for value conscious vacuum consumers on a more restrictive budget.  NORCA vacuums did not have a long life.  But the name NORCA was used by HOOVER to market replacement bags and belts for an assortment of vacuum brands.

Carmine D.