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.  

I'm familiar with both the rug and vacuum industries in the USA since their infancies.  I've drawn conclusions about both.  One conclusion that has always stood the test of time is that vacuum professionals know more about the best vacuums to clean and groom different styles of rugs/carpets than rug/carpet companies know about the vacuums that are available. 

As you know, the ORECK also offers a two speed version which reduces the suction power of the ORECK for delicate and sensitive rugs like shag and frieze.  Again, I reiterate, I'm not pushing the ORECK.  My point is this.  Despite what a few rug makers say, there are many vacuum brands, upright and canister with P/N, with models sold in big box stores and independent vacuum stores, that work well on shag, berber and frieze carpets.  Many of these brands offer manual rug height adjustments, variable speed controls, and softer brush tufts that separately and in concert offer effective options for cleaning, grooming and ensuring the longevity of all the different rug styles and heights on today's market. 

Carmine D.

Carmine,

I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and experience. I also agree that a vacuum professional has more knowledge of what is available than the carpet manufacturer. But ultimately, it is the manufacturer who holds the trump card in deciding whether or not the terms of the warranty have been voided. That is my point. If the carpet has any restrictions whatsoever about the type of vacuum used, it is incumbent upon the consumer to ensure the manufacturer of the carpet has indeed approved the machine(s) that will be used to clean the carpet. Appearance retention warranties/wear deated warranties refer solely to amount of fiber lost. It can be matted and crushed, but as long as it still has 90% of its original face weight of the fiber, it is considered to be performing as promised under the warranty. It will take more than one bottle of rose` before this can of worms is finished.

Trebor

Many years ago, a lovely unmarried NJ lady decided to add wall-to-wall carpeting to her large home.  Having large area rugs already, she was a long time buyer and user of HOOVER upright vacuums.  When she made the conversion to wall-to-wall rugs, she naturally continued using her HOOVER upright which she promptly had serviced to ensure its peak performance.

After a few months, she noticed that the carpets looked like they were wearing and worn.  It dismayed her.  She returned to her favorite vacuum store and asked that they have another look at her HOOVER upright.  The store owner did a once over, replacing the belt and bag, and advising her that the HOOVER is as good as new and in perfect working order.

A few more months passed, and the rugs looked worse.  She called her vacuum store man and asked if he would make a service call to her house.   At the time, many independent vacuum store owners still did house calls.  A mutually agreeable time was made and he came.  Upon looking at the carpeting, he agreed that it appeared 10 times its age.  Inspecting the HOOVER vacuum, he gave it the thumbs up and advised the lady to contact the rug manufacturer.  She did and on the prescribed time a representative from the carpet maker came.   He looked at the carpeting and agreed it was old beyond its age.  He asked next to see the vacuum.  The homemaker accommodated and brought out her HOOVER upright.  While seeing nothing wrong with the HOOVER vacuum, he asked her how often she vacuumed.  She replied that being alone she vacuumed her rugs a few times weekly and did so for many years.  Still sceptical, he asked her how often she had her HOOVER vacuum serviced.  She quickly showed him the service records for her HOOVER vacuum.  After a quick inspection of these records, he agreed the carpeting was defective and it was completely replaced at no charge.

Shortly after that incident, and probably others like it, the carpet maker [and others too] started gifting new HOOVER upright vacuums with the sale of wall-to-wall carpeting.  A practice that continued for many years and still to a lesser degree continues to this day by some rug makers and rug retailers.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I don't get it.  The carpet is defective so the carpet manufacturer decides to give away free Hoovers.  That would have been like Firestone giving free nitroge with those defective tires years ago. 

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HARDSELL:

I'm not surprised that you don't get it even tho the facts are self-evident.  The carpet maker's representative was duly impressed by this NJ Lady and the facts and circumstances surrounding her story.  First, the lady's loyalty to her HOOVER vacuum.  Second, the lady's conscientiousness in vacuuming with her HOOVER weekly, even tho she lived alone.  Third, the lady had her HOOVER vacuum serviced religiously by the same vacuum professional, presumably an authorized HOOVER dealer.  Finally, he must have been impressed by the HOOVER vacuum's performance which was the definitive bases for his judgement that the carpeting was indeed defective.  He brought the story back with him to his boss.  The word spread.  Soon, the carpet maker [as well as other big US carpet makers] gifted HOOVER upright vacuums with its carpet sales.  If there is a connection or not, I can't say for sure.  But, there is a high degree of assurance that the lady's case had an impact on the actions and outcomes of the carpet maker[s]. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote: Just as I suspected.  You have no facts.  Just an opinion.  Could it be that Hoover gave carpet manufacturers a sweetheart price on the vacuums just to flood the market with their and name.  Think of the publicity they gained.  Do you really believe that a manufacturer gives freebies with their products?
Those such as yourself fall for such BS marketing.  Seems as if the story is about the lady and not the brand.  OTH, All her efforts and the Hoover did not correct the defect. Do you really believe that a manufacturer gives freebies with their products.

As I understand the facts HARDSELL, not only did the major US carpet makers gift new HOOVER upright vacuums with their w-t-w carpet sales, but they also recommended and sold new HOOVER upright vacuums exclusively at retail prices to the vacuum buying public.  And did so for many years. 

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

What facts?  Did Hoover cut a deal with the carper industry?  You do not know.

Naturally you endorse a brand that was almost given to you then you start selling it.  MARKETING. 

Reminds me of those Orecks that are should sell for less than $100 if no freebies.

Thanks HS for the follow-up.  In the interest of brevity, I omitted several important details for the story of the NJ Lady.  During this time, there were many unscrupulous door-to-door vacuum salemen who spread false and vicious rumors about HOOVER upright vacuums and its patented beater bars.  Some of these salesmen made the rounds from one d-t-d vacuum brand to another.  With each vacuum brand they sold, telling customers, especially current HOOVER owners that the beater bars would wear out their rugs and carpets.  And also void their rug warranties with the carpet makers.  Some customers bought into the salesmen's lies and switched from HOOVER to the vacuum brand[s] they were selling.  Several such vacuum salesmen made their sales rounds to this NJ lady's home.  And, lo and behold perpetrated their lies showing her the proof positive of using a new HOOVER upright on her carpets.  She was too smart for them.  She had a vacuum cleaner store/owner who she had complete faith and trust in.  Me! 

The End.

Carmine D.

Carmine,

Thank you! You affirmed my point. The person who was able to make the determination that the carpet was defective and authorize replacement was not the princess' brave, handsome, debonair and elegant vacuum professional (sorry, I'm getting my stories mixed up) but the authorized representative from the carpet manufacturer! In this case he made a reasonable, carefully considered decision, based on the facts in front of him. It could have been otherwise for any number of reasons, and the heroine of the story would have had to have challenged the manufacturer  in court, which might have proved even better publicity for Hoover had they won, so they may have foot the bill for the court cost. Knowing that, (and that their product really was defective) may have influenced the representaive's deceision. It did not take as long for court cases to be heard then. (Sorry Carmine, not insinuating you are old, but the judicial system has not changed for the better in the last fifty years.)

Have a great day, everyone!

Trebor