Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Carmine,

This will probably fall under your area of expertise and experience, but all are welcome to contribute. As I transition from being unemployed to being self-employed, I am looking for more specialized services to offer my clients.

There are specialized 'rug dusters' for sale which tap the accumulated dirt, dust, sand, and grit out of Oriental rugs by laying them face down over a grid which gives the debris room to fall. These cost upwards of 4,000.00! These have been developed as an alternative to the huge stationary 240 volt dusting machines. All of this to replace regular vacuuming with a Hoover 300, 700, or 150, the ones with the dual divergent agitator bars, with shorter agitator bars and bristle strips in between on each side.

The magic of the Hoover was that the 5,000 taps per minute during slow motion vacuuming set up a wave pattern that  vibrated the rug, dislodging the dirt, sand, and grit. It was not accomplished with tremendous suction, though the airflow was good, it was the balance of enough suction to keep snapping the rug up after each tap. The sand was not actually beaten out of the rug as much as the rug was pushed down leaving the sand in mid-air to be caught by the airflow generated by the fan, as explained by the laws of Newtonian physics.

My question is this: Short of finding and restoring a few 150 Hoovers, is there any alternative? Would any later model Hoovers accept the dual divergent agitator? How late? A current Guardsman, maybe, with some alteration perhaps?

A Kirby with a cloth bag has been suggested to me. A G series will not accept a full-fledged sani-emptor, and probably is too powerful to sustain the tap/snap action. A cloth bag would yield too much airflow, and a hepa bag too little as it fills. A Heritage I with a cloth bag seems the only other possibility. The Sanitaire Vibra-Groomer I is not sufficient, about the same as the standard Hoover agitator with just one strip of beater bar per side.

The idea of being able to restore neglected Oriental rugs with simple thorough vacuuming for good pay is very appealing. As I understand it, Hoover abandoned this configuration of agitator because as area rugs gave way to wal to wall carpet, it did not grab and hold the wall-to-wall carpet as well as the newer, less expensive to produce version, which had just the one spiral strip per side. Hoover could have ruled if they had stuck to being a status symbol. Imagine being able to switch out the roller and bottom plate to adapt the vacuum to whatever carpet/rug/floor needed to be cleaned. The mind boggles, while the Hoover just beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans...

Trebor

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,

I feel the same way about cars. I often find little difference when looking at the aerodynamically inclined wedges most autos have become. Guess the separating line is now more determined by what's on the inside of the car as opposed to the outside and that may not be a bad thing.

DIB,

The proof is in the pudding as it were. The Hoover S3670 pictured sells for $300.00. The Miele Capricorn sells for $1,100.00. As I own one, I of course have high anticipations as to its continued worth over time but I am in no way bothered by Hoover's attempt to produce similar product at a more affordable price. Miele never will.

The S3670 similarity is basically by looks though it, as many other manufacturers cans of late, employs cloth-like high-filtration bags. The WindTunnel style power nozzle is pure Hoover and had been used for years now.

Nonetheless, this new canister rated high with CR. It got high marks for rug and bare floor cleaning, tool suction, pet hair pick-up and emissions. Can't ask for more than that. The question is will it last as long as the Miele is expected to.

For me the question is -- is price the dividing line between good and bad vacuum cleaners? I say not always. I also welcome attempts by anyone to produce product that provides effective and efficient performance at price that allow not just some of us life's small pleasures and conveniences. That may be looked on as infringement by some folks but I see it as fair.

Venson

Venson,

It is a suction machine at its core (brushroll, collection sack/filter and suction generator).  On the outside it's a counterfeit Miele.  I say let the $3b TTI get off their wealthy, creatively-lazy (lack of original ideas), thieving asses and design and invent their own stuff.

DIB

Has TTI violated any copyright laws? An appearance of similarity does not constitiute theft. All canister vacuums have a certain similarity to them, as do all bagless uprights. Patent laws eventually expire to keep inventors inventing and improving. Making something look different just to make it look different is not being original, it's just altering someone else's originality to make yourself look original.

Trebor

Model2 wrote:

Actually, its called "old age" and the unaided eye.  I left my reading glasses in the bedroom and didn't want to go back in and risk waking my dear Wife.  I was using my memory recall, which doesn't always work, and the fact that the lettering is not complelely visible from the first picture view and the obstruction of the handle and fork.  When you posted the pics the first time [I had my glasses] but glossed right right over never giving them more than a cursory glance.  When you posted the pics a second time a day or two later I didn't have my glasses and had to post [despite my unaided eyes, bad memory, and lack of concentration on the first viewing].  Like I said, a pet peeve of mine.

Carmine D.   

Trebor wrote:
The TTI canister is a near counterfeit, designed to deceive and siphon Miele’s sales.  Although not an exact copy, it comes close to [design] patent infringement.

Society is much better off when companies choose to dig deep and bring exciting, fresh and problem solving ideas to market.  Thus far this $3b monopoly is a miserable patent failure, their copying and taking others ideas (totals) far exceeds their patent and patent pending totals.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

The $300 Hoover has a completely different power nozzle -- a Hoover original for years that does its job well. Hoover includes an mini-turbine tool that is not like Miele's and I would point out that Miels makes you pay $75.00 for its little turbo tool which is no better than Hoover's PLUS either one costs about $2.50 to make.

I'd also humbly submit, that once you've actually looked over a Miele, a Bosch, an Emer, a Riccar/Simplicity and this Hoover canister you'll find you're looking at the same animal and will be hard pressed to tell who stole what from whom.

Best,

Venson

Hi Venson, good observation,while your at it mine as well look at the eureka oxygen can and the electrolux oxygen can, Who stole what from who/ I know why,

The miele/Hoover can are from the same mold,Hoover use Hoover attachments,Miele uses wessel werks,There a lot more to this story than the public knows.

regards

MOLE

Venson wrote:
Lol.  This is true!  I would blow it off if this was the only vacuum look-a-like they have done, but they have a long history of taking what is not theirs (legal or otherwise).  They should develop their own IP and take market share that way and not by counterfeiting.  They do not limit themselves by only taking mechanical and design elements but taking marketing too...  they are also “No Loss of Suction” counterfeiters.

DIB

DIB, I'm glad you're getting the point. That said . . .

I hope you'll also reflect upon the aspect of how product can "degrade" when entrepreneurs are allowed to merely buy names and blueprints and the nature of the game is purely about making money. I have no idea if you dabble in stocks and the like but if you do -- what do you care most about? The return on your investment or the thing you've invested in? From that comes decisions regarding "quality" or "profit".

That is a great sadness for me. Hoover, Eureka and Electrolux, just as instances and names not to be sneezed at, existed long before Dyson and have near a hundred years of innovation under the belt. Yet when times get hard and the public is not prepared to meet the cost of bright ideas AND once illustrious manufacturers falter and fade due to decreasing revenues what is there to do but sell and try to back out of "business" gracefully?

Bigger companies, with mind sets thoroughly ensconced in the corporate ethic, absorb such manufacturer's hard earned names and hold onto them till the last drop of worth is wrung from their names. I would much prefer if TTI would have rebranded Hoover but why make it hard if you can get a free ride for a while? TTI is not doing all that much new -- it is still riding on Hoover's coat tails believe me. Electrolux AB is cheapening Eureka and Aerus is doing little with the heritage gain by the acquisition of "American" Electrolux. In any event, the larger part of this is all sham.

What is important is that whatever vacuum you buy is efficient and affordable. Miele is great but why not an affordable spin on it. Why not a more accessibly priced look at cyclonic machine other than Dyson.

Venson

Venson,

Society is far ahead when the creative are protected.  

With regards to the Miele design copy...  There is zero mechanical gain buy wrapping the Hoover in a Miele design.  It is to deceive and syphon Miele sales.  Protecting what you made keeps innovation alive and betters society ultimately (including the creation of jobs).  Shifting Miele money to China helps who exactly?  Again, the product is a suction machine at its core and wrapped in Miele.  I do not like Miele’s ways.  I do not like gang bangers too, but if we look away when a gang banger steals from or destroys another gang banger it will eventually grow like cancer and then the innocent are harmed.  So, I will defend Miele, Oreck and others when monopoly giants take their work.  It is only a matter of time before Oreck is forced to close down all/near all U.S. assembly plants in order to compete with the Hoover Platinum Bag.  And speaking of Platinum, did not Oreck come out with a Platinum about a year before Hoover launched their Platinum line?  The pilfering goes on and on.  Their ways are a caustic.  I’d much rather see Miele profit and build innovative and stylish appliances than watch this knockoff company profit via pilfering and hurt the innovative/close the innovative down.  The high price of low cost knockoff vacuums is something to consider.


DIB