Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi,

As I was looking for other information, I discovered that TTI, the present maker of Hoover, has come up with a "new" Royal canister vacuum.

Someone please check me out on this but it appears that the Hoover S3670 has been given a new paint job, refitted with the power nozzle from the Platinum Bagless canister and re-branded as the Royal Model SR30020 - Lexon S20.

Thar she is (notice the two generic throw aways aso in this new Lexon series at the top of the page) -- http://www.royalvacuums.com/Household/Canisters/lexon.aspx

I can only imagine the sweat they broke into to come up with this.  For reasons beyond economic, I think I've bought all the vacuums I'm going to for a while.

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask if any of the dealers here has knowledge as to whether the little Royal tank-type with PN has been discontinued.

Venson

Here is the UK version under Vax label, the Maxima. Doesn't come with a power head. Also known in Germany under www.dirtdevil.de as the "Allegra."

Hi Venson: I don't see the similarities with the Royal Lexon canns and HOOVER WT bagged cann.  Maybe some little same same with the Royal precision full size canns/VAX Maxima and DD Allegra.  Interestingly the new Royal canns are all bagged.  Are we seeing the pendulum swing now to bagged canisters?  Considering the smallish bagless dirt bins on the full size canns vice the larger dirt capacities of the bagged canns, even compact and lightweight, it's easily very possible. I'd say the latest Royal bagged canns are more stylish and European than the older USA style of the H-WT cann. WRT your question about the old Royal lightweight compact cann, I think it's going, going, gone.  Old and out of date and eligible for retirement.  Still in some's inventory and for sale.  But not for long with the new crop of canns on the market. Carmine D.

Carmine - the body of the vacuums are the same - just slightly different trim treatments and buttons.

Hi Carmine,

I think the three, Hoover, Royal Lexon and Vax are very similar and that they all also scream Miele.  Placement and style of speed control, attachment storage, cover latches are all similar.  As I mentioned the PN on the Lexon is from the Hoover S3865 also shown.

Venson

You convinced me.  So..........rather than buy a $900 MIELE cann made in Germany, consumers should instead buy a $250 HOOVER/Royal/VAX made in China?  Worse, what is a buyer getting when they buy $900 MIELE's made in China rather than from Germany?  I think this is what MOLE has been saying all along.  Quick, where's the closest Aerus dealer?

Carmine D.

Once yet again I must point out that not all things in China are crap build!

vacmanuk wrote:

I luv their New Year's and the people. Year of the Tiger, except for Woods. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

The Hoover version bears a three-year warranty and Royal's Lexon has coverage for four years.  Whether that's worth the paper its printed on, I don't know.  TTI is obviously trying to mimic the Miele S5 series which reminds me of the Garry vac situation.  The question here is the same -- will these cheaper spin-offs prove a good alternative to the more expensive machine they imitate or is this just another test of consumer gullability?

After viewing the TTI site and looking at who knows how many market-angled vacuums (each with its own "special" little selling point) this morning I find myself skittish about buying anything from this company regardless of where it comes from.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

I have to argue the other side of the fence thanks to my friend MOLE:  If MIELE wants to produce their vacuums in China, why should vacuum consumers pay mega MIELE prices for the products?  I know MY ANSWER to this question not sure of others.  I like RICCAR's approach, bring the production to the USA AND charge for the privilege of USA manufacturing and jobs creation.  Probably, I'm in the minority.  KIRBY, ORECK, FQ, RICCAR/SIMPLICITY, AERUS and a few more too would be my preference over the MIELE made in China for $1000.

[RAD, I've been waiting for you to chime in here, but so far you are doing a Claude Rains]. 

Like I asked in another thread:  How's that whole toyota thingie working out for you?  Can you imagine buying a BMW made in China? 

Carmine D.

The thing is though you're not paying for a vacuum cleaner determined by the price from where it has been made - that is madness. Infact the market prices are determined by sellers themselves taking on the SSP / Suggested Selling Price rather than the RRP / Recommended Retail Price and then whatever the brand is alllowing to happen in terms of specs and guarantees/after care warranties. In this case then its easy to see that Hoover are losing out by a year compared to Royal even though they are effectively the same machine but possibly with differences here and there, or spec changes. The buyer then has to decide whether they want a specific machine as per their own reckoning or the other type buyer who just wants an extended peace of mind and doesn't really mind who it is made by.

Mieles etc that are produced in China are not granted automatic "mark up" on prices = it is the sellers who are pricing them and additionally whatever the dollar exchange rate is like with Chinese currency.

I am not sure why the disgust for the multi-branding, because this has been going on for decades.

As I have said before, this is a very good canister.  It has alot of good features.  When put up against the Kenmore in another thread, I would purchase this machine(HOOVER).  The Royal version does have two better features, but that may not be important, if money is an issue.  You will still get performance and a quieter running machine.

TTI has done very well at improving the brands after their acquisition. They will not be Miele, but you are not paying the Miele prices either.

Mike_W wrote:

As I recall you said the $500 China made halo UVC upright was a very good upright.  We should believe you, why?  Salespersons had to be paid to sell these vacuums.  I don't recall you telling us that here?? 

"I believe that the Halo upright is expensive for a Chinese-made vacuum cleaner, that is sold in “big box” stores. Also, for an expensive vacuum cleaner, the warranty should be more than one year. Otherwise, the Halo is a very good performer. It will clean and filter well for its new owner."  Mike W.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

As far as I know I'm only aiding German commerce. (Both machines say "Made in Germany" on their stickers.)  And -- I got my Miele can for the same price that Aerus was prepared to bargain down to for a new Lux Guardian.

I only want to know if these Chinese wonders have near the same durability as Miele.  If so I may just look for a street corner and start selling them out of the back of my German station wagon.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

Haha, this sounds just like me.

To Quote what Mike says, if it was not for imports or imported parts the dealers and box stores would not  have any products to sell. This has been going on for decades,

So how is trickle down economics working out for you.

Cant find work.hungry, standard of living going away,-Eat your HONDUH............


MOLE

CarmineD wrote:
Wow, Carmine, you quoted  one of my thorough reviews of the Halo.  Thanks.  I am not sure what is wrong w/that  quote, because I meant it and it is true.   I wished that you would have shown some of the newcomers the whole review I wrote way back in Nov. '07 here-
http://www.abbysguide.com/vacuum/reviews/350-0-1.html

Now, let's take a look at a thread from Feb. 2009 here-
http://www.abbysguide.com/vacuum/discussions/35367-A-1.html

In reply #4, you write, ".....the worse possible economic timing for a $500, China made, one year warrantied upright sold primarily if not exclusively thru big box retailers."

Now what was it that you did not like about my review?  Was it because I beat you to it?  Remember, my review was written around the time the machine was introduced.  How accurate was I Carmine?



 



 

Mike_W wrote:

Let's see Mike W. ....how can I diplomatically put this:  Uhh?  Let me just tell the truth.  The company went out of business within a year of operations due in large part to Garcia's false claim that the UV-C light was the only way to kill germs in a rug.  Not true.  As Venson pointed out here any vacuum with a brush roll kills germs.  BISSELL and others sued Halo/Garcia over the false claim.  Caused the company to go belly up.  ORECK bought the rights to the halo UV-C after other companies turned Garcia down.  ORECK made the purchase to ensure it had a lock on its lightweight upright competition with tools on board. 

PS:  You failed, neglected, to tell halo buyers that halo/retailers were paying salespeople to "push" and sell the halos over others.  Not to worry.  I provided the information to them.  How accurate am I?  It's a rhetorical question.  No need to answer.

Carmine D.

Carmine;

I am not going to play your games.  I have seen how you can go on and on w/DIB and Hardsell.  You actually helped me by quoting me and not the other way around.

You will have the last word, because I am not going to continue w/this.  I know how you work.


CarmineD wrote:
Venson is very wrong, because BRUSHROLLS DO NOT KILL GERMS.  If that were true, there would be no need for a UV-C light on a vacuum cleaner and sell it for killing germs and viruses.

Mike_W wrote:

Exactomundo!  See, you aren't as obtuse as some claim .  Tho, Mike W.  I'm sorry to break the newsflash to you [obviously several years later than you got it] that Venson and the vacuum industry have a volume of scientific studies on their side.  That's the reason for the lawsuit against halo, which halo lost, and in large part is the reason halo went belly up.

Halo had a hoax claim and you an erroneous opinion BASED ON IT. 

Sorry, no recall on this one.  Can't weasel out of this one.  You're stuck with it!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

CarmineD wrote:

Hi guys,

Just to set the record straight since DIB has already racked me up as a charlatan with dual personalities -- I believe the comment was not made in reference to bacteria but the dust mites Halo claim it killed.  Remember them -- the household terror used to get folks to teh stores again? 

A standard vacuum will do in x-amount of dust mites in the process of its use but Halo never showed any real data other than that "one might reasonably expect" as to what manner of application of its UV light was required to prove it worthwile per its claims.

Thank you,

Norman Bates

As for "multi-branding", specifically what is being said?  If we're talking about the re-badging of domestic vacuums that indeed was going on for years and still is.  Hoover and Eureka product turned up badged as Ward, Penney and who knows how many other names.  So did General Electric, Royal, Regina and Landers, Frary, Clarke vacuums.  Whirlpool (on and off) and Kenmore did the same.  There are also many I have forgotten I'm sure

That I make no issue of as the machines mentioned were, to the best of my knowledge, manufactured on American soil in the first place.  Correct?

I also remember when Panasonic (Matsu$#%*a), an import, was a stand alone brand.  In time that all changed.  I think that it's a shame that all this outsourcing has led to a sameness in product.    I greatly miss individual manufacturer's efforts to build the better mouse trap as it were.  The larger part of PNs, upholstery, bare floor and combi tools are all the same stuff.  I can look at stuff from 40 or more years ago and tell you who made it.  Regarding the hodge podge of generics chucked in the box today, I wouldn't have a clue.  It's all starting to look alike to me.

That said, I would highly prefer to buy American product that I liked.  However, besides not having seen much of anything I like in a good while I've come to believe few American vacuum makers are either prepared to or interested in offering what each of us would consider a decent living wage to their employees.  The better profit is having appliances "made-up" on foreign soil and shipping it in.  Its the same deal with electronics.

As I've stated prior, it's really late in the game for a debate over domestic vs. import appiance buying as we basically have lost the choice.  Nonetheless, I have every right to resent how much has been done by way of business acumen and consumer ignorance to turn the market into a place where you may buy anything you can pay for but lends little return to the native economy.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hey Norman,

How much longer do we have before were invaded and taken over by the little creatures

Should i start carrying my can of raid with me......

regards

MOLE

mole wrote:

Hey MOLE,

Heck no!  A baseball bat will serve just as well.

Seriously, the dust mite has been with us since forever and will be.  For all the commotion about them and bacteria, mankind somehow still exists.

What's funny to the point of tragic, is the way we jump on every supposed bright idea seemingly meant to offer our salvation from the unseen microbes and bugs that, eons later, have yet to kill us.  Hysteria is a luxury and boy what a mark-up it gets when you bring it to market.

The best solutions are sometimes quite simple.  Serious problems like childbed fever were reduced when person like Louis Pasteur, Alexander Watson and Thomas Gordon helped bring to light that simple hygiene could bring about a dramatic change.

For all the interest in hyper-clean, my biggest curiosity is why people don't wonder more, despite all the sanitizing chemicals and UV light applications, etc., available, why it may be easier to pick up a super infection while in care at your local hospital than while rolling around on the sidewalk in front of your house.  Speaking of which . . .

Just now I'm wondering why Kirby, who gave us knife sharpeners, drills and buffing attachments, never came up with a snow blowing attachment.  I'd be content with dust mites I can't see as long as I could get rid of some of the snow I've been looking at.

Best,

Venson

Oh look! Here's what's available in Australia:

http://www.godfreys.com.au

And from their various pages comes a company called Wertheim and look what model they have!

vacmanuk wrote:

Hiya vacmanuk,

And still they ask  . . . would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?  This is so funny.

Wertheim has a string of offerings that resemble and appear to borrow from several brands -- some of which are on the market here. 

http://www.wertheim.net.au/

There is a write-up about Wertheim on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wertheim_vacuum_cleaner

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson:

As ORECK halo claims:

Patented UV-C light chamber kills many of the germs, bacteria, mold, dust mite eggs, and flea eggs on your floors - in just a few seconds. And it’s chemical-free.

2-in-1 cleaning power in just one easy step. The UV-C light kills many of the germs and microbes on your floors, and powerful suction removes dirt, dust, and other debris just like all of our trusted vacuums.

Unlike halo which falsely claimed, and was sued and lost, that no other vacuums did this except halo.  ORECK truthed the claim in accordance with industry studies with the scientific results.

Thanks Venson.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I basically just wanted to clarify that dust mites not bacteria are killed during vacuuming and that  I never stated or implied that vacuuming in any way does in germs.  That said, the real issue is to what degree are dust mites done in with UV light.

So Halo and its UV light can kill germs, dust mites and their larvae, yes.  Neither Halo or Oreck clarify and plain facts woulds better cinch the deal.  During that few seconds, per square foot I assume, has 10 percent, 50 percent or 75 percent of the existing little meanies on your floor eradicated.  Terms like "some" and "many" aren't very helpful to a consumer possibly deciding to go to great expense to solve a perceived problem.

There's no way for the average user to monitor the effectiveness of a device like this.  Nor would I see reason to go out and buy one especially if it bears a high price tag just on the makers say so.  If the maker said x-amount of seconds per x-amount of area assured x-percent of kill, I'd be fine with the whole thing.  Unfortunately, they do not.

You merely end up with people breezing around the house with a machine that may well make no significant difference affecting the problem it was bought to solve.

Another matter not discussed is how often must such a machine be used to lower and maintain a lower infestation level.  Good to know but not established.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Thanks Venson.  Clarification noted.  I'm pleased that ORECK bought the rights to the UV-C technology and revised halo's false claim to truth.  I think there is a niche market for this vacuum among germophobes.  In fact would like to see it on the irobot if the price is right.

Carmine D.