Vacuum cleaner question

not sure I understand why it would cost $600 for the tool and hose since
there are 50+ sites on the Internet that would sell you one for under
$100.

I am in the process of retro fitting one into our ranch with the unit
itself in the detached garage. I will steal 2 drops for the shop as it
passes through. A DC has its function and , I believe, so does a vacuum
of some sort.

BRuce

B a r r y wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:20:01 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>
>>I personally favor central vacuums. Rare is the house to which one cannot
>>be retrofitted pretty easily. Very quiet, exhausted outdoors, large bag
>>capacity and long hoses make for easy indoor cleanup. You may spend $1000
>>on the system, but you'll never buy another portable and the $1000 is tacked
>>right on to the selling price of your home (or deducted from the profit).
>>
>>scott
>
>
> I HAVE a central vac. The hose and carpet tool are shot, and will
> cost almost $600 to replace. Come on!
>
> I bought the $150 Eureka and my house has never been cleaner. <G>
>
> My central vac is now RIP (Retired in Place).
>
> Barry

--
---

BRuce

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:58:57 -0500, JGS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Maybe someone who gets Consumers Report could check the Nov. 03 issues to see if
>Dyson was included in the test. JG

It was, it came in 14th at over twice the price of the Eureka.

The Dyson did manage to beat the Aerus, with was 17th @ $700. #1 was
a Hoover @ 300, #2 was a Kenmore @ $330, and #3 was the Eureka @ $150.

A $1200 Kirby came in 12th. My sisten-in law has that vac. <G>

The title of the article is "Vacuum cleaners: When more isn’t better",
and is available online and in Avant Go to subscribers.

The moral of the story is that price and performance have no
correlation with vacuums.

I'd past the results here, but I don't wish to violate CU's copyright.

Barry

Maybe someone who gets Consumers Report could check the Nov. 03 issues to see if
Dyson was included in the test. JG

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." wrote:

> On 09 Jan 2004 16:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (NoNameAtAll)
> wrote:
>
> >This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum cleaner for
> >our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the sawdust I track into the
> >house from my workshop in the garage.
> >
> >We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on Amazon.com
> >and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that so many people have
> >so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this vacuum cleaner really so
> >great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this decision.
>
> I bought one of these based on a Consumer Reports top rating and Best
> Buy.
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000063UZS/103-5997910-6893431>
>
> It's excellent. It replaced a central vac that I refused to pay $600
> for a new hose and carpet head for. This simple, $150 vacuum does a
> far better job than the central vac did.
>
> Barry

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:20:01 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>I personally favor central vacuums. Rare is the house to which one cannot
>be retrofitted pretty easily. Very quiet, exhausted outdoors, large bag
>capacity and long hoses make for easy indoor cleanup. You may spend $1000
>on the system, but you'll never buy another portable and the $1000 is tacked
>right on to the selling price of your home (or deducted from the profit).
>
>scott

I HAVE a central vac. The hose and carpet tool are shot, and will
cost almost $600 to replace. Come on!

I bought the $150 Eureka and my house has never been cleaner. <G>

My central vac is now RIP (Retired in Place).

Barry

We once owned a Kirby. Biggest piece of junk I ever saw. Fine dust
all over the house from the bag. You can't get rid of the fine dust
unless you use a CYCLONE or a very exceptional other machine such as
a Rainbow. We bought a private-label cyclone machine 20 years ago that
got splended results but it's no longer on the market. It was made by
Bissell which now has their own cyclone on the market, I believe. We
got over 12 POUNDS of dirt out of 2 square yards (area 4 by 4-1/2 feet)
of carpet that our Kirby wouldn't pull up. A good vacuum centrifugally
separates the dirt from the air and filters the air before it gets to
the blower/fan. If that's not how the candidate product works, keep
looking. The alternative is fine dust on the furniture, just like you
get fine dust all over your shop if you use one of the many popular
dust collectors that have inverted canvas bags for filters.

If you invest in a good shop dust collector of the cyclone variety,
you'll get rid of most of the sawdust you're tracking into the house.
So take some of the money you save buying the Bissell instead of the
Kirby, and buy a good cyclone system based on Bill Pentz's design.
Invest some time at

http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/Index.cfm

to get educated, then look at

http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/ClarkesKits.cfm

for information on a good cyclone in kit form which I have adapted
from Bill's design to make it a lot easier to build. I also am
producing a matching blower housing. Add an impeller, motor, and
sub-micron fine filters, and you have a dust-free shop. Cyclones
are amazingly effective machines when properly designed and installed.
But just because someone calls their product a "cyclone" doesn't
mean it will do an exceptional job of cleaning up your shop and the
air in it.

Clarke

NoNameAtAll wrote:
>
> This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum cleaner for
> our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the sawdust I track into the
> house from my workshop in the garage.
>
> We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on Amazon.com
> and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that so many people have
> so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this vacuum cleaner really so
> great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this decision.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:29:59 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The moral of the story is that price and performance have no
>correlation with vacuums.

I agree with you. Why pay a few hundreds when less than a hundred will do?
It is like buying a $120 brad nailer when a nineteen buck HF's nailer will do!

Bought a Hoover (MADE IN USA) "Breathe Easy" for $59 at Walmart and it vacuum
all the hairs from our two Crocker Spaniards!



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

B a r r y <[email protected]> writes:

>I HAVE a central vac. The hose and carpet tool are shot, and will
>cost almost $600 to replace. Come on!

Is your hose gold plated?

I bought my entire system with the unit, hose, and beater brush for $600.

The hose and brush by themselves would be $279.

Brian Elfert

B a r r y <[email protected]> writes:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0500, BRuce <BRuce> wrote:

>>not sure I understand why it would cost $600 for the tool and hose since
>> there are 50+ sites on the Internet that would sell you one for under
>>$100.

>Point me to some.

>I searched for months, the best I could do was $5-600 depending on the
>actual accessories.

Vacsolutions.com

You can get the hose, beater, and other accessories for $279 plus
shipping. This should work with pretty much any central vac.

Brian Elfert

B a r r y <[email protected]> writes:

>I forgot to mention that I have a Fasco system. Fasco is gone,
>they've ceased to be. This system was originally $1200-1500 installed
>in 1991 by the builder. The AC is provided by a plug next to the
>vacuum outlets, not the hose connection itself.

>The online sites and a local guy that offer compatible replacement
>parts charge $299-350, + shipping, for the power head alone. I'd love
>to see your links to the places that will sell me a hose, a power
>carpet head, and possibly floor tools, for $100. I'm pretty sure my
>current tools won't fit the new hose.

The solution I mentioned will work with any system that has the standard
size central vac outlets. The hose does come with a cord for a seperate
outlet.

Brian Elfert

B a r r y <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:20:01 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
> >I personally favor central vacuums. Rare is the house to which one cannot
> >be retrofitted pretty easily. Very quiet, exhausted outdoors, large bag
> >capacity and long hoses make for easy indoor cleanup. You may spend $1000
> >on the system, but you'll never buy another portable and the $1000 is tacked
> >right on to the selling price of your home (or deducted from the profit).
> >
> >scott
>
> I HAVE a central vac. The hose and carpet tool are shot, and will
> cost almost $600 to replace. Come on!
>
> I bought the $150 Eureka and my house has never been cleaner. <G>
>
> My central vac is now RIP (Retired in Place).
>
> Barry

I had a central vac system and thought it was a PITA. It was in my
house when I bought the house and had been purchased and installed
when the house was built in 1984. Far easier and cheaper to just buy a
decent upright for each floor of the house. They work better (at least
better than my central vac) are easier to use than that 25 foot hose
and are easier to put away out of sight when done and no carrying
anything up and down the stairs.

Dave Hall

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0500, BRuce <BRuce> wrote:

>not sure I understand why it would cost $600 for the tool and hose since
> there are 50+ sites on the Internet that would sell you one for under
>$100.

Point me to some.

I searched for months, the best I could do was $5-600 depending on the
actual accessories.

Barry

WD <[email protected]> writes:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:29:59 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The moral of the story is that price and performance have no
>>correlation with vacuums.
>
>I agree with you. Why pay a few hundreds when less than a hundred will do?
>It is like buying a $120 brad nailer when a nineteen buck HF's nailer will do!

For a single use, true. However, using the $19 HF nailer day-in and day-out
for production use may show why the $120 nailer is a better deal.

>
>Bought a Hoover (MADE IN USA) "Breathe Easy" for $59 at Walmart and it vacuum
>all the hairs from our two Crocker Spaniards!

I personally favor central vacuums. Rare is the house to which one cannot
be retrofitted pretty easily. Very quiet, exhausted outdoors, large bag
capacity and long hoses make for easy indoor cleanup. You may spend $1000
on the system, but you'll never buy another portable and the $1000 is tacked
right on to the selling price of your home (or deducted from the profit).

scott

I used to get CR a dozen or more years ago, but not since then have I even
read it. Something about the way several times they said something was crap
that I _knew_ was not. Their laboratory style tests also didn't seem real
worldly, maybe that has changed. Never again will I base a purchase on any
one report. About the vacs, I looked at a Dyson at Sears, it is so
inconvient to switch to the hose to pick up in corners, along the edge of
baseboards, behind furniture, etc., that someone would have to almost give
it to me. The best vacuum won't work well if it's too hard to use
effectively.

Steve

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:58:57 -0500, JGS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe someone who gets Consumers Report could check the Nov. 03 issues to
see if
> >Dyson was included in the test. JG
>
> It was, it came in 14th at over twice the price of the Eureka.
>
> The Dyson did manage to beat the Aerus, with was 17th @ $700. #1 was
> a Hoover @ 300, #2 was a Kenmore @ $330, and #3 was the Eureka @ $150.
>
> A $1200 Kirby came in 12th. My sisten-in law has that vac. <G>
>
> The title of the article is "Vacuum cleaners: When more isn't better",
> and is available online and in Avant Go to subscribers.
>
> The moral of the story is that price and performance have no
> correlation with vacuums.
>
> I'd past the results here, but I don't wish to violate CU's copyright.
>
> Barry

NoNameAtAll wrote:
> This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum
> cleaner for our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the
> sawdust I track into the house from my workshop in the garage.
>
> We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on
> Amazon.com and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that
> so many people have so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this
> vacuum cleaner really so great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this
> decision.

We have a Norwegian Elkhound, similar to but smaller than a husky. He sheds
about 11 months of the year. The fur chokes standard vacs so we use my shop
vac in the house. <g>

-- Mark

I haven't been charmed by expensive vacs. We have an Eureka Spirit, not
much over $100, that works fine. Buy the big packs of bags to save money.
Wilson
"NoNameAtAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum
cleaner for
> our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the sawdust I track into
the
> house from my workshop in the garage.
>
> We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on
Amazon.com
> and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that so many people
have
> so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this vacuum cleaner really so
> great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this decision.

In article <[email protected]>,
NoNameAtAll <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum cleaner for
>our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the sawdust I track into the
>house from my workshop in the garage.
>
>We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on Amazon.com
>and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that so many people have
>so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this vacuum cleaner really so
>great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this decision.


You might look at the "Filter Queen" canister vac. High-priced on the new
market, but affordable 'used'. Nearly indestructible -- all steel canister;
it'll eat medium sized nails without any damage. *AND* the filtering is fine
enough it _will_ take smoke out of the air. Surprisingly -quiet-, too.
The only downside is that they're *NOT* designed for wet pick-up.

I've got 4 vacs around the house, (1) a 1948 (!!) Eureka canister that I'm
going to have to retire soon -- can't find bags for it any more; (2) a 1988
Filter Queen, bought used 9 years ago, (3) a 16 gal shop vac -- mostly for
picking up table-saw and jointer output (the Filter Queen capacity is only
about 2, maybe 2-1/2 gal), and (4) a ridgid "wall-vac", used almost exclusively
as the 'dust collector' for a RotoZip. Note: *with* the vac attachment, the
RotoZip is an _amazingly_ handy tool for wall work -- virtually dust-free.

Check your local library if you want to see the results and don't
subscribe (I'm kinda remindin' myself here also, since I tend to
forget the library has magazines in addition to books, which I check
out all the time).

Renata

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:29:59 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:58:57 -0500, JGS <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe someone who gets Consumers Report could check the Nov. 03 issues to see if
>>Dyson was included in the test. JG
>
>It was, it came in 14th at over twice the price of the Eureka.
>
>The Dyson did manage to beat the Aerus, with was 17th @ $700. #1 was
>a Hoover @ 300, #2 was a Kenmore @ $330, and #3 was the Eureka @ $150.
>
>A $1200 Kirby came in 12th. My sisten-in law has that vac. <G>
>
>The title of the article is "Vacuum cleaners: When more isn’t better",
>and is available online and in Avant Go to subscribers.
>
>The moral of the story is that price and performance have no
>correlation with vacuums.
>
>I'd past the results here, but I don't wish to violate CU's copyright.
>
>Barry

smart, not dumb for email

i love our royal. strong, well built, great warranty.


NoNameAtAll wrote:
> This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum cleaner for
> our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the sawdust I track into the
> house from my workshop in the garage.
>
> We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on Amazon.com
> and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that so many people have
> so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this vacuum cleaner really so
> great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this decision.

On 09 Jan 2004 16:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (NoNameAtAll)
wrote:

>This is marginally on-topic because my wife and I need a new vacuum cleaner for
>our home and one of its uses will be to clean up the sawdust I track into the
>house from my workshop in the garage.
>
>We're looking at the Dyson because it gets such raving reviews on Amazon.com
>and Epinions.com, but it's almost kind of suspicious that so many people have
>so many wonderful things to say about it. Is this vacuum cleaner really so
>great? At $399 I don't want to screw up this decision.


I bought one of these based on a Consumer Reports top rating and Best
Buy.

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000063UZS/103-5997910-6893431>

It's excellent. It replaced a central vac that I refused to pay $600
for a new hose and carpet head for. This simple, $150 vacuum does a
far better job than the central vac did.

Barry

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:22:36 GMT, B a r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0500, BRuce <BRuce> wrote:
>
>>not sure I understand why it would cost $600 for the tool and hose since
>> there are 50+ sites on the Internet that would sell you one for under
>>$100.
>
>Point me to some.
>
>I searched for months, the best I could do was $5-600 depending on the
>actual accessories.
>
>Barry


I forgot to mention that I have a Fasco system. Fasco is gone,
they've ceased to be. This system was originally $1200-1500 installed
in 1991 by the builder. The AC is provided by a plug next to the
vacuum outlets, not the hose connection itself.

The online sites and a local guy that offer compatible replacement
parts charge $299-350, + shipping, for the power head alone. I'd love
to see your links to the places that will sell me a hose, a power
carpet head, and possibly floor tools, for $100. I'm pretty sure my
current tools won't fit the new hose.

My best quotes were $299 for the head, $150 for a 30 foot hose and
misc parts, and $100 for the loose tools to fit the new hose.

The new parts should also clean better than the $150 HEPA filter
equipped Eureka, the old parts didn't.

Thanks in advance!
Barry

On 24 Feb 2004 15:18:19 GMT, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:

>You can get the hose, beater, and other accessories for $279 plus
>shipping. This should work with pretty much any central vac.
>
>Brian Elfert


We tried a similar replacement kit from a local dealer. Although it
was significantly more expensive than online sources, it still didn't
seem to clean as well as the $159 Eureka upright, so back it went.

We're leaving the tubing and turbine in place, in case we ever sell
the home. If the $100 replacement kit mentioned by another poster
pans out, I may purchase it just to keep the built-in usable for the
possible resale value.

When we bought this house in '96, we had a $450 Kenmore canister unit.
If I knew that the central vac was going to be as average as it was, I
wouldn't have given the Kenmore away. I put the Eureka right on par
with the Kenmore, with our central unit being comparable to an average
portable.

We ended up buying the Eureka based on this article
<http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=379869&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=333135&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=54761&bmUID=1077642781947>
and were not disappointed.

My in laws installed a system in their last home, but didn't bother to
include it in the new home they recently built. Maybe we both ended
up with crappy examples of central vac systems, but both of us
expected much better performance for the price.

Thanks for the link!

Barry