a bargain at 99p on ebay

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

Yes, Vintagerepairer is right, that's the first thing I noticed, the belt is on the wrong way round so the brush will spin the wrong way when the vac is turned on.
I have also noticed here that the quality of belts on the aftermarket for these models (I have 4 of them) is terrible and I am sick of buying new Qualtex belts some of which snap a matter of a minute or so of installing them. There is nothing wrong with the spindles and brushrolls, and if I manage to obtain old stock belts from Hoover of old, then they seem to last longer, but these are difficult to obtain now. Its the same with the Junior models - aftermarket belts are just total rubbish and break within a couple of uses.
 
Vacbear

This is a confusing one. On a Junior, the belt will fly off if it is twisted the wrong way. This is because the direction of the twist in the belt in relation to the clockwise action of the pully -when correctly fitted- is what one might call the 'correct' way round. Fitting the twist the other way means the belt rolls off when the pully turns.

On the Senior, the correct twist in the belt as specified by Hoover is actually going against the direction of the the pully, meaning the belt should roll off the second the motor is powered up. To overcome this, the cap on the pully is larger and forces the belt to stay on. Fitting the belt as though it were a Junior does not go against the direction of the pully, therefore the roller simply turns the other way. I've lost count of the number of cleaners I've seen like this. I also dread to think of the number I may have inadvertently fitted the wrong way myself!
 
senior/convertible

ive had both a senior and a convertible.....the senior was 2 speed and i found the hose suction pretty ok when you fitted a brand new dust bag but if you were doing a dirty job like cleaning out the van the pores of the bag soon clogged and the hose suction dropped as it was not an air tight connection...i always wondered why they didnt rectify this by extending the metalwork on the base over toward the pully a bit more to block the gap more once the converter was in place...they went so far with that bit of a lip.....
as for the convertible yes a very good cleaner way ahead of its time brilliant hose suction nice set of tools like the senior ..easy conversion, but as the read up says very unusually heavy and cumbersome i think that was what was its downfall ...would have been great for hotel work with vast halls and areas
 
senior

yes i worked in a pub part time in the mid 80s and the gaffer bought 2 seniors with orange hoods black metalwork and cords and grey shake out bags id never come across them before...in the body of a standard 652!
 
652

Si

They actually sound like the commercial version of the 652, I saw them advertised as late as 1992 or so, there was one on ebay a while back. This actually outlasted the commercial version of the power plus I believe. In some ways better than the 912 which beko1987 has posted a thread about in that they were not nearly so heavy and bulky to push around, so ideal for hotel rooms and the like

Al
 
You know I've never thought about what would happen if the belt was fitted the wrong way, but it does seem it would spin the other way around since it couldn't slip off due to the design of the spindle.
 
Well that is not common place, because as I explained before, the 'correct' way of twisting the belt on a Senior is the exact 'incorrect' way of twisting it on a Junior. Both cleaners have a clockwise spinning pulley, but the roller on the Junior is designed to turn the opposite way to a Senior, hence the need for the twist to be on the opposite side.

On a Senior, the correct twisting of the belt actually goes against the grain, so to speak, of a clockwise spinning pulley and this is why the cap on the pulley is so large when compared to a Junior; it serves to keep the belt in place. Installing the twist on the wrong side of a Senior belt is to have it running like a Junior, and is essentially going with the grain, leaving it even less likely to roll off than if it was twisted as per the Hoover diagram.
 
Weird any how not the first time its happened to me.

I will go and play around with it tomorrow.

I love these models but have hardly worked on them till now. I always thought the pulley was shaped like that due to the fact that gravity would cause the belt to slip off.
 
No it's not gravity that causes the belt to slip off a Senior, it's because of the direction the pulley turns that the belt has to be kept in place.
 
i wondered

if someone would notice the belt was on wrong especially when you can see the diagram just under the belt as for the bad suction on the senior some years ago i made a special converter [just for somthing to do]i used a spare senior sole plate with a converter from a later hoover turbo bolted onto it then sealed with bathroom sealant it worked a treat the suction was very impressive a spring loaded clothes peg was perfect for holding in the speed switch why Hoover didnt go for somthing like this instead of the totaly useless converter in the back arangement .Now i know someone is going to say the idea was to fit the tools without stopping the machine yes thats all well and good but why when theres hardly any suction because its escaping somewhere else .I still have that homemade converter somwhere i will dig it out and put a photo on if anyone is interested also if anyone is curious as to how well a senior can really suck heres what to do take out the brushroll and belt put the soleplate back push in the speed switch and turn it on then cover the openings with your hands its quite an eye opener
 
One reason I expect Hoover carried on with their existing convertor was because the poor performance did not impact sale, indeed I suspect a good deal of these cleaners were purchased only to clean carpets. Many is the Senior I saw which displayed no signs of tools being attached as a regular event.

If one considers that the Electrolux 152 and Hotpoint L&E had long been using a pan convertor, it begs the question as to why Hoover never adopted the same idea for it's Junior, never mind the Senior, until such time that Hoover did. I have seen a good deal of unused Senior tools, where as in contrast the Junior tools have seen much use. I would speculate further that a home which was large enough to require a Senior clean may well have been of a sufficient size to justify the purchase of a cylinder model too. A small home fit for a Junior quite possibly did not need more than the standard Junior tool kit.
 
VR - I agree - of the many Seniors I rescued, only 1 out of the 4 I had at the time had been used with the convertor/tools. Junior models were similar - you could tell by taking off the front faceplate on the Junior and inspecting the channel to the drive belt for the usual scrapes when fitting the tool convertor/hose mount and most of those channels are scrape free. Same with the Senior, but obviously by reverse since the convertor goes in at the back.

I think Hoover knew that they had good metal upright vacs and left it at that as they already had a large amount of cylinder vacs that buyers could buy instead - a bit like the same marketing decision that Oreck followed until the late appearance of a proper sledge canister vacuum a few years ago.
 
Another thing we have to take into account is that back in the 60s and 70s people weren't looking for a vacuum cleaner to clean carpets, hard floors AND stairs/upholstery. They were happy to have an upright for carpets and a cylinder for hard flooring, stairs and upholstery (or a handheld vacuum where there was no hard flooring).

These days however, manufacturers have to make an upright that can clean carpets, hard flooring, stairs and upholstery or nobody will buy it!!

It just shows how greedy we have become that we expext one machine to do the job of two or three. Of course, in order to fullfil these expectations, the manufacturers will cut costs in other places (I.E. fitting cheap high wattage motors instead of designing better airways).

You can't have your cake and eat it!! Things were made better when people were less demanding.

Yes the old Seniors and Juniors might not have had HEPA filtration, stair cleaning hoses and claims of "2200 Watts!", but they lasted decades with just simple maintenance. These days you have to practically rebuild a vacuum cleaner annually to keep it going.
 
upright hoovers

yes i agree with that....i still love the junior and senior conversions they are classic now and part of that 50s/60s/70s era its the same with everything else todays expectations are far greater than those days, like house buying... every garden has to be big enough for trampoline! where as kids we were happy with a swing or sand pit!
 
Jmurray, that is almost correct, though it needs to be remembered that the cost of vacuum cleaners in the 1960's, and more so the 50's -not to mention the limited availability of many appliances-, was such that owning two cleaners was a process, not something your average family did two at a time. So, they may buy an upright one time, and several years later go for a cylinder or hand-held to supplement it, thus begging the process.

I think also that many an upright owner was possibly not that worried about above-floor cleaning, because if they had been so, they would have gone for a cylinder to start with. Cylinders were always promoted on their versatility, with uprights being sold on performance on carpets. It was a tough call for any housewife and her husband, as fitted carpets -indeed any carpet- was hard to come by initially, yet the upright was known to clean it better. The attraction with the cylinder was the number of other jobs it could attend to.
 
"You can't have your cake and eat it!! Things were made better when people were less demanding."

It isn't society's fault that we as the consumer have become demanding, its the greed of the brands, Jamie!

For example, whereas now today we know that a cylinder vacuum's suction only floor tool is available to clean hard floors, brands went out of their way to claim one thing or another. Hoover were at their best advertising the merits of their polisher upright for example. A few bought into the idea of polishing their hard lino floors expecting the machine to clean the hard floors rather than suck up dirt from it! Similarly when it came to Hoover's shampooer, oh yes it shampoos carpets very well, but what about the dirt that came up? (Link to old 1950s advert)

Hoover isn't alone in this marketing and advertising - other brands claimed one machine could do something the other or its rival couldn't and it came from other lifestyle products like cars as technology began to improve. Britain was so impoverished after the war, not even the U.S could save us from massive loans to bolster the UK economy.

Please stop banging on about how brands these days are building average vacuums that break annually. It is not the case with every brand - just because your cherished Hoover Europe models have gone down the pan doesn't mean you can tar everything with the same brush. Junior and Senior uprights may have been built well, but their soft bags were hardly reliable requiring replacements the moment the zip broke.

VR is spot on with the statement about families with their appliances - not only could many NOT afford to have two machines in the home, many families after the war were offered hire purchase and weekly payments of paying for such appliances too. This is where, effectively the catalogues got the idea from, many of which of the ones that still exist today, weekly payments are still offered for families on a budget with different kinds of appliances.



 
"Please stop banging on about how brands these days are building average vacuums that break annually. It is not the case with every brand - just because your cherished Hoover Europe models have gone down the pan doesn't mean you can tar everything with the same brush. Junior and Senior uprights may have been built well, but their soft bags were hardly reliable requiring replacements the moment the zip broke." I am not "banging on" about Hoovers in particular - I'm talking about the main brands (with the exception of Kirby, Sebo, Numatic and Miele) who manufacture (or rather, get Chinese companies to manufacture) vacuum cleaners for the "general consumer" - I.E. bottom to mid range.

Of course there will always be exceptions, but generally speaking most cheaper vacuum cleaners ARE poorly made and will break down very quickly.

I'm not saying this with no experience either - before I started collecting vacuum cleaners I owned a number of cleaners which broke down in less than a year.

2008 PROACTION CV9230 - Lasted 6 months before the thermal cut out kept activating after 10 minutes of use even with clean filters and an empty bin.

2009 PROACTION VC9630 - Lasted 7-8 months before it started cutting out every now and then, until one day smoke started coming from where the flex entered the cleaner and it almost caught fire.

2009 HOOVER DUST MANAGER - Clogged up after only a few uses, thermal cut out kept activating after only a few minutes use and eventually it developed a loose power connection where the flex entered the machine.
 
fitted carpets

cost a fortune when my parents got there first one around 1966 i remember the first time my mum Hoovered it the bag was full of fluff in no time
 
Multi vacuums

Jamie

You are completely mistaken in your statement that, in the UK, people were not expecting to have one cleaner to do everything - that is EXACTLY what they were expecting! Fair enough, if you had a lot of hard floors then you might tend towards a cylinder, a lot of carpets (or carpet squares if the carpets were not fitted) it was an upright. As Benny says, the cylinder offered a lot more versatility than the upright unless you were going to be very well organised when cleaning. With a cylinder it was so much easy to whip off the wand as you went, to do round the edges of the room rather than pull the front of the cleaner, attach the converter etc. Why do you think Hoover adopted such a compromised system for the Senior tools? By the way, I agree with Simon that the suction out of the side entry Hoovers seems stronger than the back entry.

In general the only second cleaner you might have had was the likes of a dustette or Goblin Imp - there were not many women going to trail two heavy cleaners around the house.

Back in the 1950s and 60s everything was comparatively more expensive than it is now, and the vacuum cleaner had to compete with that new washing machine, cooker, (fridge if you were lucky) car, TV, radiogram, carpets and of course all the furniture and fittings to go inside what was often a pristine new home. And often on once income as mostly housewives did not go out to work.

That is why there was a brisk market in re-conditioned cleaners as well as the bottom of range cleaners like Phoenix, Siroma, Bylock & Goblin which were, in general, cheap and cheerful. But a lot better than nothing - and as much as 50% cheaper than even the mid range Hoover Cylinder and Connie or Lux 64 which came in around £20.00 or so. Even the Junior was a premium cleaner then at around £27.00. If you wanted "the very best" then it was the Lux 65 at £30 or the Senior at £35.00 (there were of course other makes and models as well, I use these for illustration).

Al
 
i agree

with vacbear these things really were expensive back then and dont forget a woman couldnt get hire purchase unless her hubby said it was ok it really was a diffrent world in our house we had a washingmachine but no vac about twice a week i would have to walk round to my grandmas house with my sisters Tansad [thats a vintage buggy for our younger members]my grandad would put the vac in it i would then wheel it back to our house my mum would clean the house then i would take it back it wasnt till 1963 that my mum got her own brand new Hoover junior a grey and white one on monday mornings my grandma would use the same pram to bring her weeks washing round to our house then both her and my mum would do the two households washing in the huge Parnall washer with its electric wringer [it seemed huge to me only being about 7 and not tall enough to see over the top ]even that was second hand we had very fiew electric appliances we did have a radiogram though it was one of my parents wedding presents another very expensive bit of kit at the time [i still have it ]huge shinny thing with BUSH across the front in brass letters here it is

anthony++7-22-2013-12-17-59.jpg
 
Yet again you trip yourself up, JM. Look to your reply 80. In your closing paragraph you say

"..the old Seniors and Juniors might not have had HEPA filtration, stair cleaning hoses and claims of "2200 Watts!", but they lasted decades with just simple maintenance. These days you have to practically rebuild a vacuum cleaner annually to keep it going..."

The first mention of other brands in your opinion just comes AFTER I have asked you to stop banging on about Hoovers.
 

Similar threads

A
INFO: Replacing your Eureka/Sanitaire Lower Bearing? Read first!
Replies
4
Views
285
huskyvacs
huskyvacs
justjunque
My first of this era Electrolux!
Replies
15
Views
341
human
human
Wyburn
'80s PortaPower, pros & problems
Replies
2
Views
280
kirbyclassiciii
kirbyclassiciii
vacsofprosper
Hoover Elite II U4641-910
Replies
7
Views
210
evolutionclean1
E
V
Tristar CXL questions
Replies
8
Views
361
panasonicvac
panasonicvac

Latest posts

Back
Top