My very small collection

[electromatik]

I LOVE your Singer uprgiht! That looks so ultramodern '60's it could be straight out of my favorite TV show The Twilight Zone. Where is the cordreel on it? Is it that small square where the cord comes out or is it the bottom square on top of the nozzle? The top square looks too small to hold a cord long enough to use.

 

[aeoliandave]

Yes Micheal, I contrived and added my own flexible corrugated exhaust tube to my S2, which has a cloth bag only, to help save the original bag fabric.
The S4 (and presumably the S3?) has that factory improvement already installed as well as a zipper to change the inner bag.

At first I used a large-ish but too short Hoover top-fill bag but then I discovered from my bag bins these for the Kenmore/Singer Sub-1 that reach all the way up to the bag clip. I would think these are easier to find than OEM Singer S bags at an older Vacuum Shop...

Dave

 

[Vodhin]

It is modern - though 50's modern, actually. Perhaps ahead of it's time. I, too, love this design.

The cord winds into the bottom of the handle, snaking up through one of the tubes to the handle grip. The other tube has the wires that goes to the two-speed power switch on the front of the grip (the upper silver disc) up from the reel, then down to the motor. It also has a long rod to operate the handle release/position lock.

The cord comes out in the back of the grip and is held at whatever length you need by a friction wheel: press the little button on the grip to let the cord wind back into the handle. Probably the best cord-winder ever made in my opinion, since the cord is always out of the way of where you are vacuuming.

Here's a pic of the backside with the cover removed so you can see the cordwinder and how the cord comes out of the grip.

 

[Vodhin]

Dave - you snuck in there while I was replying to Christopher above.

FYI my Singer says S-3 as the model and though the bag is a replacement, not OEM, I might be inclined to think the S-3 might have came with cloth as standard, and paper as an upgrade.

Memory is not serving me fully tonight, but I might have stumbled upon your retro-fit solution sometime ago - maybe we even talked about this via email. I remember trying a paper conversion but since the bag I have is open at the top only it was not pretty.

I must say I think I'm lucky: this replacement bag doesn't "puff" dust at all when running so I think I'll keep using it as is for now. Emptying it is simple enough here in Vermont - there's plenty of dirt out in the woods that you can't tell where I shake it out

 

[aeoliandave]

My 107 Motorized Beater Sweeper was badly corroded and bubbled on the top and the drive gear was slightly askew, grinding off some nylon tooth edges. I reset the axle pin and the gear train to line things up again.

The air path inside the PN is interesting and efficient with a central flexible intake to the wands. Note also the pressure relief side slot & valve in case of clogs. This tapered rubber collar is usually dry and rotted and split so I inserted a smaller diameter hose section from a Con-Air Bathtub Bubbler Pad that fixes that problem and supports the original black tube for authenticity.

After the fact I wish I'd taken more pictures but you know how that goes.

 

[electromatik]

Thank you for your response. That is an ingenious design that should be on more uprights today. This was made in the '50's? It looks early '60's space age to me. Either way, many things from the '50's looked space age also. Love it and want one of my own (one of these days).

 

[aeoliandave]

Supportive proof that Lewyt was finalizing this design in 1956.

and parts painted before clearcoating. The basement fluorescents make it appear more vivid than it is.

The 107 was not painted in hammertone so it was fairly easy to match the metalflake blue from a 1965 Ford colour.

 

[floor-a-matic]

<span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Sometimes I wonder why other brands' PNs use belts, esp. flat rubber stretch belts!</span>


<span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"> </span>


<span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Why did Lewyt become the ONLY brand to use a gear to drive the brush roller instead of a belt?  If the other brands used a beltless gear to drive the brush, it'd be MORE reliable than a belt.</span>

 

[aeoliandave]

Because belts, like paper dust bags, need to be replaced periodically and that's a big part of the income stream for the Manufacturer.

I think Lewyt engineers simply understood the intrinsic robust nature of a simple 3-elemant gear train even if it was initially more costly to produce. Big Wheels are a marvel of compactness and maneuverability with the motor weight in the base. Also a cube has more volume than a round tub or cylinder of equal size. They'd still be with us but for that unfortunate bankruptcy business.
----------------------------------------
The Singer S2 was put on the market in 1949, well in advance of the GE SILHOUETTE V12UM-1 of 1960 or the 1963 Hoover Dial-A-Matic that mimicked its horizontal fan motor.

Dave

 

[aeoliandave]

Silhouette compared to a DAM

 

[Vodhin]

@Christopher:
Not a problem. Raymond Lowey started development of the S series Singers in the late 40s, I believe. I thought I saw an ad for the S1 dated around 1951 somewhere. I believe I read that it ran for about 12 years or so.

@Erik:
Belts stretch and snap, and can usually be replaced without much difficulty (unbeknownst to the average consumer). That equals part sales and maybe a service charge. Today people probably throw away vacs that just need a belt anyway. But another aspect of belts that might be the real reason for their use is that a belt can more easily sieze a motor than a gear: in case of an object jamming the brushroll (a sock or maybe a toe, even) a gear will not stop the motor as easily (a flat belt can slip, a cogged belt can stretch, but a gear has no flexability).

@dave:
The pressure relief side slot & valve you mentioned is the first thing I noticed, oddly enough. I looked at it and wondered why the plenum didn't connect on the one side. The S shaped pathway into the side chamber also looks a lot like a venturi (think carborator) which would create a vacuum in the vacuum in some way. Just a guess.

It's also the only PN I've seen with the motor mounted to the top portion of the nozzle. Shame they had so much room around the actual brush roll.

Also... This is claimed to be a beater sweeper design... so where does the vibration come from? Could that pressure relief rubber valve have had some other role? I don't see a beater bar and the bristles look balanced on the brushroll...

 

[eurekaprince]

Just adding a little video to this beautiful thread:

Here's a television commercial from the 1950's featuring Loewy's revolutionary upright design, plus the Singer version of Eureka's Roto-Matic canister...enjoy!!!

 

[Vodhin]

Hi Brian. Thanks for that video link. It's a wonderful find. I'm embedding it into my website's Singer page.

Dave - I missed your post on the GE Silhouette when I replied above (we must've been playing tag again).

That design does look strickingly similar to the Singer and looks fantastic, though I'd like it better if it had a headlamp. A cord winder would've been nice too, but it's still a neat looking machine. The lack of visible wheels is also a nice feature (or are the rear wheels somehow around the motor casing?).

The Dial-A-Matic is a nice machine, too. I remember friends' families having them in the 70's but I never did figure out their arrangement: is a DAM a dirty air fan machine or is it a clean air?

 

[eurekaprince]

You are very welcome Michael!

The DAM took the Loewy Singer upright one step further and if I am not mistaken is indeed the first bag-first upright. It kept the side facing fan configuration of the Singer, but put the motor in a separate canister-like casing that stood upright. Singer's side facing motor at the bottom of the DAM's bag casing allowed a motor axle to protrude into the lightweight base to hook up with a belt to drive the brush. So the fan-side of the motor sucked in air from the bag compartment, and the drive side of the motor spun the brush. I think it was ingenious to align the drive spindle with the axis that rotates the handle up and down - allowing the motor to drive the brush even though it was contained in the "upper" part of the vacuum.

The icing on the cake of the innovative DAM was placing a canister-like hose between the bag casing and the floor nozzle to suck up the dirt agitated by the revolving brush!

The combined innovations of the DAM and Loewy's Singer upright gave us the configuration of most upright vacuum on the market today!

 

[aeoliandave]

Michael, here's a bottom shot of the GE.
Indeed there is a wide central tire that is free to rotate around the twin fan motor. Two small front wheels keep it level and two small bumper glides on the motor aid the anti-tipping (but did not prevent scraping paint off the casing).

Lack of a headlight and cordwinder are a step back but then it was 10 years later, and still a dirty air upright. This was their way of avoiding Singer/Loewy patent infringement.

Another claim to fame is that the GE motorhead has 4.5" clearance over the Singer's 5".[this post was last edited: 3/15/2013-19:26]

 

[aeoliandave]

I take respectful exception to any suggestion that Hoover's DAM was a vast improvement; other than being the first clean air bagged upright with a hard case bag compartment, it abandons the best features of the Singer and GE. Of course, cylinders and tub canisters already were clean-air designs.

No headlight, no cordwinder and the plumbing to achieve the clean-air design dictated a single side fan. I can say from experience that the DAM is not as powerful an airflow as the Singer.
The tools and hose are a nice touch but the GE Silhouette could be had with a brushplate blank to which a hose & above the floor tools could be attached.

The Twinfan Singer and GE have twin balanced dirt paths that join up at the exhaust port and also have an extended motor axle to turn the brushroll.

But then again, by 1963 the Loewy/Singer 1947/48 patents would have expired so Hoover was free to 'borrow' any innovation already worked out for them.

All three uprights have the horizontal motor as the main pivot point around which the handle and brushroll head are free to rotate, it's just that the DAM combines the motor and bag compartment/handle into one unit.

Don't get me wrong, the DAM is a fine machine and indeed all contemporary uprights are offshoots of the Hoover.

Note also that Loewy mounted the brushroll on two long arms whose pivot point is inline with the motor axle. This allowed the brushroll to float and bear down into any carpet depth without relying on the weight of the machine. With decent brush tufts the Singer actually pulls itself forward.

I think overall the Singer, followed by the GE, are more elegant in execution for the times.[this post was last edited: 3/15/2013-20:24]

 

[aeoliandave]

The Westinghouse One-Stroke jumped on the upright bandwagon but clearly did not employ the services of an Industrial Designer.
Besides ignoring the clearly defined space for a cordwinder at least it has a headlight.

I believe at least two of our members have a Westinghouse.

Dave

 

[aeoliandave]

The Saturday Evening Post colour advert. I don't have a year for the One-Stroke.

There was one up on eBay a few years back but I lost it. :-(

Dave

 

[rugsucker]

not your 'bag & motor on a broomstick' uprights

The Singer gets the prize here of ahead of its time and solved problems,such as cord coming out at upper area,that todays vacs can not match.It also could use adapter and hose but many would get the hand vac.I think there is a 1949 full page ad that includes mention of Loewy.--The One Stroke was about 1955.Not sure if I am in the '2' but I have one.Here we should wonder at both styling and naming of this vac.I think Eliot Noyes did much WH design work at a corporate level including logo but don't know who did small appls.The One Stroke continued the A frame handle and added ideas such as the handle locking when carried.--The GE was at a time of mostly canister sales.The cord storage was a pouch on bag that was similar to lawn chair material that was everywhere at that time.The hose adapter had a rubber strap that held handle in upright position for tool use.--The DAM added clean air and great tool use.With a certain new book we may understand more of the Hoover family styling of this period.DAM motor was same as Slimline/Portable and Slimline/Portable/Constellation used same bags.Yet another better Hoover idea from this time.A few later DAMs added headlight, height adjuster and tool rack at end of hose making them the ultimate until power drive.

 

[beerad]

I love

The Sunbeam canister with the turbo nozzle! What a beautiful Vacuum.

How about making a video of that vacuum running?