Ours are hardwired and that works very well. I'm not sure I'd like the remote, however our installer didn't offer that feature so it wasn't ever in question :-) Smaller doors *would've* been nice, however. Of our seven outlets, only one is really visually obtrusive-- the one in our entry. It was the best location to reach the north side of the house, but still, it does bug me sometimes. I might've been a bit more careful about placement if I'd known what it was going to look like. You can see it in this picture-- its about 18" from the floor on the left. Everyone that walks in for the first time wants to know what it is, which makes me think its pretty noticable. Here is a link that might be useful: Hide-a-Hose

Hi...I am the national trainer for H-P Products...the manufacturer of VacuFlo.... I would agree that it is generally more convenient and certainly more cost effective to use (1) 50' hose versus (2) 30' hoses. The caveat is knowing that up-sizing the power unit is required to compensate for the longer hose. I have a single 50' hose in my own home as well as one in my garage and really like the system and find that the hose management convenience exceeded my own expectations. Therefore, I would recommend the single 50' hose. That being said, a cyclonic unit is highly RECOMMENDED for use with the Hide a Hose system due to its propensity to maintain a high level of suction performance. Contrary to the above claim, the units use non-loading motors and thus shielding them from the 2-3% of pass thru microscopic dust is not an issue. Additionally, since we offer a LIFETIME warranty on the units (including all of the motor components) they are guaranteed to last. Air watts is indeed a great way to measure performance on a central vacuum. However, the reason sealed suction (or water lift) is important with the Hide a Hose is that a higher sealed suction compensates for the loss over the longer hoses and maintains a greater CFM at the end of the hose. We have tested many systems with higher Air Watts that did not perform nearly as well at the end of the longer hoses. In this particular case, using Air Watts as a performance indicator choice is a bit of a misnomer. What you are looking for here is the ability to provide enough air flow to satisfactorily spin the turbine brush. If you are going to install the system in a house with no or very little carpet, the 566Q will work just fine. If you have carpet throughout the house, my personal choice here would be to use an FC650 or FC1550. Hope this helps. I am sure you will enjoy your Hide a Hose/VacuFlo system.

I had a Vacuflo in my last house, based on my BF's 25+ year experience with VF in several homes. HAH wasn't available, but I sure loved the VF system and had no complaints. We put a VF in the new house but neither of the two vendors here had installed a HAH and were very negative -- both admitted that their attitude was SIMPLY because of lack of experience with it. Our house is large and their attitude, plus their price quotes (maybe based on lack of experience???) put the HAH out of the ball park for us. I regret it, but am delighted to have a VacuFlo system again--after a year in a system-less apartment!! I do have a friend with a VF and HAH and she adores both. Hope that helps a bit.

HEPA is not a brand; it is a designation defining a standard of particulate removal efficiency. "By government standards, a HEPA air filter must remove 99.97% of all particles greater than 0.3 microns from the air that passes through." It is a proven standard that is reproducible and is not dependent upon the design of a central vac system that would be inherently variable depending on home design and quality of installation and implementation (actual suction of a central vac is dependent upon run length, tubing diameter and turbulence from non-straight runs) HEPA vacuum filtration has been proven in controlled trials (funded by the NIH) to mitigate allergen exposure specifically in asthmatic subjects. In fact, regarding vacuuming with a HEPA filtered vacuum: "The intervention was effective in improving measures of lung function, reducing the frequency of coughing, reducing the proportion of children requiring unscheduled medical visits and reporting inadequate use of controller medication." In order to claim that a central vacuum would be superior one would have to show that the act of vacuuming with a central vac would aerosolize fewer respirable particles than a portable vacuum and more effectively remove allergen from the environment. I can find no evidence of this and it is counterintuitive that it would, given that the suction of a vacuum is not the primary determinant of aersolization of particles; the act of vacuuming stirs up particles from the leading and trailing edges of the head while suction is directed perpendicular to the direction of movement and aerosolization. So, if they both aerosolize particles equally which one is better? I'll take the one that uses a standardized method of particle removal over one that is installation-dependent. I'll take an evidence-based, proven intervention over a "seems like that should work" intervention any day. Interestingly, HEPA-rated portable vacuums are also the standard for asbestos abatement and nuclear remediation. And I'll state most importantly that the person with the allergies should not be the one doing the vacuuming. Particles can remain suspended for 60-90 minutes after they are aerosolized so the allergic individual would ideally not be in the room for that length of time as well. Obviously the allergic person should not be emtying the bags or canisters whether in a central of portable vac. I always recommend that portable vacuums should be emptied outside as well.