| Name |
Never Clogs |
| Email Address |
private |
| AIM |
|
| YIM |
|
| ICQ |
|
 |
| Gender |
Male |
| Age |
|
| Location |
|
|
| Personal Quote |
|
|
| Privileges |
Normal user |
| Rank |
  |
| Points |
406 |
| Number of Posts |
316 |
| Number of Reviews |
6 |
| Date Joined |
Nov 2, 2007 |
| Date Last Access |
Nov 6, 2009 12:51 am |
|
 |
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
#1 Nov 5, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
Here's the exact statement from the CR web site concerning reliability methodology:
"Brand Reliability Kirby and Dyson have been among the more reliable brands of upright vacuums, Electrolux, Hoover and Simplicity among the less reliable. Rainbow and Dyson have been among the more reliable brands of full-size canister vacuums. That's what we found when we asked 156,000 readers who bought a vacuum between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences. The graph shows the percentage of brands that needed a repair or had a serious problem. (Belt replacement isn't included because it's usually an inexpensive fix.) Differences of less than 4 points aren't meaningful, and we've adjusted the data to eliminate differences linked solely to age and use of the vacuum. Models within a brand may vary, and design or manufacture changes may affect future reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
Please note that the reliability survey is in regards to recently purchased vacuums - 5 years old or less.
CR first tested the DC07 in '02 and Dyson has been above-average in reliability even concerning cleaners purchased before 2004 (in earlier articles). But regardless of how you want to look at it, the fact that any cleaner can withstand 5+ years' worth of heavy use in the average American household these days is pretty damned impressive. Besides vacuum cleaners, look at how most people treat their homes, cars, washing machines, etc...sure, we can argue that things may not be made as well as they used to be, but the idea of taking care of something so it can last has become a completely foreign concept. Why do that when you can plunk down another $500 (or a few thousand, or 40 grand, depending on what it is...) when it breaks and have a new one?
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
#2 Nov 5, 2009 2:29 pm |
|
As more data became available, Consumer Reports consistently rated Fantom uprights' reliability as the worse among all the brands exceeding 15 percent failure/repair rates year after year until CR dropped it from the survey. Carmine D. Hi Carmine, As with any "average vacuum owner" we can probably take into account that a lot of these Fantom owners had no idea how to properly use and care for their machines, either. The first Fantoms (and the previous SC Johnson Wax Vectron off of which the Fantom was based) did not have an exhaust filter...that was only added afterward, probably after the complaints of fine dust spewing from the machine while they were vacuuming with a much-too-full bin! Incidentally, the Fantoms I referenced have all been well-cared-for examples...just goes to show you that anything, when not abused, will have a long and useful life. These were also all Thunders, I have noticed that the Furys and Lightnings were not nearly as reliable as the Thunder seems to be what is mostly left nowadays. You do bring up a good point though in the sense that Fantoms left a lot to be improved on, and Dyson learned from that. I for one find them to be overly complicated and difficult to work on, and the brushroll was a weak spot for some (although there are plenty out there with good brushrolls, go figure!). With this I am referring to the original Iona Fantom/later Thunder, I have limited experience with the Fury and have not had a Lightning apart, though I have used several since they first came out around 12 years ago. I recently found a Thunder (from early '97) at the Goodwill and since it looked like it was in good shape I grabbed it. The motor ran fine but it had a nasty blockage in the dirt path that required disassembling the entire machine to remove. The original HEPA filter was also packed with dirt so it immediately went in the garbage. After cleaning the machine entirely, I can't believe how well it works for a 12 year-old cleaner. Also found out I didn't really need the exhaust filter, simply emptying the bin after each use as intended and not allowing it to become full eliminates that. Once again, it all goes back to proper care. -MH
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
#3 Nov 5, 2009 1:27 pm |
|
Hello Everyone,
I spoke with a long-time acquaintance in the vac biz yesterday, none other than Tom G. He told me that Dyson USA is still selling 8,000 vacuum cleaners in the USA!
Since Tom is now employed by Tacony, and is no longer a vac shop owner, I have no reason to doubt his word. He is curator of a vacuum museum consisting of primarily his own vacuums, which he leases to Tacony. He gets to shop the 'net for antique vacs, (talk about your dream job!)
But I digress. According to Tom 85% of all vacuums sold are still bagless! People like seeing the dirt, and they hate having to remember to buy bags. People who buy a Dyson tell people, who buy one, and so on. People who buy any other brand don't tell nearly as many. ( I have to think if someone shelled out for a Kirby they would mention it to a few people.) I asked Tom about the longevity of the Dysons as in 'how many are still running after 10 years?' He replied, "Most of them." Of course 'most' could be 51%. Since Tom G. is no longer a Dyson dealer, and he works for one of the primary contenders in the marketplace, has access and time to research as well as being privy to inside info, I have no reason to doubt his word.
It's just that I continue to see so many Dysons come into my friend's shop for repair. Many people spend in excess of 100.00 to fix a vacuum less then 5 years old because the repair is not covered by warranty. Huh? Many say they will not buy another Dyson, but the repair is the same as a Big Box vac, and they do like the performance, and they don't want to shop for another vacuum, so they fork out $$$ for the repair. People do abuse their vacuums, and I would say the Dyson is more vulnerable to damage from abuse than many. Seeing the dirt seems to be a big deal. Maybe people vacuum more, and slower when they see the dirt swirling around. But if Dyson really is selling 8,000 cleaners a day, if they are in financial distress it has to be due to poor management, not an uncommon phenonemon
Carmine, I laughed so hard at the idea of you and I being the same poster I nearly fell off my chair! We are what, 15 years, 1500 plus miles, and a wife and child apart? But why stop at one? You, me, Severus/Venson, could all be the same person! I could just be a figment of your imagination! Or whoever is the real person's imagination. Not all multiple personalities are aware of each other, so (gasp) I could be DIB's alter ego and not even know it! This whole line of thought is moving me into the existential vacuum, and I'm unsure if it's bagless or not.
Trebor The facts don't lie, even CR ranks Dyson as one of their more reliable brands. For every Dyson that has had problems of some sort there are at least 10 still going strong and serving their owners faithfully. Speaking of Tom G., it is worth noting that he owns a prototype US DC07 from 1999, 2 years before Dyson "officially" arrived here. In the 10 years he has had it, it has not had a single repair, and for 9 of those years it served as the store vacuum for his old store. To say that it has received heavy, daily use there is an understatement. I also saw the machine over at the Museum in September, and when I spoke to Tom last week, he said he was still using it regularly there as well to clean the acres of carpeting in each historical section. That says a lot about performance and longevity...plenty of brand new, perfectly good Riccars and Simplicitys around and the trusty Dyson wins out every time for routine cleaning! For another example of Dyson longevity, look to the another cleaner at the museum, the 1983 Cyclon. Not only is it still perfectly functional, it does a surprisingly good job. Same can be said with the many British Dysons from the 1990's (DC02, DC03, DC05, et al.), nothing wrong with them at all. And while not necessarily Dyson per se (but very much Dyson designed and related), look at all of the 10+ year-old Fantoms that are still in use all over the States. Obviously, when any appliance is abused, it is not going to last as long, and even a well-engineered cleaner like the Dyson is no exception. Going back under the rock now and watching- MH
|
|
|
Re: "What has dyson invented now?" (Now, now guys...)
#4 Oct 17, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
Wow, quite a lot of jealousy here I see! Once again, if the design of the Air Multiplier was so obvious, why didn't any of y'all think of it first?  What an awesome fan that is, and watching Jack's (Model2) video demonstrations only makes me want one even more. I heard about the Air Multiplier around 6 months ago from none other than Tom Gasko. He was under the impression that it would be a bladeless ceiling fan, and from what I hear there's a ceiling fan in the works, but it now makes sense that Sir James would bring it out as a table fan to gauge the public reaction. Not to mention giving time to iron out the quirks involved with adapting and producing a light kit for it as well. And (aside from a select few posts on here and other similar sites...) it seems the public reaction to the AM as a whole has been favorable. Either way, the AM ceiling fan should be a solution to a HUGE problem that has plagued us for decades...vibrating, dusty, wobbly ceiling fans that produce mostly choppy air, or do not seem to move any air at all on lower speeds. Offering an optional built-in heater would be a good idea as well, for homes that are either without central heat or overly drafty. Along with the "jet-engine" appearance, I predict that 40 years from now it will be looked at in the same way we look at "mod" fixtures from the 1960's today. Sleek, cool, and a perfect combination of design and functionality. May even add to the value of homes that have them installed! While we're on the subject of new Dyson innovations, Tom suggested that there are more in the works where this came from. Among them will be a juice extractor that can juice an entire orange without halving it or adding any of the bitter zest to the juice. That's been a big complaint of mine for a long time regarding juicing oranges with an extractor and why I've always preferred to use a simple reamer-type citrus juicer. There will also be a toaster that is completely sealed from the escaping moisture from toasting bread, and a dishwasher that converts hydrogen peroxide into a cleaning agent by means of an ionic charge plate. On the vacuum front, the self-propelled MotorDrive is in the process of being test-marketed here in the States. Not entirely sure what the model will be, perhaps either DC29 or DC32, but I should find out more in the near future. It is similar in appearance to the DC28 (except no cam actuator to adjust the brushbar), with four motors. Two DDMs for the suction and brushbar, respectively, and two servo-motors for each rear wheel. The brushbar will be driven off a simple gearbox, which puts to rest the myth of switched-reluctance motors not being able to produce any torque. Are they as powerful as traditional carbon-brush universal motors at the moment, no, but they can obviously produce enough torque to drive a gearbox. In that situation, at least with the DDM, speed is at an advantage, producing enough power off reduction gearing without sacrificing brushbar speed (and subsequently cleaning performance). The self-propulsion system is what is most unique, addressing the problem of steering difficulty that has plagued Kirby, Hoover, etc. When the handle is turned either to the left or right, it will engage the respective servo-motor providing effortless power steering. It is the most responsive and innovative drive system to date, utilizing electronics similar to a joystick to control the drive rather than complex linkage. Due to the self-propulsion electronics in the handle, this will also be the first Dyson upright not to have the wand in the handle for above-floor cleaning. Between Dyson, Tacony, and Miele, it's nice to know someone well-rounded in the industry to provide this great information. Take care everyone, MH P.S. Carmine, I hear where you're going, there will be an amalgam of AM01s to provide air circulation, and DC07s for you, Mole, and David Oreck to clean the place with...what can I say, guess they have good taste in vacuums and fans down there too |
 |
Re: Vacuum Museum
#5 Aug 30, 2009 9:38 pm |
|
Carmine: You may be a barely living legend, however you can rest in peace knowing that there are no questions Tom can't answer and that he appreciates the offer for assistance.  I'm going to see Tom in a few weeks at a gathering of vacuum cleaner collectors taking place at the Museum, and I will be sure to pass on your good wishes to him. Sincerely, MH P.S. I just noticed that the Oreck came in at 27th place in CR's current ratings of uprights. I guess they've finally figured Oreck out! |
|
