Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The Dyson DC22 canister was very recently introduced in Japan. I have heard that this will make it to the US market in order to expand their canister range.

Key Features:

-Root Cyclone with Core Separation
-Dyson Digital Motor
-Stowaway Design
-Motorhead
-Pre filter rinse once every seven years

I had a look at the DC22, its similar size to Dysons previous DC05.  I don't like the DC22 as it has PLASTIC for its telescopic wand not the usual alluminium  (though I never liked the aluminium) I wish Dyson would go back to the steel they used for the first model, seemed better quality.

The plastic finish  the telescope 'handle' looks like poor with some 'flash'  lines.  Its probably a good machine but I really don't like the plastic 'wand'.

Dysons bin capacity is a bit of a joke compared to the older models, my DC04 holds a full 4 litres of dirt, the DC07 hold 3 litres, DC14 hold 2 litres but later models hold a small amounts like 1 plus litres which means more emptying, not that this is difficult just annoying if machine fills whilst in middle of vacuuming.

I have kept with my DC04 and spare DC05 but I not too keen on the later models.   Why does the Shroud take up so much space in the bin in the newer models?

bucks03 wrote:

Thank you for posting your comments on this machine.  I had no idea that plastic was used instead of aluminum on the pipe.  Do you know if the wand weight is lighter than the Stowaway’s?  A lighter weight TW wand was badly needed.  The Stowaway’s TW is heavy, bulky and the handle position directly inline with the axis line of the pipe, making turning the wand much harder than necessary (little or no leverage).

 

I own the DC05 Motorhead and think it is great! – Certainly better and easier to use than my DC21.  The pipe is aluminum with a sister pipe that is plumbed with the electrical, it is very sturdy, easy and fast to adjust to any height.  I believe if Dyson would have instead, introduced the wand and power nozzle off the DC05 versus what came on the DC11, the 11 would have been a winner here in the US.  Dyson just needs to quit over-engineering his stuff (at times).        DIB

HI DysonInventsBig

The plastic that is used for the DC22 TW in my opinion doesn't make the wand feel lighter, the aluminnium used on other models in very lightweight anyway.  To be honest I like a slight heavy solid feel as opposed to the light flimsy feel.

Maybe I'm being fussy but the whole 'feel' of latter Dysons just doesn't feel as good as previous machine,  I don't like the new flat out tools at all.  The Dyson DC05 when first lauched used to be dispacthed with a steel soleplate and wand

from around 2002 / 2003 Dyson started sending with a plastic soleplate and aluminium wand which just didn't feel as good as the previous ones.

Other vacuum cleaners on market are plastic but Dysons are pretty much contructing the while thing from plastic,  I wonder if one day they will just make it clip together with snap on clips, getting rid of screws all together.

I agree the DC05 Motorhead was a good machine, just a shame that there was a problem with the first design of  Motorhead which caused the wires to become exposed when the 'joint' broke but this didn't happen to all users.  Dyson modified this anyway and where good at sending out replacements.

Do you know why Dysons has changed the design on the DC24 and DC25 to have both the filters washable?  My DC04 has liftetime POSTMOTOR  filter as on DC05 which has not been changed in 5 years, it is very black with carbon dust but is still in use with no need to change.  I have noticed through that my DC04 does let some carbon dust out through the exhaust.

Thanks for reading.

bucks03 wrote:

Surprised no dyson admirers answered.  Airblade?  Anything to say?

The largest shrouds I saw are with vacuums of years gone by.

The Lewyt and Filter Queen bagless canns of the 40's.  Tho, I doubt

they called them shrouds.  The full circumference of the vacuums

and probably half the volume of the bottom dirt container.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi

I'm surprised too.  Thought someone would have known the answer to this one.  Do you get where I am coming from, why would a vacuum cleaner manufacturer not make use of the bin capacity, the shroud is so big in Dysons and the MAX mark is rather low down compared to the first generation of UK Dyson in the late 90s.  These are 4 lites and the shroud was never that big but these where DUAL CYCLONE machine.

bucks03 wrote:

Hello Bucks03:

I'm with you.  BTW, Filter Queen and Lewyt

called the shrouds: "Circular shields."  Made of aluminum. 

Paper thin filters called 'cones' [because of their shape] was the

only separation of the shroud from the

dirt.

Carmine D.

IT's more than likely about air movement,Canisters with all the hoses and powerheads attached,the cfm drops [not suction but the speed of the suction].Dyson has to play with shroud location ,shroud size, the smaller diameter the the more static suction is created,sort of like sucking liquid throuh a straw,The machine has to move so much air through it before it can even think about cleaning.Hence ,why it could be called a VACUUM CLEANER.]

Yes the cyclones block after a certain time,i just wish they were easy for the owners to clean ............

MOLE

Sorry guys.  Wish I had an answer for you, but I'm not sure either.

mole wrote:

Mole I understand what you are saying but I am also refering to the Uprights not just the cylinder machines.  Also the shrouds were smaller  on the first models which were able to produce a large amount of scution power, look at The DC07, its shroud isn't that big and it was the most pwerful Dyson in the UK even when they started putting 1200Watt motors as opposed to the 1400Watts they used to use before.  Only Dyson engineers have the answer to this answer. 

I have never encountered a problem with cyclone blocking on my DC04, DC05 or handheld DC16.  The only problem I ever have is that long hair escapes from the cyclone and when I take out the filter there is long hair on it, this isn't an issue.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I see the mechanisms as different.  Filter Queen and Lewyt's filter paper and/or cellulose cones were intended to be a physical barrier between the fan chamber and the contents of the dust container in lieu of the conventional dust bags they did not employ. Their conical shaped filters allowed more filtering surface than competitors of  similar ilk at the time like Fairfax and Silver King.  Both of those brands employed flat, round filters that fitted between their dust containers and motor units.    The metal cones in the FQ and Lewyt served more to make the conical filters keep their form. 

So-called cyclonic action was employed to help keep dirt off the filter cones by the air swirl produced when air entered the dust container. Air was deflected to the left, at least in Filter Queen, with the intention of keeping dirt collection on the cone to the minimum and suction to the maximum because of the whirling air.  I know from experience that this works for a time but eventually dust, fluff and debris begin to build up behind the deflector eventulally reducing the usable surface area on the filter cone.  This did not prove a serious problem to me as FQ can maintain good suction and clean well nder normal conditions for a good amount of time even if the ideal "cyclonic situation" isn't happening internally.

In true cyclonic bagless vacuums, if there is such a term, the intention is to use the centrifical force of induced air-swirls to fling off the dust and dirt carried into the machine to such a degree that minimal filtering medium is all that's needed to capture dust still in the air stream after it exits the dust container.  As I said, that's the intention but once the shroud begins to collect debris -- fluff, hair, bits of paper, etc. -- cyclonic filtering capability decreases and residual dirt in the air stream after the process increases.  That is why frequent emptying is required AND why I don't necessarily feel that much ahead of the game on way or another due to it.   I'd be glad to see this same technology applied to a portable machine with larger dust capacity than generally available today to help keep the principles used for cyclonics at their optimum with less need for emptying. 

Best,

Venson