Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://gizmodo.com/345918/dyson-dc24-vac-sir-james-brings-his-ball-back

Two models, one small, one large :-

DC24
http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/product.asp?product=DC24-ALLFLOORS

DC25
http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/product.asp?product=DC25-ALLFLOORS

DysonInventsBig wrote:

It's simple to understand: It takes more to impress me.  

If the press release [which you didn't share] said dyson sold 24 million new vacuums in the UK alone in 23 years, I would not be impressed.   Why?  The latter, if it were true and we know it is not, would even be an unimpressive number of new vacuum sales in the UK, considering the UK is dyson's country of origin.  Has dyson impressed buyers in the UK with any of his products' sales?  Vacuums? Washers?  Airblades?  I don't think so.  Quite the contrary.  Sales in his own country of his products are unimpressive.  IMHO.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I have to disagree there.  The Hoover 60-series is classic...it's old enough to be classic.  Even the Convertible series could be considered classic.  The Windtunnel, however, is 12 years old and is outdated (I'd say just plain tired), CR ratings notwithstanding.  TTI will eventually see that it's not selling like it should and slowly drop the design, one by one.  It will be interesting to see what particular model will go first, it's only a matter of time.  No one wants grainy plastic vacuums when they can get something sleek and MODERN, the Uplander comparison bodes well.  Like I said, I never thought it was that great, when Eureka was starting to dabble in bagless and Fantom had been on the scene for a few years Hoover simply re-introduced a clean-air upright.  The first thing I thought when it came out was "about time Hoover did that!"  I'll give them this, they did get the clean-air design right that time.  Took them long enough, though, but at least the WT's handle doesn't wobble and the bags don't look upside down when they're installed.  There are just better machines out there both in construction and performance, even Hoover's OWN offerings!  They have the "sleek look" going on their new models and those seem to have done well.  I've used the Mach series bagless before.  Not an exact copy of the cyclonic design, so there are a few shortcomings, but I didn't think they were bad cleaners overall.  They also felt sturdy with their telescopic metal handle; I know for a fact the WindTunnel doesn't feel like a sturdy machine.  Again, something about that grainy plastic!

I never said CR was prejudiced against Dyson, I know they don't care for bagless in general...that was obvious to me years ago when they tested the Fantom and it still holds true.  They hated bagless then, they hate it now (although their tolerance has improved somewhat over the years).  However, I find it quite odd when the DC17 is #10, and both Kenmore and Hoover FILTERED bagless cleaners are in the top 5.  Something isn't right there.  There's just no possible way those could maintain performance long enough to get those scores!  Especially with all of the fine test dirt, etc.

-MH

The HOOVER WT, whether you like the looks or not, is the premier rug cleaning and grooming upright vacuum on the market FOR ALL TIME [IMHO].  It is the gold standard of carpet cleaning.  Its retail cost is $150 (bagged).  Supreme model. 

For uprights and rug cleaning, the HOOVER Tempo (bagged) for $60 outperforms ALL upright dysons on the market today including the DC17 which sells for $549.  The TEMPO weighs 16 pounds and the DC17 weighs 21.

When a $60 upright vacuum, albeit with a 10 year old form and function, consistently is better rated for rug cleaning than the latest and greatest innovative vacuums selling for 10 times as much, IT IS A classic vacuum.  Not because of age.  Because of the performance and price. 

Carmine D.

Hi,

My feeling re CR and bagless vacuums is that the issue of "tidy" emptying is still solved.  Mind you, this can be no different than what was going on with vacuums with permanent bags way back in the day that led to the welcoming of disposable dust bags.  CR was and reamined highly critical of disposable dust bags with wide mouths or that for whatever reason, by way of manner of removal, etc., promoted notable exposure to dust.  MH, I know your going to tell me that that problem is minimized by frequent emptying, and I thoroughly agree, but again I say the average consumer is out to merely buy another tool to facilitate care of the home.  In light of that, the issue is and has always been -- what's simple, what's easy.  There are those that may find stopping to empty their cleaner several times during cleaning day or having to fuss around with plastic bags to dump full containers into a bit bothersome.

Where I personally might not be overly bothered by the keeping of a Rainbow or even the simpler washing of filters now and then there are lots of people who can't be bothered with it.  The realities of maintenance are usually skirted when a sale is in the process and a lot of buyers of bagless machines are left to think that it will be business as usual the same way it was the bagged vacuums they'd been familiar with.

I don't think CR is particularly biased re bagless just, in this at least, aware of the consumer's desire for not only what's affordable but also easy.

My greatest fear for Hoover is that to TTI it may just be a name to sell.  When the name is finally run down, they will either find some alleged new innovation with a new name or buy up another old name and ride on it ontil they run it into the ground as well.  The Hoover we knew was an organization that appeared to bear a semblance of pride in the product it put forth and sales came.  It took risks on ideas. The market today is not interested in risk but in making money which means you sell anything you've got any way you can sell it.  Not a bright picture for consumers.

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:
Hi Venson,

I agree.  While frequent emptying doesn't eliminate the problem completely (especially on fine dust pickup), it does help quite a bit I've found.  The way I see it is one small step at a time.  It will be solved eventually, making the dustcloud a thing of the past.  Look how far we've come already, first the cloth shakeout bag, then the disposable bags, now the bin. 

Regarding Hoover, I don't think TTI is going to do that to the brand, at least that wasn't the initial impression I got.  They seem to have picked up where Hoover left off, continuing existing machines and using a proprietary design on the new models...no "rebadged Dirt Devils" as we had all feared.  I predict in the very near future, TTI/Hoover will put much of their effort into the dual-cyclonic Mach series design in order to compete with Dyson and others that use a true cyclonic design, i.e. Bissell and LG/Kenmore.  But that's just a wild guess. 

Hi DIB,

Great pictures and information you provided about these as always, especially the inner workings of the Ball up close.  And it's still mind-boggling seeing the compact size of the DC22!  The sales figures are impressive as well, any way you look at it.  We know that James Dyson has been designing vacuums since 1983 (24 years right there to the end of '07).  That's all well and good and worth mentioning in the press release, but we can't really get a good yearly production average out of that because I'm willing to bet he did not sell very many machines in the early years.  So saying 1 million machines per year would be just a *bit* inaccurate.  The yearly sales figures are likely very staggered in reality.  Besides, I know Dyson has been more successful than that, especially in recent years ;-)

Just out of curiosity, how long have machines produced under the Dyson brandname existed in the UK?  I want to say 1990 but I'm probably wrong.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

The dyson G-force sold door to door starting in 1983.  From 1982-84 dyson tried to sell the design to European firms.  No luck.  He sold the rights to an American firm in 1984.  The buyer pulled out.  Dyson took it to Japan and it was successful.  Dyson sued his former American licensee for patent infringement over a machine brought out after the breakup.  It was settled and with the royalties dyson built the 1992 Malmesbury plant.  Dyson's dual cyclone in both upright and canister was launched in the UK in 1993.  You can say that the lawsuit proceeds financed dyson's vacuum launch.

The dyson sales have not been consistently one million a year.  But for lack of the sales data and statistics, which jaydee holds close to his vest, an average can only be estimated by doing the simple math.  Units divided by years.  You can extrapolate the sales number further to the countries where the products are sold.  This further reduces market share by units in any one geographic location.  If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Japan would be dyson's best vacuum sales market [not the UK as one may think]. Quite the contrary only one third of the Brits buy dysons every year.  So the majority of Brits buy and use another brand vacuum not dyson.

Carmine D.

  <  New York Times.

There was a bagless cleaner sold via the "Innovations" Catalogue in 1988/89 (small technology catalogue, normally enclosed with the weekend papers).

I think this machine had the dry-powder cleaning function. It was rather expensive, about double that of the Hoovers and Electroluxes at the time.

The trouble is, I cannot remember if it was sold as  "Dyson" or if it was one of those "Iona" imported cleaners. (I believe some were imported, am I correct?)

Baby dyson ball won't get under furniture, beds, sofa, and cushion chairs.  Not with that huge monstrosity of a ball wheel.  Ditch the ball wheel, make the dirt bin larger, put some rear wheels on the power head, drop the price by half, and it will sell a million units in the first year in the USA.

Carmine D.

Trilobite wrote:
I remember those.  Here it was sold as the NovaDry, and then later the Capture Drytech machine.  One of the things I found interesting about these was that the instructions said that it was not to be used as a regular vacuum cleaner.  This was because the suction inlet/ducting was a small diameter...it could handle the dry powder (and the debris within) but not larger dirt.  I found this out later.

-MH