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

Thanks Moose, I too have seen this patent.  It is plausible early on that Dyson wanted people to believe his vacuums did not use a filter of any sorts, but who knows.

 .

Carmine.  No one has been able to engineer a filter that cleans 100%.  Electrolux recently failed at it.  Besides James Dyson is a cyclonic man, not a filter man.

 .

In my opinion, Dyson should make available a cheap disposable liner that sits on top of the pre-filter, certainly the DC24 could benefit.  Perhaps sell it as an accessory; this gives people the option and answers critics who say Dyson makes one slave (DC24) to pre-filter cleaning.  Having disposables would answer these criticisms or complaints.  The convenience of having a pre-filter sitting at waist height (on uprights) or so makes getting to the pre-filter compartment easy and is another advantage Dyson would have over his competition.  Small advantages add up.        DIB

I'll check the rest of this thread tomorrow (haven't been here in a while), but I did want to say that the name "Dyson Dave" is somewhat of a misnomer; "Dyson Dave" is the HSN employee paid to demonstrate Dyson and is in no way affiliated with Dyson Inc.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

Motorhead,

Thanks for the clarification.  Until now, it was clear as mud as to who employed Dave Shimkus and who he was loyal to.  Julie Truster, (aka Do-not-trust-her) the Hoover rep religiously attacks Dyson vacuums on HSN and Dyson Dave never responds.  Now I have my answer.        DIB

DC18 wrote:
So now were back to this filter nonsense,why use any filters at all you cant have it both ways. There is no such thing as loss of suction i dont care how much technobabble you throw at this,GEE A DISPOSALE PRE MOTOR FILTER THAT SOUNS REAL INNOVATIVE THEY ONLY BEEN AROUND SINCE THE EARLY 1940s.Why doesnt dyson admit that their plastic junk is just as bad as the rest of them except his junk just costs more and lots more,IM KIND OF WONDERING TO MYSELF HOW THEY LASTED THIS LONG,

MAYBE ITS THE FANCY ADVERTISING,
And the bag was hopelessly clogged,MY A$$......................

MOLE

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Mr. Dyson is a vacuum man and vacuums, especially bagless, need and use filters.  I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that dyson attempted to "lull" buyers and users into believing that there was no maintenance required on the pre-motor filters by not drawing attention to the maintenance.  The attempt, real or perceived, backfired and dyson is dealing with the consequences.  Paper bags don't dispose themselves without user intervention.  Bagless vacuums need human intervention for filter maintenance and frequent dumping.  Choose your poison.

The need for user intervention was the crux of the case against Electrolux.  It's claim about not needing user intervention was overblown.  It does require manual filter cleaning every 12 to 15 months to be effective.  Still, user filter maintenance once every year to 15 months is better than every 3-6 months.    

Carmine D.

HEY Carmine,this nonsense going on in the U,K. reminds me about health-mor and shetland lewyt over the cyclonic patent infridement which health-mor won and eventually buried lewyt,It was over 3 million at the time,
B,T,W, HMI INC makes the filterqueen vacuum for those who dont know, Americas first sucessful bagless vacuum cleaner,
I find this all very amusing   

how about the airblade have they sold more than 50 units yet,I rather wipe my hands off on my trousers,,,,,,,HA, HA, HA,

SELL SELL SELL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

THE -MOLE

mole wrote:
many many more than 50 units........

mole wrote:

If you wash your private each morning there is no need to wash your hands when you wee wee.

HI H.S. i agree but it takes 2 hands to handle the whopper......................

  MOLE

I can't see Dyson putting a filter indicator on the domestic machines.  I can see why he put it on the 'constant max' commercial cleaner. Unless he changes his mind.  In the early days (and I would of thought he would still think the same today!) he hated the so called 'bag full' indicator on bagged machines.  As for disposible filters I can't see him going back to these as that is what the DC01, DC02 and ealry DC03 had and that would put extra running costs onto owning the machine.  Hence they developed a washable one.  Yes the cyclone technology over the years on later models has improved but Dyson mentions 'no extra running costs' as part of the marketing of the machines.  So going backwards to replacement\disposible filters is a step back.

I think the long term answer is to develope the cyclone technology further to reduce the need to clean the filter out regular.  Didn't someone say 7 years on the DDM DC23 that is in Japan!?  Correct me if I'm wrong.  The DDM removes the need (I believe) for the post motor filter, so pushing cyclone technology further could reduce filter cleaning longer! 

DC18