Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

Oreck HAS no evidence.  Why?   The plain and simple truth of the matter is on the DC24/25, the diameter of the HEPA exhaust filter (which mostly serves the purpose of catching carbon-brush dust from the motor and not much else) has been reduced in order for the filter to be contained in the Ball assembly and eliminate the ducting to the separate filter compartment as on the DC15.  First of all, DYSON errs on the side of caution and believes that the DC24 or 25 will be used to clean a large house with infrequent emptying (i.e. allowing the bin to go beyond full capacity on each use).  Some of you may be thinking that the DC24 or 25 are lightweight uprights and theoretically for smaller homes, right?  WRONG!  Unlike Oreck, DYSON does not make that generalization and believes that any of its machines, regardless of how large or small they are, will be used for any purpose in any size home.  THAT is the reason for the more frequent filter cleaning intervals.  Not only because of the diameter, but because of the potential for heat to build up in the motor compartment in the Ball if the machine is used in a large home with infrequent emptying and the pre-motor filter (which is mounted in the usual spot above the bin) is left neglected over long periods of time.  If the bin is frequently allowed to get beyond full capacity, no doubt a minute amount of fine dust will make its way to the pre-motor filter a few times; more than would occur if the machine was used properly as it was intended and emptied frequently, of course.  Sure, the cyclone separators are good, but as with anything else, can only do so much.  DYSON is obviously aware of this potential.  As anyone can see that has absolutely NOTHING to do with clogging or losing suction, it is just a heavy use scenario.  Obviously if you are going to use a DC24 to clean a 3000 sq. ft.  house and only expect to empty it once (allowing the dirt to pass the MAX line each time it is used), yes, you WILL have to clean the filters more often, that goes without saying!  The filters have to be cleaned because the machine can clean. 

While we're on the subject of filter cleaning intervals for the DC24/25, you may notice the intervals at which the filters should be removed and washed...3-6 months.  Again, that is DYSON being cautious (realizing the potential for heavy use) and warning the owner as such.  In reality, the filters can be left alone for 6 months to a year (if not longer) with regular, proper use (read: frequent emptying during normal cleaning, and vacuum large amounts of extra-fine substances slowly) and the machine will fare just fine under normal circumstances, holding true to the fact that it never clogs, or loses suction.  The same wonderful fact (no half-truth about it, sorry Carmine and Oreck) which is, always has been, and always will be proudly displayed on both the box and the machine. 

The reason this is the first time we have heard of this is because the DC15, due to the separate compartment (and the ducting running from the Ball to said compartment), uses a large-diameter permanent exhaust filter like the others. 

What does this mean?  Two words: General Maintenance.  Filter washing is done at the same frequency as changing the belt on an Awfulwreck, but not necessarily required (usually under normal use the filter is not that dirty when going by Dyson's 3-to-6-month intervals, and the machine is still delivering the same performance it did when new), and MUCH easier

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

Hello Motor:

Spoken like a true dyson fan with irreverence for the facts.  So, you're pinch hitting for DIB while he's on vacation?  Did DIB sanction you!  

As usual, you are wrong.  The NAD decision ruled that dyson and retailers are not allowed to say the dyson filters don't clog.  Because they do clog and 36 dissatisfied dyson customers along with HOOVER and ORECK took exception to the dyson claim, they protested the claim saying its hype and untrue, and they prevailed.  Dyson lost.  Hence, the revised dyson mantra:  Never loses suction.  All the dyson references to the old claim have been scrubbed and new product lit and cartons reflect dyson/retailers' compliance.  Some, like you, thought dyson can just move on.  Not ORECK.  Hence the court case.

Did you get sanctioned by DIB to post this info about the dyson degradation of filtering?  DIB is the Forum poster who claimed authoritative knowledge of the compromised dyson filtration.  Not you!  DIB has remained conspicuously silent on the matter [probably fearing the ORECK-dyson lawsuit implications].  You're not.  You poured forth like an untapped well of knowledge just waiting to gush!    Pride and ego, the worse of sins.

Do you know when DIB is due back.  Curious to hear his perspective on your post.  If he's still speaking to you.

Carmine D.

Motor:

How well do you remember your fairy tales?  Remember the one where the dog stops to rest and misses catching the rabbit?  If only the dog didn't stop to rest, it would have caught the rabbit.  IF!  Your post reminds me of the fairy tale. Only your post is chuck full of IF-s.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Dyson has been EXPOSED for what they really are,the overpiced hyped doesnt clean your carpets any better than a 39.95 dirt devil, they just cost more to fix,

IT'S soon to be just another big box machine sitting on the shelf,that has to be dusted off every week[,but are pleasing to look at wild colors] The bins can also be used as a bird feeder,Carmine and I told you so ,its just too bad that the public did not catch on sooner,I must say that the DYSON marketing department is one of the best propaganda machines in the industry,Now we and the public know that the gig is up,Is the return center filled up to the max yet?

Whats next another overpriced hand vac with a sr motor that costs 599.00[HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,........

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine, speaking of fairy tales, this is yet another example of you repeating your own lies over and over again, and eventually believing it.  Sort of like the statement about the U-bend on the DC07.  When I was at Wal-Mart last week to pick up another new machine (more on that later), I noticed the DC07 Original on the shelf right next to it.  I pulled the display model down, looked it over, and sure enough, the U-bend was exactly the same as all of the other DC07s I had seen in the past 6 years.  No changes whatsoever. 

Just like your claim about Dyson being forced to remove the "filters that don't clog" statement.  In the new DC25 brochure, "no clogging or loss of suction" is mentioned several times throughout.  You had mentioned the removal of this statement before the introduction of the DC24/25, and it's still there on a brand new model.  What happened?

-MH

mole wrote:
In you and Carmine's eyes, Dyson is always "soon to be" *something*.  Soon to disappear from the shelves, soon to be "scrubbed", etc.  But it never is.

I'd work on improving my "predictions" if I were you.  The track record on both of your posts isn't that great, to say the least.

Motorhead wrote:

Motor:

Here's the truth.  Within the first year of launch, dyson retooled the DC07 u-bend air way joint.  Making it permanent on the DC07-s and not removable.  It was removable originally on the first and early DC-07's supposedly to allow users to clear clogs/blockages.  It had a yellow thumb tab on it to depress to remove/attach.  People thought it was the handle release and would step on the thumb tab.  The piece came off and most stores' staff didn't know how to attach it.  It remained along side the dyson display model/still in the box never used.  Result:  No suction in the tool mode.  Fix:  Dyson knew a buck item was poised to derail its launch, and made the piece permanent.  Quick like. 

Good thing ORECK stayed the course and took dyson to court.  I have not seen the latest DC24/25 product lit.  But, if dyson is still using the false claim, then dyson is violating the NAD ruling and subject to punitive and monetary disciplinary actions.  Dyson isn't that stupid.  Even the dyson retailers have long dropped the use of the false dyson claim.  

Carmine D. 

Motorhead wrote:

Motor:

The writing for dyson is on the wall.  Look at the UK.  From 43 percent vacuum market share in 2004 to 28 percent in 2007.  Based on the facts, our prediction was accurate.  Dyson sales in Mr. D's country of original are off an average of 5 percent a year for 3 consecutive years steady. 

BTW, weren't you the one here who said dyson new vacuum sales in the USA were 4 MILLION units in 2007?  Was that a prediction?  It was wrong!  Certainly not a fact.  According to the dyson expert here, Matt mmc AirBlade, 2 Million dyson units [not counting returns and refunds] were sold in 2007.  You were wrong by a factor of 100 percent.  

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Neither you nor mole predicted the Dyson sales to drop in the UK.  Once again you lie.  You said for three years that each new Dyson would put Dyson out of business and I said you were wrong.  I was correct.

You saind numerous times that BB was discontinueing Dyson and again I disagreed.  I was right again.  Your predictions are not so accurate.

CarmineD wrote:

First post here and I am curious.  I keep reading a couple posters saying that Dyson can no longer use this claim and yet :

 "no loss of suction"

and  statements like

"Dyson proves no loss of suction using the IEC 60312 Cl 2.9 test standard on uprights and canister
vacuums and using a test method based on the IEC 60312 Cl 2.9 standard for the handheld.

Dyson proves no loss of suction, best average pick up, and 'overall outcleans other vacuums' using results from
IEC 60312 Cl 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, ASTM F608 and F558, and DTM 755— an independently conducted Dyson test."

Are plastered all over thier webpage.  Are some here not understanding a ruling correctly, just blowing smoke to make an argument, or is Dyson in violation of a court order?