Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iH9bdT5tcFOJz0hhY1fBBfP9KbLQ

http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/productmodel.asp?model=DC22

dusty wrote:

Dusty,

Thanks for the info.  The newest and most radical cyclonic filtering vacuum cleaner on the planet comes with a manual that suggests filter maintenance every 3 months is nothing short of a disaster.  If I remember correctly the Japanese DC22’s (both DDM and standard motors) are advertised (per Dyson Japans website) as going 5 years until filter maintenance.  And this is a HUGE business advantage over the present and future competition.  Dyson needs to separate himself and his technologies (his vacuums) as far superior to his competitors.  The DC22 can do much better it if James chooses.  Many manufacturers are in line with cyclonic patent pendings.  This is war and Dyson will loose the cyclonic filtration wars if he does not change some of his business and design beliefs ASAP!  Chinese Hoover certainly demonstrated they are willing to lye down prone and sell themselves with a unbelievable cheap multi-cyclonic.        DIB

P.S.  Playing it safe on the filter cleaning I agree with, but the DC22 should go at least 1 year at minimum before filter cleaning.

.

Carmine and Mole,

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link…  If you find the weak link in the discrepancies between how the DC22 filters in the various regions, this will lead you to why the DC24 and DC25 do not filter as good as they most certainly should.  Let me know if you need additional hints.        DIB

.

*Owns factory/s in 3^rd world countries as well as the brand, vice others who must pay for their sub-contractors mark-ups. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB Man:

You and the dyson menschkins should cut your losses on this filter farce and the DC07 and DC14 clutch and brush bar.   You have a bigger battle to fight.  Dyson fans, not MOLE and I, have to craft a legitimate defense when vacuum buyers ask why they should pay $500 plus for a dyson that requires monthly filter maintenance.  Especially after being told for 6 years that the filters don't clog: The reason always given by you to warrant the high dyson price.  Ball ain't goin to hack it!

MOLE gave the reasons several weeks ago with absolute no rebuttals received. 

First, the dyson claim "never clogs" is a myth and always was.  We know the answer.  ASA told us and dyson.

Second, the latest root technology with the primary, secondary and final dirt separators is far inferior to the earlier dyson versions.  Therefore more fine dirt has to be filtered by the pre-motor filter which then clogs if not cleaned monthly.

Third, the dyson brush bar was soooo puny on the DC07 and DC14 that the fine embedded grit normally removed by most vacuum brush rolls, [which clog filters], was not exhumed in sufficient amounts by dysons to clog the filters.  Much stayed in the rugs instead.  When dyson ramped up the brush roll design on newer models, more fine embedded dirt/grit was exhumed from the rugs than with the earlier dyson models.  Making monthly filter maintenance a  dyson/user requirement to warranty the vacuums for 5 years. 

And finally, all the above.  I choose all the above.  You can fool all of the people some of time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. 

Carmine D.

Hey DUBBA,I mean D.I.B.

The more you post this nonsense the more you are ruining yours and dyson reputation.

You flip flop more than John Mcshrub.

Dysons filter great? our claim to fame,well now since we made it work better after years of research and development,it doesnt filter so great any more.

The more dust and dirt the machine picks up the harder the filters have to work,[HINT,HINT,HINT,].

MOLE

mole wrote:

Mole,

Did you pull away from fantasy role playing and “Nailing Dyson’s to the Floor” long enough only so to name call?  I understand Dyson’s separators well, you don’t.  I understand my praises and my criticism’s here are indexed and far reaching.  James Dyson can make his separators filter much better if he changes some beliefs.  I know what I am doing and I know what to type to get the indexing I want.        DIB

mole wrote:
Mole, first of all, are you from Indiana?  You sure sound like a Hoosier to me!  You type like a Hoosier, you have Hoosier ideas, you run a Hoosier vac shop, and I bet you live in a Hoosier home

The ASA ruling that has been quoted here offhandedly so many times does not have anything to do with the claim of no clogging!  The ASA was completely satisfied that the machine does not clog or lose suction if the customer follows the printed directions included with the machine.  Which, understandably, something Hoosiers have a hard time understanding

What the ASA ruling had to do with (and the ASA is in England NOT in America, and is not a LEGAL authority) was the implied claim that the Dyson does not have filters at all.  That claim was implied rather than directly stated, there is a clear difference.  What Dyson actually said in their advertising was that there is no filter in the cyclones to clog, which is true.   But the average consumer took that to mean there were no filters at all, which is not true.  Dyson changed their claim to reflect the fact that there *are* filters, which, if you follow the directions, don't clog!  If you view the ASA ruling you will see that is true.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

A mole is a little creature that crawls under ground and is a nuisance (pest) to the world.  When confronted they dig deeper and hide.They do not see well if at all.  Naturally they are at the bottom of the intelligence chain and serve no useful purpose. How could you expect a mole to follow directions?

Hey Motor:

Awful lot of IF's in your story about the ASA taking dyson to the watershed over its false claim: Never clogs. 

I have a story for you too from a famous childrens' fairy tale:  If the hound didn't stop to rest, it would have caught the rabbit.  But it did, and it didn't. 

ASA bids Sayonora on the old steel guitar to the dyson claim: Never clogs.

Carmine D.

For those that haven't seen it, the ASA ruling.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42594.htm

Dusty

HARDSELL wrote:

Hey HS:

As usual you slant and give half truths to suit your needs.  Moles see quite well.  Just not with their eyes which are very tiny.  Instead, moles use their other senses which evolved to compensate for their eyesight.  It's a myth that they can't see just because they have poor eyesight.  It's also a myth that they are dumb.  They are quite intelligent.  Hence, spies who infiltrate intelligence agencies and gather classified data/information are commonly called "moles."  

If you furrowed in the ground all day, what good would eyesight be to you?  Well, forget the last question.  You don't, and it's still no good!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You contradict your self.  First you say they see without using their eyes. Then you say they use their senses to compensate for eyesight. Where were your senses when you stated this?

I agree that senses compensate for poor eyesight, however that is not seeing.

Read my statement again.  I never stated emphatically that  they do not see.  If they see at all they have tunnel vision at best.