Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

CarmineD wrote:
Correction: Dyson's are made from ABS and Polycarbonate, for added impact resistance.

As I said, you’ll here lots of banter/differences on this forum...  

True the cheap vacs use ABS as do the best in business, it's all about engineering and quailty.

Consumer Reports (2007?) rated the Dyson DC17 #2 behind the mostly all metal $1,200 (or so) Kirby and it was made using ABS (first in plastic, if you will).  Dyson’s use Polycarbonate too (very strong).
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-polycarbonate.htm

Here are some sites and video of Dyson’s being tested and deliberately mistreated.
http://www.dyson.co.uk/insidedyson/#dc24 (click on video)
http://www.dyson.co.uk/testing/
http://www.dyson.co.uk/insidedyson/#testingfacilities


DIB

M00seUK wrote:

Technically: "high impact ABS thermoplastic and polypropylene."  A $50 Dirt Devil or $500 dyson, it's all the same.

Carmine D.

I think I will have to second the Sebo recommendation.  For a vacuum that takes a lot of use, and moving the Sebo is practically indestructible.  The entire machine is certified to filter to HEPA standards, the hose is very easy to use, and as was mentioned already, removing hair from the brush is very easy to remove and clean.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Dysons crack, break, nick, and ding just like all the others on the market that are many dollars cheaper.  Technical instructions related to dyson make it a special point to caution about the use of care in disassembly and assembly lest the plastic components will break. 

Carmine D.

 

I also forgot to mention about the bags and filters.  The bags will last a long time, usually about a month each (they really do pack the dirt in well), and the filters are recommended to be changed "when discolored", meaning turning tan from the dirt.  This can be anywhere from a year to a year and a half.  The overall maintenance cost on the Sebo will actually be less than continually replacing those messy filters on the Hoover you have now.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Not quite DIB, you're a tad bit confused.  The Kirby Sentria was rated in the 4th and 5th spots in 2008 while dyson's DC17 was in the 7th and 9th places.  The other dyson models were rated and ranked in the middle of the field of all others. 

I believe you meant to quote reliability data which is not model specific, only brand.  Kirby is the best brand for reliability and has been for many years by Consumer Reports.  Dyson ranked second.  But, you have to remember that this was the very first time Consumer Reports gathered enough survey data to include dyson.  Consumer Reports makes alot of caveats about its reliability data.  For example, new brands, with less time and models in use among the consumers surveyed, tend to score better due to the inherent risks of the limited amount of the survey data associated with new brands.  CR advises readers that the reliability data is more meaningful when reviewed over time for consistency. 

Which?, a counterpart to CR in Europe, rated dyson vacuums as the most unreliable vacuum brand, both canisters [cylinders] and uprights for 7 of 8 consecutive years.  It was not until recently that dyson was able to get out from under all the other brands for the worse in reliability.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
The $50 DD razor thin margins account for much failures. - You get what you pay for.          DIB

CarmineD wrote:
Not so fast.  Rating a vacuum based on assembly?

Dyson can use melted down Jujubes for all I care.  As long as the vac performs as advertised or more.

DIB

Hello DIB:

It is what it is:  A substance that breaks, cracks, nicks and dings.  But lightweight!  The notion that a higher price guarantees better quality is naive.  Why?  Does paying $700 for a dyson DC15 ball make it less likely to have broken hinges and cracked bins than paying $300 for a DC15 ball?  Did the $700 buyer get more than the $300 buyer? Of course not.  That's why you purchased yours for $300 and not $700. 

Carmine D.