Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Story here:  http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/40463852.html

CarmineD wrote:
Has not Oreck made themselves out to be an enemy to Dyson?  Oreck has made a second career out of attacking the Dyson vacuum (in their infomercials, etc), attacking Dyson’s marketing and suing Dyson.  If Oreck spent more time on themselves, paying their bills on time, keeping up a good credit history, not having to sell their financial souls to outside investors, inventing, creating new and needed markets, being first to market, etc.,- they would not need to sue (so badly) and write creative claims of their vacuum's wonders and their leading edge engineering that cannot be proven as true.


DIB

I offer no comment on your opinions of ORECK, other than to say I am pleased with mine and it performs exactly as I want and expect.  I do seem to recall that ORECK and HOOVER too [if memory serves me correctly] joined with the 30 plus others, who characterized themselves as disgruntled dyson owners and users, who filed against dyson with the ASA in the UK.  I doubt these customers and buyers of dysons had any motives for bringing dyson up against the ASA other than fairness and truth in dyson's product claims.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

It shouldn't be difficult to find 30 consumers who disliked any product ever sold.

Exactly when does Dyson lose suction?

CarmineD wrote:
My opinions? - No.  Recorded history? - Yes.  I merely organized this history into a few sentences.

Glad you enjoy your Oreck.  Your Oreck and today's current line of Oreck’s prove out that for most manufacturers, [major] innovation is impossible.

DIB

Some, maybe more, like the classics and buy them for that reason.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Not just 30 plus consumers who dislike their products after they purchased but went a step further.  They took issue with dyson's product claims and took dyson before the ASA for them.  I can't recall another vacuum brand in recent years that had that happen either here with the FTC or in the UK with ASA save your fave brand. 

Dyson vacuums, like all bagless vacuum products, lose suction when their filters clog.   That was the crux of the disgruntled dyson customers' filing with the ASA in the UK.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You apparently have never heard of a class action law suit.  No reason for other vacuum makers to be sued.  They have no technology to infringe on.  Who wants to sue for advertising such as:  "SAME ANTIQUATED TECHNOLOGY AS ALL OUR PREVIOUS ONES" or  "STILL CHOKES AND LOSES SUCTION AFTER A FEW MINUTES USE" or  "WE ONLY CHANGED THE SKU NUMBER SO YOU DUMMIES WOULD BUY IT".  My favorites:  "SOLD ONLY BY INDEPENDENTS SO YOU CAN ALSO GET SCREWED ON REPAIRS" or "OUR VACUUMS DON'T PERFORM, HOWEVER WE GIVE YOU A GIFT TO OFFSET ITS POOR PERFORMANCE".

Dyson should add:  IDIOTS DO NOT TRY THIS VACUUM AT HOME.  Would you drive a car forever and never change filters?

 "Never clogs, never loses suction" is addressed by the wisdom stated in never say never.  Never means never.  It "doesn't" mean: If you clean the filters every 2 months.  And if it did, dyson should have said so, as it does now.

Carmine D. 

HARDSELL wrote:

Does the maker claim that to be lifetime? 

Carmine D.

Every vacuum has decreased cleaning power over time. Suction is just one necessary element of effective cleaning. Whether or not it degrades over use is not really relevant as long as the vacuum being used has sufficient cleaning power to remove whatever dirt is present in the rug or carpet.

Compare a Dyson to a Sanitaire upright, for example, on a medium grade plush. The bag in the Sanitaire will clog eventually, but how long will it maintain its sand and dirt removing ability? Long enough to remove a lot of sand and dirt. It also depends on the condition of the belt and the brush as well as the bag, none of which are hard to change. But with reasonable maintenance, the Sanitiare will still be doing an excellent job of thoroughly cleaning rugs and carpets long after the Dyson has gasped it last.

Canisters and central vacs suffer loss of cleaning power due to the abrasion of the insides of their hoses, something even many vacuum professionals overlook. When the vacuum cleaner was respected as a machine that significantly reduced household labor and prolonged the life and appearance of rugs and furnishings, the prospect of a new hose and cloth bag every 5 years or so was considered a reasonable expense. Now, the vacuum cleaner is scorned and treated as a used disposable diaper. I don't think the current state of the vacuum industry is all the manufacturers fault. Much of the blame lies with the consumer who wants a shiny new bagless vacuum, and will fork over $150.00 as frequently as every six months in some cases. Perusing the vacuum aisle at Wal-Mart, there were two vacuums above $150.00, the Dyson 07, and the bagged Hoover Platinum set, which was the only bagged vacuum on the shelves that day. Not one canister, save the portable boxed with the Platinum upright.

The irony of the entire Dyson controversy is that Dyson created and marketed his line of vacuums to the worst possible audience, the lazy and careless:

1) No bags "I don't have to remember to buy them"

2) No belts "I never have to change them"

3) No clogging " I can suck up whatever is on the floor without stopping to pick it up"

4) On-board tools "I don't have to drag them out, or remember where I put them.

5) Automatic height adjustment " I don't have to be concerned about the correct setting"

6) Filters? "What filters?"

Satisfied Dyson users are without exception fastidious people who take extraordinarily good care of their household equipment. And, for the the most part, unhappy Dyson owners belong to that group of people who just don't understand the subtle distinction between their vacuum and a backhoe.

7) Read the manual? "You are joking, right?"

Trebor