Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

HARDSELL wrote:

Anytime.  Try one free.  People enjoy using them daily.  And the free canister comes with a better set of attachments than the $60 set with the DC31 handheld.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Ah yes.  The old toilet shuffle.  Topic is the DC28 upright.  No real need for a seperate canister.  Great hose suction as compared to Oreck.  Oh sorry.  Oreck does not have a hose.  Is that because it does not create enough suction like Hoover, because it would clog or becauser it adds weight.  Probably the first 2.

The only toilet shuffle is flushing $500 down one on a dyson.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Doesnt DYSON  and a toilet use the same CYCLONIC principle. Now does anyone know why rainbow is known as the portable cesspool.

MOLE

The more I think, the more I'm concerned that dyson has a $600 red herring on his hands.  Most here in the biz will know and say that the positioning of the cam on the brush roll of the DC28 is prone to trapping dirt and hair.  This dirt collection has always been problematic to brush roll ends and bearings.  We know that as a fact.  What makes dyson think it won't be for a cam that depends on cleanliness and freedom from dirt to operate properly.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:  Im no engineer..nor an expert on this new power head  but wouldnt a floating head with a little weight added  produce the same effect / results as a powered one/broll  at a much needed lower cost.   im just not seeing where it is really a huge factor...or better than height adjst / weighted floating head.   ive read every post and im curious as to why dyson doesnt say he was wrong....about height adj. and redo the head to accomidate the lever /knob.... make the ajustments in smaller settings to better fine tune to the carpet...its way cheaper and no reliability issues.....saves everybody money across the board. not putting him or his idea down.....hes a gifted man...but some things are fine and better left alone.

I personally think the floating head principle works fine for the most part in the UK and similar places that favour short pile carpeting. Dyson's original reasoning is that height adjustments on the cleaning head were rarely used and thus often incorrectly set, so for many people in many situations the floating head idea was a better compromise.

Clearly, in the US they've struggled to get a top rating on deep cleaning ability. The unofficial line appears to be that many of their competitors with better results in the tests achieve this by being over aggressive, causing carpet wear. If you recall on this forum a few years ago, someone posted non-public photos sourced via Dyson that showed carpet damage reprehensive of other  cleaners.

So, the Dyson DC28 is what they're putting forward as the answer... well if you're prepared to pay for it. I suspect the initial goal will be to see if they can get it to the top of the CR tests and similar - that would be a PR victory (of which they're so fond) at the very least.

M00seUK wrote:

wouldnt  rollers with replacable brushes [soft-med-stiff ] solve this prob....or a med texture bristle with a stiffner strip achive a deep clean with minimal carpet wear...you would think that more research would go into to the b-roll....i also see where and have learned that on eurekas vg-2 roller it vibrates as it cleans....a deep clean with less wear...many swear by the vg-2 but wonder why its not used in todays by-pass systems.  i feel that to achieve that deep clean your gonna have wear no matter what...so its a trade off...you take the good you gotta xpect  a little bad....just seems like alot of motors and gears/mechanisims to go wrong /tear up...at high cost. to repair./replace. At the price currently..and economy the way it is.im not seeing too many ready to dump down a load of cash....and as long as CR rates dysons as they have...they will never achive that initial goal....and if they tie with the leader...it means it took dyson many-many -many hundreds of dollars more to do it.

ive yet to see those pictures./posts....will see if i can track it down but thanks for the info on it

turtle1

Consumer Reports is positively influenced by rug height adjustments.  Likes them and recommends vacuums with them.  I recall the photos that M00seUK references.  As I recall, they were just photos w/o descriptions.  No information about the vacuum and/or rug types causing the problems.  It's difficult for a self-adjusting vacuum to do well in the USA.  The only brand of exception is ORECK due to the lightweight.  And as mentioned ORECK excels on low to medium carpet heights.  Too high, and it takes extra muscle to pull and push, the problem with DC28. 

Carmine D.

I believe the photos were taken from an internal / dealer video presentation by Dyson and that the vacuum used in one comparison was the Hoover Windtunnel. It appeared that the Hoover had been running on a carpeted test rig. A section of the carpet was displayed, showing visible wearing as tracks in the pile. Of course, there's nothing to substantiate the claims and Dyson are highly unlikely to go public with these findings. It would fair to assume that the DC28 has been designed as their best compromise of deep down cleaning, while reducing carpet wear.

I like the idea of the DC28 for the tech used, but subjectively wonder if deep down cleaning is required in most homes? Sure, some people will worry about cleanliness and others will have a desire to have the latest and greatest, regardless of the expense. But, personally I don't see it as a big issue.

I remember being curious about carpet height adjusters on vacuums when I was younger. We had an Electrolux with two settings and a Hoover with three. The Hoover needed to be tipped forwards to change the setting - I don't think my parents ever really used it as a result. So, makes good sense to have the switch in an accessible place.

I suspect that Dyson could have easily added a more aggressive brush roll when fitting up the DC07 (and later models) for the US launch. However, you perhaps have to appreciate their typical approach. Being 100% owned by the Dyson family, James has the freedom to do things his own way. There might well have been a decision on the choice of brush roll, with James preferring to 'do it the proper way' rather than fit an over aggressive brush.

A publicly owned company would likely have made a different decision, for the short term financial gain. But Dyson seem happy to get their returns by other long-term means like with the digital motor leading to the hand drier product and the patents filed for possible kitchen appliances, etc. So long as they can maintain sales and cashflow, the company stays private and benefits from greater investment of profits from reduced dividends, away from volatile financial markets.