Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://gizmodo.com/345918/dyson-dc24-vac-sir-james-brings-his-ball-back

Two models, one small, one large :-

DC24
http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/product.asp?product=DC24-ALLFLOORS

DC25
http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/product.asp?product=DC25-ALLFLOORS

mole wrote:

Good to know that you are making a living with the dragster.  You simply could not survive on 1 repair a week. Especially since you do not charge for repairs.

On the other hand I suspect that you make a decent living repairing all those other brands.  Why else would a repairman want to see them sold.  No problems, no income.

CarmineD wrote:
Dyson still kicked you and Hoover regardless of how you avoid the truth.  My experience in an Oreck store is not so favorable. 

It's true...
I've seen the data (charting).  As Dyson's upright share rose, Hoovers dove.  Fact!  All other mfgs. basically stayed flat.

DIB

mole wrote:

Hi Mole:

Very gracious gesture on your part.  Excellent good will. 

2 dyson dealers in North Las Vegas have offered me part time positions [I won't take anything full time] to repair and refurb dysons.  BTW, they also sell and repair MIELE, RICCAR, BOSCH and a host of others.  The dysons with the clutches [DC07 and DC14] are the most problem/repair prone high priced brand in their stores.  I mentioned that the DC25 's, which one store sells ON REQUEST ONLY, have been coming back with defective wiring harnesses that break too easily and too soon after purchase.  The store won't sell the DC15 and DC24.  The owner/manager said that he will probably add the DC25 soon to the list of the ball models that he will not sell.  Next time I visit, I'll ask about the DC18.  I didn't see any in his store for sale/repair, so maybe it was scrubbed already.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

HankJones wrote:

There is a contradiction of facts in the above statements.  Who's right and wrong?  Can't both be true unless then posters are talking about different time frames.  It is, as I tell HARDSELL about his posts and questions a logical contradiction.  Clarify please with source and references and time frames.  Thanks.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

What can you tell us about the Hoovers that were causing fires due to faulty switches?  Seems as if they have had faulty switches since 1999. Hoover had to recall over a half million vacs in 2005 because of defective switches.  Jump to 2007. Maybe the cost of that recall was so severe that it prompted them not to notify the CPSC of sales of vacuum cleaners with another defective switch that can cause fire.  THEY PAID A $750,000 CIVIL PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO REPORT.

The pressure from Dyson was just too much for Hoover.  They resorted to using dangerously defective parts, then spending mega bucks on recalls and finally hiding a dangerous defect from the CPSC.

WOW,  DYSON SURE HAS PINCHED YOU AND HOOVER.  NO WONDER YOU TWIST AT THE BIG D WORD.

HARDSELL wrote:
Hey H.S. long time no see, I repaired the dc18 on my own time,just  had to find out why the machine only worked in the hose /attachment mode.Almost gave up after 2 hours but me being me l really hate getting beat by problems that are related to my business you know the deal[like the factory trained lexus tech that cant figure out whats going on with a certain electrical or mechanical gremlin,and besides no one else would even take the dyson in to even look at it,I gained more product knowledge and probaly made in the long run more good customers and money than charging the shop rate and gave her the bums rush out the door,
Another thing not to do to a customer is repremand them for not buying the product you sell,It makes them feel stupid and ashamed,they already know that they bought a CLAM, why rub their nose in it?

regards

MOLE

HARDSELL wrote:

HARDSELL, you're still living in the past and the once glory days of dyson in the USA.  They're gone.  Finito.  You're still, like many of your dyson admirers here who cringe at the truth telling of dyson's deceit, brainwashed from the dyson bagless bin sales propaganda.  

In 2007, Whirlpool was the proud owner of HOOVER and the switch recall was long over and resolved.  I blame MAYTAG's incompetent  management for the delay in notifying the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2005.  The latter is the reason, at least in part, that the CPSC monetary fine [$750,000], since no damage was done from the defective switches except to the vacuum, was excessive.  Highest if I recall ever assessed by the CPSC on an aplpliance maker.  The CPSC made an example of MAYTAG's time delay, as well it should.  HOOVER suffered the consequences at the fault of MAYTAG.

HOOVER did a yeoman's job on the recall and replacing the faulty switches for WT users.  Fast forward to March 2009 and the battery pack fires in the Electrolux Pronto/Ergorapido.  The entire product line was at risk, not just a batch of faulty switches like the HOOVER WT.   No fine was assessed to Electrolux by the CPSC.  The entire line was withdrawn for several months and completely replaced. 

Carmine D.

PS HARDSELL: Thanks for bringing up this old CPSC case and HOOVER.  I had thought of making a comparison between how the CPSC handled HOOVER and its faulty batch of WT switches and Electrolux AB Homecare with the battery packs in two entire lines of stick vacuums.  As you recall, I posted about the Electrolux recall here.  I decided not to make mention of the glaring descrepancy at the time.  Your question obviously changed my perspective.

Carmine D. 

PS 2:

FWIW, the recent handling of Electrolux by the CPSC gives HOOVER the circumstances and opportunity to appeal the monetary fine of $750,000 in 2005, if HOOVER/TTI has not done so already.  Since the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this case,  HOOVER/TTI can file an appeal with the courts and protest the amount of the CPSC fine.  I would especially since the assessed fine amount was by any and all measures excessive and exobitant.   HOOVER/TTI would prevail in my opinion, especially in light of the recent Electrolux case.

Carmine D.