Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Anybody have any ideas about what actually should constitute the basics of a good "green" vacuum cleaner?

I was checking out the Eureka Envirovac's ad claims and specs -- plus some not so favorable customer reviews today. They got me thinking.

Eureka claims that it's Envirovac's 800-watt motor uses less power than the 1200-watt vacuums now quite common on the market. We've had a long run of vacuum cleaners that have served us well using well under 800 watts for many years. So what's the difference?

Is it possible that an efficient 1200-watt vacuum may help get my work finished faster and even out the power consumption question by way of shorter use time? Also keep in mind that the whole issue of a vacuum cleaner's power consumption is highly debatable. Over a year, power used for vacuuming no where near matches the amount of draw by refrigerators, electric ranges and high heat producing appliances within the same span of time.

Better bagged and bagless vacuums do use final filtering medium that may prove a noticeable hit on the wallet if not our ecology. Dumping a dirt bin or water-pan in some ways may lend to saving on what you'd pay for bags although the variable there may hang upon size and price. We use far more paper and plastic by way of other household disposables like diapers and personal paper goods.

The few matters mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg when considering the total question. Maybe an ecologically beneficial vacuum cleaner, or any other appliance for that matter, can be more "green" by way of potential longevity and easy repairability. Biodegradable, recyclable, whatever -- brands and models we've seen endure and provide useful service over long periods of time may be the greenest cleaning machines we'll know by reason of less need for replacement. How do we keep that in the mix while moving ahead?

Venson

Deleted.

CarmineD wrote:
Not quite. My point was that a dumped vacuum might be sold on for a nominal price, like 5 GBP, for recycling but clearly there's a reason that the Dyson's are kept separate, because they are can actively be sold on for a better price. Usually, items left will instantly become the property of the site owner and if anyone wants to remove them, they will have to agree on a price.

Dyson would have little justifiable reason for uplifting the vacuums, other than to discourage after sales of machines and parts. It's like if you need a replacement car door, you might call a junk yard to see if they have the same model as a write off... and Ford, say, actively going around buying up all the car doors off their scrapped cars to prevent lost sales through their authorised repairers. It's a lot of work and most people would find it desperately underhand if it was exposed.

In this case, being a local authority is would be fairly simple for anyone to put in a FoI request and find out if the disposed vacs are sold to single person / company or not.

M00seUK:

Not quite [back at you].  Salvage and junk yards are in the used car parts business for the profit motive.  Dumps/disposals are not in the business to resell garbage for profit.  They charge recycling/dumping fees to defray the expenses of operation which are funded by local taxing authorities.  I agree with you that there is something more done with dysons.  You opine that independent vacuum dealers/persons are buying up the dumped dysons and reselling either in whole or for parts.  You may well be right.  I opine that dyson may be doing the very same.  More than likely both may be in competition and bidding the prices up.  I stated that this is not uncommon.  Several very successful vacuum companies, in their infancy and before recycling was an issue, did this in the USA with huge success in reselling the old vacuums as reconditioned to factory specs.  And set the prices.

The dumps are indifferent to who buys the dysons and why.  They will sell most likely to the highest bidder.  Who has the most to gain as the highest bidder.  Independents acting willy nilly at the whim of after market buyers and/or dyson with the ability to write off the expenses as business related? 

Carmine D.   

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine

  I agree.....money talks and CASH is king......and dyson as i see it has the most to lose by not buying them up. this would be a way to control the market on used/refurb parts...allowing him to keep all dyson prices high......overpriced. ....all is fair in war......and im suprised all dont do it. Cant say i blame dyson for it tho..... id do it also in all honesty. .youll try anything when your in a sinking ship....desperate times call for desperate measures.

turtle1

Hi 'turtle1'

CASH, or in this case, GBP.  On the barrel head.  Cash and carry for junked dysons.  No checks, no receipts.  In theory, the dump has rules and regulations on how these funds should be collected, reported and used to defray the costs of dump/disposal operations.  In theory.  In practice, what really happens? 

Carmine D.

Oh boy.  Idle hands...

Between [so-called] Severus’ Boycott Dyson theory, Carmine’s and Retardturtle’s Dyson’s conspiracy theories, I’d say you guys could use some much needed down time.

Hey, I hear the next Star Trek convention is just around the corner.  Pace yourselves and stay focused on what really matters....  the prize... the convention, and being with others who are like-minded.  Phasers off.


DIB

DIB:

The truth is there are a host of factory refurbed dyson models advertised weekly for sale by all big box retailers.  Who do you suppose refurbs these to factory specs and how do you suppose they get them? 

Carmine D.

I know about the return refurbs.  I don't know about Dyson manipulating the UK Dyson market as you two layout in your theories.  Are you and Retardturtle breaking the news of this occurring?


DIB

So DIB if you know about the huge market among retailers in dyson refurbs where do suppose they come from?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Take all the time you need to answer.  You can get assistance with your answer too.  I'll even help you if need be.  

Carmine D.