Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

In the press today:-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23711862-details/Dyson+with+more+revs+than+F1+racer/article.do

Product details:-

• Motor goes at 106,000rpm 'three times faster than any other motor'
• 200 watt motor
• 65/38 air watts (switchable power??)
• £129.99 GBP RRP, powered brush version £149.99

I think the devil will be in the other details, as we learn them. Presumably it's using the Dyson Digital motor? From the photo, the collection bin looks slightly deeper and has a more prominent release switch. It has improved max suction (DC16 has 36 air watts) so I'm presuming (nay hoping) that it can run in standard mode for more than 5mins and switch to a 'turbo' mode as needed?

I have prefectly good DC16, but I could be tempted by something with a longer run time and twice the already impresive suction for car cleaning.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I know the reason you call it a hobby, DIB.  There is no money in it for you.  It's a losing proposition.  Like the latest 5-10 minute operating time on dyson's hand held for $220-$270, not counting the $60 for the attachments.

Carmine D.

If you happen to be a consumer reports.com subscriber, you can see their ratings of hand vacs at the following link:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/appliances/laundry-and-cleaning/vacuum-cleaners/small-vacuum-ratings/ratings-overview.htm

The Dyson DC16 is one of the products rated.  It ranks 8 out of the 12 products tested.   It got fairly good marks, but unfortunately, the very short battery life seriously limits it's usefulness.  Apparently it's a bit of a screamer too in terms of its sound level. 

Thanks Severus.

Venson

So, one must conclude from the CR tests/rankings that the highest priced handheld of all handhelds "dyson" at $150-$200 gets no higher than the bottom 30 percentile.  8th out of 12.  Pitiful.  Still hope: A $220-$270 dyson handheld.  Let's see what that manages from CR in the next go round. 

Carmine D.

Which handhelds ranked lower?

How many uprights were ranked?

CarmineD wrote:
If the Oreck finished 27 out of 29 that is worse than pitiful.  Bottom 1%.

HS:

ORECK is still stuck in your craw.  First, you are mistating the facts.  There are 40 uprights tested.  Second, you can't go by the numerical ranking.  Obviously you either didn't read SEVERUS's post to DIB, the sour puss, in which he said dyson DC28 tied with KIRBY on the numerical score of 67 for the 10th spot.  But either due to d coming before K or CR's generosity it gave the 10 spot to dyson.  I think it was a sympathy call.

Now back to your mistated facts.  ORECK scored a numerical score of 60 along with several others including dyson's DC18.   The top score, as SEVERUS pointed out to you already, is 73.  The bottom score [number 40] is 39.  So, doing the math, and using the CR curve with 73 as the best, ORECK scored in the 82 percentile for uprights.   Now, I'm sure even you can understand this.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Could you give those same type statixtics for the DC31?

In all honesty, the handheld vacuum ratings don't look particularly useful.  It looks to me like CR was struggling to come up with a way to compare the things.  The designs are so different (cordless/corded, rotating brush/suction only, etc.) that the overall rankings don't seem all that useful.  The highest rated handheld, the Bissell Pet something or other, gets a poor score for handling pet hair.  The lowest rated is a Hoover with a rotating brush model/ corded model which does great on pet hair, but not surprisingly doesn't do as well on bare floors.  The only truly useful information included is the charge/use times for cordless models, and the information about the Dirt Devil Kone models that were recalled for sending projectiles at the user. 

HS:

Here's my take.  If a company has the highest priced handheld on the market by as much as 100, 200, 300 percent and more, and can't rate in the top tier of the current competion it is a pathetic overpriced worthless product.  Now even you can understand this when it's put in this way.

Carmine D.