Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Since I have been coming to this site I have seen bickering about Dyson, Hoover and a few other brands. But to me it is why is this industry important and why all the different brands and models. My feeling is that they are necessary to maintain a way of life. Cleanliness, health, and just plain keeping everything nice. We started with dirt floors, went to rock and wood floors. Floors were kept up with brooms for hundreds of years. With the advent of electricity the vacuum cleaner came along  with elecrtic motors.

Just so you know , I am aware of the types of early sweepers from the late 1800's.

So the question I put to you is why is it so important to be a bagless society of Dyson? Why Bagged? Why a particular brand over another? Give me and anyone that comes to this site some answers as to why and how is one better than another?

I am watching and listening.                                                                  Procare           54 years in the business and still going strong.

          

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere -  you've provided one source of your confusion.   The primary function of a vacuum cleaner isn't to maintain suction; it is to remove dirt from the rug.    You accuse independents of using deception, yet the test you advocate is a deception.  You fail to understand that a vacuum performs using both air flow/suction and agitation.    The nozzle design is also important.   Bagged vacuums continue to be effective as the bag fills with dirt.    If bags clogged as Dyson suggests, they would actually blow up once all of the pores were filled.  Yet, that doesn't happen in practice in normal household conditions.   There are documented cases of users neglecting to empty bags until the bag is completely filled and the dirt fill tube is completely clogged.   How could this happen if bagged vacuums are supposed to lose all cleaning ability when they are less than 1/2 full?  

Using your definition of dirty, James Dyson is a dirty con man.  He only tells part of the story.  Certainly he focuses on the advantages of his vacuums - just as his competitors do.  He is no better than they are.  His vacuums have many weaknesses, and an honest independent salesman will gladly point them out to you. 

Thank you Severus. Live forever.

Venson

Don't know if anyone's noticed but the DC22 is being carried by HSN for $799.99.

http://home-solutions.hsn.com/dyson-dc22-motorhead-root-cyclone-canister-vacuum_p-5586116_xp.aspx?webm_id=0&web_id=5586116&sf=hw&dept=hw0108&ocm=HW|hw0108&prev=hp!sf!dept&ccm=HW|hw0108

Venson

I totally agree, Severus!

SEVERUS  ROCKS
 

Hey DIB are you seeing the truth yet?


Is your Hero just an empty suit.


regards

MOLE

DysonInventsBig wrote:
vacmanuk wrote:
VacuumUK,

Re:  Clear bin:  Well, you’re nit picking.  Here’s some nit-picking back-at-ya….  Where are the studies and what percentages of Dyson owners dislike the clear bin?

I would question the intelligence or logic behind owning a clear bin Dyson and then disliking what it does – show’s users the results of Dyson-filtration/Dyson ownership, when the bin is full/time to empty, etc.

Sir James Dyson tells the story of the focus group debacle - when this group denounced his clear bin before launching the first Dyson.    And he also enjoys telling his dislike and distrust of focus groups and enjoys telling how many Dyson owners love the clear bin. I’d guess that the number of clear bins manufactured (copied from Dyson’s design and success) number around 100m worldwide and growing.  Dyson not listening to this focus group has made many competing manufacturers rich.

Re:  Looking before [flushing] emptying:  When Sir James was invited to speak at Yale, MIT and Stanford and while speaking at Yale he received a big laugh from the crowd when he said people did indeed like “looking” at what they vacuumed up.   He went on to say it was like taking a look before flushing.  Everybody (except you?) “looks”, and that’s why it got a big laugh.

Re:  Patents:  Only a fool would become a vacuum manufacturer without strong proprietary patents.  Up until the recession, these patents provided (directly or indirectly) Sir James an annual net of around $110m-$120m per year.

Re: “clouds of dust re-entering homes or lungs”:  Well, this a lame claim.  Dyson has filed a lawsuit over Oreck’s deliberately (infomercial) “dusting out a home” when emptying a clear bin.  Again, I’d question the intelligence of emptying a clear bin inside a home as Oreck did and as CR does.  I’d question the reasoning and logic of emptying inside a home as you suggest.  And I’d question the intelligence of not following the example Dyson gives in their instruction’s (using a plastic bag).  If vacuum dealers and collectors were as smart and unbiased as they claim, then they would gladly show how a simple water mist lined plastic bag can/will grab much of the floating dust.

Re:  Bags v. bin dumping:  Only because bags choke and leave dirt, dust and debris behind in carpeting’s do folks forgo bag vacuums.  I’ve read that 46% of the UK are using bin’s vice bags.


DIB

Note:  Venson (who’s not Severus)   -  No need to write a reply on deliberately dusting a home when emptying a bin.  We’ve had this conversation before.

DIB:

We've had all the discussions you re-posted above before many times too.  You inevitably repeat the dyson party line .  Why?   Your perspective is always that of one who has his head up James's posterior.  Hence, the reason you look before James flushes. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Thanks DIB but I am not in need of your permission to speak as it is not and never was required here. I'll decide on when and about what I'll reply to even though, in this case, there's little you given us to think on. As usual you're merely spouting "information" you got off a Dyson box or one of Lord Jimmy's press releases. His mouth is no prayerbook and his behind is no stack of bibles.

In general terms, your're plastic bag theory is useless as it merely adds additional steps to what bagless vacs are said to make simple. (That's what the average consumer looks for -- time savers.) If I have to run for a plastic bag to empty a bagless machine that I am advised and encouraged by the manufacturer to empty after each use I might as well have a machine with a disposable bag and save myself the time.

As regards highly sensitive persons -- for whom bagless vac is discouraged -- if a central vac system is not an option, although $#%*bersome and a challenge to maintain, a water-type vac might be the better ticket. All collected dirt, etc., is wet down and merely has to be flushed away.

I would suggest that you go tell Dyson to stop bothering with suing other manufacturers and go for something monumental like taking Consumer Reports to court. It strongly discourages the use of bagless vacuums by those who suffer from exposure to dust.

As for patents, Dyson I am sure will come to see that they're only good for so many runs to the courthouse. Then they'll probably stop moaning and groaning and get to making better product.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB:

You're lack of logic and sense is pitiful.  The students laughed becaused it is funny not because it is true.  Look it's simple even you can grasp:  A bagged vacuum user puts a new EMPTY FRESH bag in the vacuum [in the house, not outside].  Then, in 2-3-4-5-6 weeks, depending on the size of the bag, vacuum usage, the user looks [if it doesn't have a full-bag indicator like most bagged vacuums do] at the bag to see if the debris is up to the FULL LINE, just like they do with your fave brand, except a lot less often.  If so, the user removes the FULL DIRTY bag and tosses in the trash [inside the house not outside in the trash].  They see the dirt picked up too, don't they?  If not, they wouldn't have to replace the bag.  Right! 

WRT bin versus bag, [ASSUMING your facts are accurate since you did not provide proof/source of authority] 46% is not quite half.  So dyson, by bad mouthing bagged vacuums, losses 54 percent of UK vacuum buyers/users.  Dah!  The majority.  It would appear a bright entrepeneur/inventor like James would want to capture all the market not just a portion of 46 percent.  Sounds dumb to write-off 54 percent of the UK vacuum buyers/users even before getting started.  

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Again, DIB, your logic and business sense woefully fails to meet an asset litmus test.  Take the high end amount IN GOOD TIMES of $120,000,000 and divide by 500 dyson engineers.  The result is $240,000 per engineer.  Then deduct the engineers' salaries.  Let's say $100,000 per being conservative, probably more but let's lo-ball.  That's $50 MILLION in salaries.  What's left?  $70 MILLION.  Before paying the in-house cost of the dyson patent lawyers and his hired legal guns in 3 piece suits with 3 names from New York City.  What's left, if anything, is not alot of money, DIB.  Quite the opposite.

Dyson isn't interested in producing/selling leading edge floorcare products.  He wants to sue others who actually do and take a piece of their profits.  Ironically, they may not even know they are infringing on dyson patents.   James: what a vacuum guy!

Carmine D.