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.

          

procare wrote:
Hi Procare,

Congratulations on your long tenure in the vacuum business and, speaking for myself, I'm always glad to learn your outlook on things.

A good vacuum cleaner is any machine that satisfies the user in the long run and across the spectrum of tasks it used to accomplish. It also encourages its use as opposed to causing the user to avoid using it.

This brand versus that brand is an issue only for some and mostly leads to debate similar to those having to do with apples and oranges or why not vanilla instead of chocolate.

The sense of trust fostered by old familiar names like Hoover, Eureka and Electrolux (no matter who owns them now) may motivate a certain part of the public to buy. Many new names riding on new claims of benefit may influence the same on the basis not so much on trust but faith in technology. Basically all, at least at first, has more to do with strong and continued advertising. Nonetheless, per a prior post, I stick to my guns and say it's all about getting the job done satisfactorily and quickly.

There has never been a concrete way to judge the worthwhileness of one machine over another in the eye of a specific vacuum owner. As you date back to an era prior high-watt motors and power nozzles, I am sure that you can recall the Kirby or Air-Way owner -- two totally different machines -- that felt she had the ultimate cleaning machine and wouldn't have traded for a truckload of very popular Hoovers. Or the staunch Rexair user that felt there was not a thing better in the world. And of course, think of all those Electrolux users as far back as the 1920s that felt and still feel the brand is great just because it was good enough for Mom whom I'd wager never once gave a lecture on deep cleaning, HEPA filters or aerodynamics.

Despite the estimated four billion spent annually to acquire them, many Americans still don't see need for a vacuum at all if they don't own carpeting. Most consumers that do merely want a vacuum cleaner no matter the myriad of claims. They merely want to get their machine of choice out of the closet and back in within the least time frame possible for the work required. Digging deep to rout sub-surface dirt and carpet destroying grit, running riot on dust mites are all nice as long as the machine that does it doesn't cost a lot. In the end result, as long as the top of the rug looks clean or the machines picks up what it's been directed toward, you've got happy campers.

We're now living in a world where there are less and less all-day stay-at-homes with either time or the inclination to concentrate on a perfect state of clean. (Most folks at home these days are out of work and can't afford to do much shopping.) There are just too many other things requiring attention.

The bagless issue is more a selling trap than anything else. Its mention to would-be buyers implies that they only pay once and never again. No more bags -- no more cost. However we know that this is incorrect thinking after the fine print has been read. Many bagless machines require the eventual replacement of expensive filtering medium plus possibly brushrolls and belts over the life of the cleaner. Many bagless brands also require special or extra care to prove useful in the long run.

On the other hand, we're expected to bow to mysticism served up per a manufacturer's say-so and accept that the air in our home will be rendered toxic unless we regularly put out fifty bucks for more for high-grade filters or three to four bucks a pop on special bags. We forget how many generations prior managed to get by on old bagged Electroluxes, Hoovers and similar machines -- then glorified but now referred to as dust blowers -- and that the incidence of asthma was less during their time.

Vacuum cleaners are and have been a boon in that they have allowed us more flights of fancy as regards interior decoration and design. Imaging having to uninstall wall-to-wall carpeting every spring to beat it clean. Impossible!

The well-designed ones have indeed upped the ante in regard to dust and litter capture and containment. However, they have not necessarily made housework less labor intensive and there are still any number of everyday occurences, even handhelds considered, where it is far more practical to grab a dust cloth or broom and dustpan to accomplish a simple task in short order.

Putting the question another way, why do we need so many brands and models when it comes to cars, or tires or gasoline? Because commerce demands it more than the consumer it would appear. Business competition, competitor to competitor, has always called for the breeding of our dissatisfaction with the others product. This certainly stands true in the area of auto manufacture so why not in the area of vacuums and other household appliances?

Venson

Hello Procare:

When I was in business, and still today when persons learn I was, I'm asked what's the best vacuum on the market.  Despite over 50 years in the business and all the makes and models, my answer is still the same.  When they are working right, used often and maintained correctly, are all vacuums are good.

Carmine D.

Procare:

WRT bagless and bagged vacuums: When we came up through the vacuum ranks, cloth bags were the norm and paper bags were being introduced and used on some models.  While I was a paper proponent from the beginning, I never discouraged cloth if customers insisted.  And many did.  You remember the reusable paper in the HOOVER uprights 60/61/and 62.  Waste of time and money.  Not HOOVER's best hour.

I classify today's bagless in the same category as yester year's cloths.  Same benefits and drawbacks.  Cost factors are the same, dumping the same, smells and odors are the same.  More attention needed for the pre and post motor filters.  Bagless is a fad.  Paper bags are here to stay.  Convenience of not dumping daily is a commodity that people will always pay to get.  Bags provide it.

Back to the dyson bickering:  Dyson's biggest failure, if you can call it that, is its inability to persuade vacuum users that bagless is better.  After 7 plus years of telling customers how bad bags are and how much better bagless are, paper is still the predominant media of dirt collection among the better vacuum products made and sold:  MIELE, SEBO, LINDHAUS, ORECK, KIRBY, RICCAR/SIMPLICITY, AERUS to name the top selling indy/door-to-door brands.

Carmine D. 

Its all about lifestyles and making things easier for the folk! I remember my gran with her washing machine that had a basin at the bottom. Now everything is electric, you no longer need to collect the dirty water because the machine does it for you.

She also owned a very effective and robust Ewbank (UK built) mechanical carpet sweeper before she ever considered a vacuum cleaner again and to replace her old rusty mechanical sweeper she bought a mains corded, Chinese built carpet sweeper which I adored. It was blocky, functional and built to last even though most owners in the UK really thumped them about. To catch the dirt, there was a little cloth bag that covered the main dust channel and all you did was shake it out and give it wash every now and then. Simple. Effective and very easy to keep over time. For her, the premise of a mains corded, no suction but motor power brush roll meant it was easier for her to glide on the floors than getting her main upright vacuum cleaner out. Mains corded electric sweepers were therefore judged purely on the lighter aspect making machinery better and more versatile for the needs of the consumer.

The reason to why there are so many brands now and types is different lifestyles and market forces. It has nothing to do with the thought that why should we have these machines when a carpet sweeper was completely effective? People can't be bothered to remove their rugs to beat outside with a stick anymore; certainly the wet weather in the UK has stopped all washing to be hung out. Times have changed and for the better!

Dyson haven't failed on any inability to sell the idea of bagless; the point isn't just that it stops purchasing of bags, but that the 100% suction (and we all know that after a time it doesn't function but I rather think most owners over use their Dysons to a point of obsession as well as using them for outlandish applications to see if they work, like vacuuming the garden!) is still 100% when the bin is packed full of dust. This is why I like Dyson; I don't care very much for the oodles of different models; I do like the idea of the 100% suction "all the time," rather than realising the dust bag is coming to an end thanks to little suction coming out of the hose or on other bagless rivals that the main filter has to be tapped clean i.e. coming into contact with dust. Hoover in the 1990s tried to copy Dyson and failed but they did introduce clear plastic bags to line the bins of their Vortex uprights which kind of missed the point completely regarding the use and purchase / necessity of extra consumables.

In my opinion though Dyson went a bit too far promoting his technology and priced his first offerings too high. If only his first uprights DC01 (not the pink Japanese horrors) that went "mass production" had a sealed internal toothed belt similar to Sebo, it would have made better sense than reverting to the old ways of rubber drive belts, thus allowing the consumer to do very little to the actual vacuum cleaner when it went wrong aside from de-clogging or cleaning the filters.

Hello vacuum gurus.

Heres my take on this industry. I know i sound like Venson  but here goes, The way things are in todays economy the person or consumer is looking for the best bang for the buck,

These people are getting tired of  broken promises and iffy claims by manufactures,suppliers,dealers,wholesalers, This whole business has turned into a ponzi scheme,
 I for one refuse to play that game,Hence business has been GREAT better than ever,

As most of you know we hit real hard on service and repairs and parts availability,this is where the sales only concerns are really lacking,

With most manufactures parts,and service training is put on the back burner or even non existant,To them its not inportant,Well quess what this way of thinking has now bitten them in the behind.
I for one are glad that they are now being exposed for what they really are,WANNABES

Example, Should the whole high tech latest high winding vortex motors be replaced because the carbons have worn out? Or a $3.00 bearing has gone away,

The consumers that seek out the industry pros are not afraid of laying out the cash they just to be treated right and taken care of when the time comes.

regards

MOLE

mole wrote:

Thanks MOLE.  Glad to hear business is booming.

HARDSELL:  Note the highlighted part of MOLE's post.  Do you get it yet?

Much has been said about consumers avoiding the high price vacuums at the big box retailers BECAUSE of the bad economic conditions.  That may be true.  But many consumers with the do re me are shopping and buying at the indy's because they are tired of educating big box store staff in the products they are selling.  Oftentimes these sales people say things about the products that are blatantly untrue and wrong.  It's biting them in the butt too.  Consumers are returning to the retailers for refunds and credits.  Retailers are returning to the makers.  Oops there goes another refurb.

Carmine D.

procare wrote:
Why Dyson (society?) over bagged...

Dyson can guarantee No Loss of Suction (strength) for a period of time (1 month to many years).  There is not a bag vac manufacturer or a bag manufacturer (including the mighty 3M) that can give this guarantee.

Dyson owners like the convenience and/or looking at how much they have collected in their clear bins vice a concealed bag.

Dyson owners enjoy not having to locate and the costs associated with collection bags and/or filters.

Dyson Ball owners like having more maneuverability-choices/flexibility when saddled with the chore of vacuuming.

Dyson owns broad patents on the Ball, and only Dyson has the legal right to manufacturer this type of steering (best in the world steering) vacuum cleaners.

Dyson owns broad patents on the Core + Root filtration and only Dyson has the legal right to manufacturer these type of separators (best in the world filtration w/DDM) vacuum cleaners.

Dyson DDM DC22 owners enjoy having what looks to be the strongest suctioning, smallest footprint canister in the world vacuum cleaner.

Dyson owners enjoy the connivence of quick bin dumping (although they have not figured out or been taught how to [mostly] eliminate the dust plume, a shame).


DIB

So DIB, what's your explaination for all the dyson refurbs?  If new dyson sales are going back to retailers and dyson sells them on its Web Site AND there are hundreds of pages of them on the internet something's wrong!  Give us your insight as to why.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

BULL.  I just repaired a 4 year old DC07 animal used once/twice a week tops and it needed a new post-motor filter.  $40 bucks.  And the pre-motor filter [$20] was shakey.  Could have been replaced.  $20.

Carmine D.

DIB:

I can tear apart each of the silly points you made about dysons with incontrovertible proof.  I choose only one, probably the biggest dyson selling myth propagated:  No cost for bags and lifetime filters.  Yeah, right!  I'll spare others here reading my redundancy just to prove you wrong again and again.  You refuse and ignore the truth about dyson.  It's no better than any other big box outsourced brand made vacuum on the market today, bagged/bagless.  Just much more expensive [at least for now but prices are dropping].  Sooner or later you'll gat your head out of James' butt and you'll have to come to terms with the truth about your fave brand.  Mediocre performance at best at exorbitant prices.

Carmine D.