Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Lordy, lord ol' Jimmy D's cryin' again. He has instigated the banning of Miele S7 adverts . . .

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/10/miele-ads-banned-for-vacuum-cleaner-claims-186889.jsp

Venson

Hello Venson:

Thanks for the link.  The biggest cry baby in the vacuum industry on both sides of the ocean is Sir James Dyson without equal.  Can't and won't own up to the failures and fallacies of his overpriced mediocre products but cries the blues over others.  Sooner or later ASA and the vacuum makers are going to pounce on Sir James and no one save dyson DIB will shed a tear.  Maybe HS will leak a few [just for old time's sake].

Carmine D.

Hi,

I happened to be speaking with my landlord's office manager yesterday and the subject of household stuff came up. Most interestingly she mentioned that she owned a Miele. I replied that I had one too. (I didn't want to go into discussing the TWO I have since you never want your landlord to think you've done a little too well.)

Then, she told me where she'd bought it. And I said, "Wow, that's the same place I got mine from."

But the really interesting part to the story is that she also told me when she bought it. Turn's out that was a little over thirty years ago, just before the birth of her daughter. Of course my next question had to be, "Any problems?"

The answer was, for all that time, she'd only had to replace a damaged hose.

Venson

Venson wrote:

IMMER BESSER. Forever better.

Your landlord's manager's experience with MIELE's is the norm and not the exception.  30 years with only a hose replacement is typical as the major expense.  Thanks for the wonderful story.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Why don’t you go show this cry baby how real ingenuity is done.  With the collective minds of you and Venson and his alter-ego Severus, surely you can demonstrated some blazing breakthroughs that can be made into a product and supported and profited from.  Listening to you three, well two [people] actually, since Severus is not real, but only Venson’s lubricated hand puppet. - Certainly the most efficient way to clear a forum.  THANK YOU VENSON, well done!!!!!!!!


DiB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
DIB,

The one thing I'm more than sure of is that you and psoriasis will never go away. Have fun, you're not worth the worry.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Venson wrote:
I figured out how you're able to be in two places (IP signatures and locations) at the same time.  Of course it took some researching since I am neither freaky or seedy.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Every man to his own opinion.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Venson wrote:
Oh no, not an opinion but technology.  I’d be glad to lay out how you're using/could easily use technology to con the forum.  Of course, if your Severus Snape sock-puppet were to be retired there would be no need to.


DIB

DIB,

Isn't this insisting that Venson is also Severus a bit well, paranoid? The webmaster has said it isn't true, ah but you have the answer as to how Venson is perpetrating his hoax,  but you're not going to tell us, just threaten to. The last time that stunt was pulled, the 'gentleman's' name was McCarthy, and he stirred up quite the hornet's nest over his 'list' of names and 'proof' that the US government and the education system and the entertainment industry were all riddled with 'gasp' Communists. And now you are insisting that our forum, which is obviously so crucial to the security and safety of our nation and life on planet Earth as we know it, is infiltrated by 'gasp' somone who is posting under the guise of a secret identity in the form of a character from popular literature, manifested as a "lubricated hand puppet" ROFLMAO!!!

Please, DIB, you are not in McCarthy's league and he's been dead for awhile. We are never going to see the creation of the word 'DIBism' not even here on the forum. You are embarrassing yourself, give it up already. 

Trebor

DIB,

Please do tell how I'm really Venson.   I'm very disappointed in Dyson for employing you as their representative on this forum.  My respect for Dyson products drops almost every time you make your ridiculous unfounded accusations. 

I do understand why you would like it to be so.   You don't understand how anyone could ever disagree with you - let alone 2 or more.  So yes, I do understand your logic.  It's completely wrong and stupid, but you're entitled to be you.  Given that both Venson and I can write a coherent thought, neither of us needs more than one account to make a point. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:
I don't know why you haven't been tossed off this forum.    If only your father were still around, perhaps you would act like a man. 

   For my two cents worth, The advertising claim that Dyson gripes about doesn't help the cause for Dyson. Dyson is afraid to tell you the life of their motor or let you know that they have equal durabilty as Miele or anyone else.They claim they are more powerful and they aren't and nobody goes back at them because the people will find out . Dyson doesn't own the market for durability or anything else.

                             Procare

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

Interesting observation especially in light of Bucks03 concern about the motor life of a DC04 and other dyson scenarios that have been posted.  Bucks03 did all the right things and got 7 years.  I am familiar with EUREKA bagless motors on its Whirlwind uprights lasting more than 7 years with the same usage as Bucks03 DC04.  At half and less the price of most dysons.  On these EUREKA bagless models, really the beginning mass market bagless uprights in the USA, EUREKA uses a plastic see-thru shroud to cover the entire motor.  Presumably to prevent dirt/dust that enters the motor cavity from degrading the motor.  I mention too that I gifted a half dozen of these EUREKA Whirlwind models away over the past 9 years.  Several of these I used daily in my home for months and even years before gifting.  All still running.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I would tell you and Sir James what others have said who know better about these matters than you and I.  When it comes to vacuum results, technique always trumps technology.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

procare wrote:
Thank you procare for getting us back on track. I wholeheartedly agree with your view. In most business situations, from those as simple as the everyday office environment to those as elaborate and involved as the entertainment industry, hard luck stories, could have-would have-should haves, and complaints don't usually get you far AND, as you mentioned are more a strike against the bearer than a benefit.

Whatever the line of business, it is not advisable to knock the competition and certainly not good to make trouble for them to improve your advantage. (I'm sure you're familiar with the thing about being careful in your dealings with others as you head up ladder because you never know who you'll be meeting on the way down.)

If you don't like what the competition's doing, come out with a better product or a better show. If and when you do, it says it all.

Venson

 The article in question I looked at again and realized the ASA made an error in their judgement. When you make a claim that a unit was designed for up to 20 years use . It did not mean it would last 20 years. Some of the units would last that length of time. It is the same way Steam Cleaners got out of many law suits on their claim of getting up to 90%  of the water out of your carpet.  The claim was proven false time and time again  The catch all phrase up to and the fact it said in small print  (under Laboratory conditions) kept the State of Indiana from suing for false advertising when their tests showed 15%  was sucked up. Dyson and ASA were wrong in saying false claims.

                                        Procare

The $4b Miele advertised some S7 claim[s], Miele’s own data did not support these claims, the ASA agreed, agreed with the $1b Dyson (complaint) and then shut this so-called campaign down.

The Miele S7 (slightly steerable) would not have happened if the Dyson Corp. did not have the brains and guts to introduce The-Ball vacuum innovations, which proved winners and money makers.  So while Miele pushed for impossible and unachievable [legal] advert heights, they wound up doing a public relations "face plant."  Although Miele should feel good knowing they got something from nothing - that is, watching, learning and then making and selling a poor imitation from the Dyson DC25, DC18, DC24 steerables.  Immer Besser!


DIB


http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_47110.htm

Severus wrote:
I'll tell you why I have not been tossed...  I am one of few and by far the loudest unashamed supporter to the most innovative, yet lied of and bad-mouthed in the industry today, that is Dyson.  Additionally, I bring much more traffic here than anything you're capable of.  No brag, just fact.

My father despised liars, thieves, cheats, loud mouthed wannabes, phonies, users and cons.  After we were robbed by employees, ripped off by so-called friends and even had an employee murdered, we became much more watchful and careful.  We still had fun, we just watched out backs more.

DIB

P.S.  I believe you're sitting comfortably and anonymously behind a proxy server, and that’s how you can look as if you're two separate users from two separate cities (1 IP and location for Venson and 1 IP and location for Severus).  Am I right?  There's ways of finding out.

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

Interesting conclusions on your part and I agree with you.  The ruling entities, like ASA and the judge in the Kenneth J suit with dyson over the ball facilitator, don't understand the historical industry evolution of these matters and issues.  Often times the case is won/lost on the context of the words written and spoken about the claims rather than the content of facts of the case at hand. 

I suspect put to a panel of industry experts, dyson's claim against MIELE would be dismissed w/o cause and the Kenneth J case would have had a very different ending.  That's all that matters to the industry.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello Procare:

Prima facie evidence of our posts on the MIELE-dyson and Kenneth J matters.  Technique and performance trump "claimed" innovative technology despite all DiB hosannas of how great dyson and Sir James art.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
No you're not right.  We're 2 individuals living in 2 different states who post independently.    If you were more astute, you would know that I give Dyson credit for things they deserve credit and criticism for things that deserve criticism. 

So tell us more about this murder mystery at your family's restaurant.  That might drum up some extra traffic.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB, you are posturing like your long dead hero, Senator McCarthy, again.

If Dysons are all you and Sir James claim they are, why are there not Dyson owners of longer than 5 years proclaiming its longevity,durabilty, and low cost of ownership? 

Why is Dyson unable to supply sufficient repair parts, forcing vac shops and Dyson dealers to buy non-original after market parts?

Why are there so many used Dysons for sale that were Kirby trade-ins? (I see them come in every week at my friend's shop)

Technology advances. The cyclonic no clog technology has been rendered obsolete by the new disposable bag material offering superior filtration while maintaining very high efficiency. A Miele can suck up the contents of a Dyson container full of kapok and be less than 1/4 full because the Dyson fluffs the dirt and the Miele compacts it.  Dyson is a three trick pony, cyclonic dirt collection, the ball, and the clutch. The first is moot, the third is abandoned by Dyson itself, and the ball still cannot get under furniture well, and it has $#%*bersome, poorly designed above the floor tools. The 5 year warranty excludes the hose, DIB, and it is not inexpensive to replace. The manual does not inform the customer that they should not yank the hose to pull the unit. It is tiresome to switch back and forth from tool use to floor use repeatedly since the handle is also the wand. What Dyson users end up doing is using the hose first for all above the floor cleaning, and then finishing up with the upright on the floor, precisely the way Kirby users clean, ironically enough one of the points that sways people to trade in their Dysons on a new Kirby. The Kirby hose is much sturdier, and it does not split so easily.

The Kirby doesn't get under low furniture either, but it offers far more durability and lower operating cost over its lifespan. Mom is using Grans' 1948 Kirby, her own first Kirby,1956, and the one I bought for her in 1976. With a dirt meter I can find little dirt anywhere in my parents' home.

Show all of us here on the forum ONE Dyson in heavy use after 10 years. We are all waiting. Without any name calling, diatribe, or defensive posturing, stick to the facts and logically explain why Dyson's 'originality' really is progress to be preferred over every other choice available. We're waiting, DIB.

Trebor

Talking of hoses, do you guys in the U.S get the Numatic Henry canister vacs?

vacmanuk wrote:

Can't say I ever have, except in the UK.

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:

Hello Trebor:

Just a warning my friend.  Since it's obvious that you and I both remember well the great Senator from the state of Wisconsin that heralded the big Red menance in the US, falsely on most occasions, we may be deemed by the psychotic poster dyson DiB the same poster.  Ohhh!  No! 

Carmine D.

Hello Everyone,

I spoke with a long-time acquaintance in the vac biz yesterday, none other than Tom G. He told me that Dyson USA is still selling 8,000 vacuum cleaners in the USA!
Since Tom is now employed by Tacony, and is no longer a vac shop owner, I have no reason to doubt his word. He is curator of a vacuum museum consisting of  primarily his own vacuums, which he leases to Tacony.  He gets to shop the 'net for antique vacs, (talk about your dream job!)

But I digress.  According to Tom 85% of all vacuums sold are still bagless! People like seeing the dirt, and they hate having to remember to buy bags.  People who buy a Dyson tell people, who buy one, and so on. People who buy any other brand don't tell nearly as many. ( I have to think if someone shelled out for a Kirby they would mention it to a few people.)  I asked Tom about the longevity of the Dysons as in 'how many are still running after 10 years?' He replied, "Most of them."  Of course 'most' could be 51%.  Since Tom G. is no longer a Dyson dealer, and he works for one of  the primary contenders in the marketplace,  has access and time to research as well as being privy to inside info, I have no reason to doubt his word.

It's just that I continue to see so many Dysons come into my friend's shop for repair. Many people spend in excess of 100.00 to fix a vacuum less then 5 years old because the repair is not covered by warranty. Huh? Many say they will not buy another Dyson, but the repair is the same as a Big Box vac, and they do like the performance, and they don't want to shop for another vacuum, so they fork out $$$ for the repair.  People do abuse their vacuums, and I would say the Dyson is more vulnerable to damage from abuse than many.  Seeing the dirt seems to be a big deal. Maybe people vacuum more, and slower when they see the dirt swirling around. But if Dyson really is selling 8,000 cleaners a day, if they are in financial distress it has to be due to poor management, not an uncommon phenonemon

Carmine, I laughed so hard at the idea of you and I being the same poster I nearly fell off my chair!  We are what, 15 years, 1500 plus miles, and a wife and child apart? But why stop at one? You, me, Severus/Venson, could all be the same person!  I could just be a figment of your imagination! Or whoever is the real person's imagination. Not all multiple personalities are aware of each other, so (gasp) I could be DIB's alter ego and not even know it!  This whole line of thought is moving me into the existential vacuum, and I'm unsure if it's bagless or not.

Trebor

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

Only 51%?.  Applying your style and salesmanship...  If you were to share a Popsicle with a child and promise them... "They can have most of it" - the child would walk away with a whopping 51%.

You could have picked any number ranging from 51% to 99%, but for Dyson-bashing purposes you went with the least amount possible and the least likely to be true. - What-a-guy!

Anyone you know? > http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_289105209.html


DIB

I just found this on the net! Some very interesting info here:

http://www.your-story.org/british-vacuum-cleaner-manufacturer-numatic-leaves-dyson-for-dust-according-to-genuine-shopper-reviews-4944/

To support the latests that bagless vacuums are becoming more popular, I wouldn't say it was where this report is coming from and indeed according to the info collected the most popular models in the UK consist of:

1. Sebo Automatic 9559GB X1.1
2. Miele S5261 Cat and Dog
3. Numatic Hetty
4. Miele S712 Pets
5. Sebo Automatic X4 Extra
6. Miele Revolution PLUS 5000
7. Sebo X4 Pet
8. Bissell 3760E
9. PHILIPS FC9160HE 912200W
10. Numatic Henry

This message was modified Nov 4, 2009 by dusty

Trebor wrote:
Hi Trebor,

Hoover uprights and Electrolux canisters are our biggest source of repairs.  I would offer that it's not because they are poor product but simply because there are so many of them out there.  If Dyson is selling 8000 vacs in the US in depressed times I can only imagine how many have been sold in years previous and would expect to see a fair amount in for repair.  As Dyson has only been in Canada for 3 years (and at last report still had the largest sales by dollar volume) we have yet to see many with problems.  From our own experience, we've sold 112 units since January 1st of this year and have had 4 warranty claims.  2 DC24's with bad motors, a DC23 with a short in the power hose and a  DC23 used to clean up a construction site (so it doesn't really count)  All in all, it's not much different than our Sebo, Eurekalux,  or Riccar lines.  Like anything else on the market (except maybe Europro products IMO) as long as you take care of your equipment you're likely to have if for a long trouble free life.

Dusty

PS    Customers love to see dirt swirl...makes them feel like the housework is worth it. 

DIB,

10,000 comics on the streets and you think you're funny? Don't quit your day job.

Because I said it "could" be 51% I am Dyson bashing? Everyone who doesn't think James Dyson is worthy of sainthood, and that using a Dyson is an act of worship is Dyson bashing to you.  You didn't jump on my reporting Dyson sales in the US by an industry insider, did you? Did it never occur to you that many of the people purchasing Dysons have never spent more than 100.00 on a vacuum in their lives, let alone properly maintain them.  I see you did not respond to my challenge to logically explain why Dysons are to be the preferred brand purchase of a vacuum cleaner.  You insult anyone who doesn't agree with you, and not very well, either, no originality.

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

the 8000 units per day isn't complete without knowing how many are returned, and how many sales are refurbs.    There's an awful lot of refurbs for sale in a lot of venues. 

Severus wrote:
True enough, Severus, but let's assume a 50% return rate, and 50% refurb. That is still new 2,000 vacuums per day, net, 365,000 per year. Not numbers to sneeze at. Not when you are talking about an average purchase price of $400.00 plus When I worked at an appliance retailer that sold Dysons, the retailer had an agreement with Dyson to honor an over the counter exchange for the life of the 5 year warranty. Talk about abused vacuums! People would roll them in cracked, stuffed, and ripped to shreds.  All we could do was take them back and issue a new one. I don't know if the agreement is still the same, as I am no longer there, but it was Dyson's nickel, not the store's so we couldn't do anything, because the customer would just scream, and the manager would cave. Not every Dyson came in looking like that, to be sure, and sometimes I think people just wanted a different color.  I actually sold a number of the motorhead canisters, because I felt they were better than the uprights.

Trebor wrote:
The facts don't lie, even CR ranks Dyson as one of their more reliable brands.  For every Dyson that has had problems of some sort there are at least 10 still going strong and serving their owners faithfully.

Speaking of Tom G., it is worth noting that he owns a prototype US DC07 from 1999, 2 years before Dyson "officially" arrived here.  In the 10 years he has had it, it has not had a single repair, and for 9 of those years it served as the store vacuum for his old store.   To say that it has received heavy, daily use there is an understatement.  I also saw the machine over at the Museum in September, and when I spoke to Tom last week, he said he was still using it regularly there as well to clean the acres of carpeting in each historical section.  That says a lot about performance and longevity...plenty of brand new, perfectly good Riccars and Simplicitys around and the trusty Dyson wins out every time for routine cleaning! 

For another example of Dyson longevity, look to the another cleaner at the museum, the 1983 Cyclon.  Not only is it still perfectly functional, it does a surprisingly good job.  Same can be said with the many British Dysons from the 1990's (DC02, DC03, DC05, et al.), nothing wrong with them at all.  And while not necessarily Dyson per se (but very much Dyson designed and related), look at all of the 10+ year-old Fantoms that are still in use all over the States. 

Obviously, when any appliance is abused, it is not going to last as long, and even a well-engineered cleaner like the Dyson is no exception. 

Going back under the rock now and watching-
MH

Motorhead wrote:

As more data became available, Consumer Reports consistently rated Fantom uprights' reliability as the worse among all the brands exceeding 15 percent failure/repair rates year after year until CR dropped it from the survey.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,

As with any "average vacuum owner" we can probably take into account that a lot of these Fantom owners had no idea how to properly use and care for their machines, either.  The first Fantoms (and the previous SC Johnson Wax Vectron off of which the Fantom was based) did not have an exhaust filter...that was only added afterward, probably after the complaints of fine dust spewing from the machine while they were vacuuming with a much-too-full bin!  Incidentally, the Fantoms I referenced have all been well-cared-for examples...just goes to show you that anything, when not abused, will have a long and useful life.  These were also all Thunders, I have noticed that the Furys and Lightnings were not nearly as reliable as the Thunder seems to be what is mostly left nowadays.

You do bring up a good point though in the sense that Fantoms left a lot to be improved on, and Dyson learned from that.  I for one find them to be overly complicated and difficult to work on, and the brushroll was a weak spot for some (although there are plenty out there with good brushrolls, go figure!).  With this I am referring to the original Iona Fantom/later Thunder, I have limited experience with the Fury and have not had a Lightning apart, though I have used several since they first came out around 12 years ago.  I recently found a Thunder (from early '97) at the Goodwill and since it looked like it was in good shape I grabbed it.  The motor ran fine but it had a nasty blockage in the dirt path that required disassembling the entire machine to remove.  The original HEPA filter was also packed with dirt so it immediately went in the garbage.  After cleaning the machine entirely, I can't believe how well it works for a 12 year-old cleaner.  Also found out I didn't really need the exhaust filter, simply emptying the bin after each use as intended and not allowing it to become full eliminates that.

Once again, it all goes back to proper care.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:
Here's the exact statement from the CR web site concerning reliability methodology: 

"Brand Reliability Kirby and Dyson have been among the more reliable brands of upright vacuums, Electrolux, Hoover and Simplicity among the less reliable. Rainbow and Dyson have been among the more reliable brands of full-size canister vacuums. That's what we found when we asked 156,000 readers who bought a vacuum between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences. The graph shows the percentage of brands that needed a repair or had a serious problem. (Belt replacement isn't included because it's usually an inexpensive fix.) Differences of less than 4 points aren't meaningful, and we've adjusted the data to eliminate differences linked solely to age and use of the vacuum. Models within a brand may vary, and design or manufacture changes may affect future reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."

Please note that the reliability survey is in regards to recently purchased vacuums - 5 years old or less.

Severus wrote:
CR first tested the DC07 in '02 and Dyson has been above-average in reliability even concerning cleaners purchased before 2004 (in earlier articles).  But regardless of how you want to look at it, the fact that any cleaner can withstand 5+ years' worth of heavy use in the average American household these days is pretty damned impressive.  Besides vacuum cleaners, look at how most people treat their homes, cars, washing machines, etc...sure, we can argue that things may not be made as well as they used to be, but the idea of taking care of something so it can last has become a completely foreign concept.  Why do that when you can plunk down another $500 (or a few thousand, or 40 grand, depending on what it is...) when it breaks and have a new one? 

Motorhead wrote:
Don't get the wrong idea - I'm not disagreeing with you.  My only point is that the value of CR's reliability data is somewhat limited.  Unlike the performance tests which are done under like conditions, the reliability data is survey based.  As one who faithfully fills out the forms each year, I know that the forms are not as thorough as I'd prefer. 

I would be surprised if Tom Gasko's Dysons didn't last at least 20 years.  Tom is meticulous about maintaining his Dysons. 

If all Dysons I have seen awaiting parts/repair means that 10 times that number are still running and working fine, then Dyson has sold one hell of a lot of vacuum cleaners. Not since Electrolux was selling 3 million cleaners a year has one manufacturer sold so many.  So you are saying, M/H, that the popularity of Dysons has to do with seeing the dirt and not having to buy bags, not necessarily cleaning ability? Because there are vacuums that will clean better than the Dyson, but they all need proper care and maintenance, even the Dyson.

Trebor wrote:

Hello Trebor:

It's not always JUST what you make [read sales] but what you spend [read expenses].  From posts here by supposed insiders, dyson currently employs 2,200 persons JUST at the Malmesbury plant.  Not counting the contract staff in Malaysia.  We know from dyson's own boasts that 450 of the 2,200 are engineers and scientists.  What do you think the average salary of this group is?  $80,000 per year.  $100,000 per year?  More?  Then calculate the payroll for one year:  $36 MILLION to $45 MILLION and perhaps realistically even more.  How many dysons do you have to sell just to meet 1/4 of your payroll costs?  Not counting raw materials, overhead, distribution costs, R&D, marketing, etc, etc.

PS:  I should have added on another 20-30 percent to the $36-$45 MILLION payroll number for retirement benefits, health costs coverage and bonuses.  

Carmine D.

Trust me these reliability ratings are B.S. Having serviced every vacuum cleaner known to mankind, New or old American iron Euro plastic, orient express  almost throw aways.

I have a kirby legend 2 small head, a  D80 , that are trailer queens They are in mint condition and work propely, would that figure into cr ratings if i gave them that data on their surveys?

Because the BOZOS at Cr are clueless about what these models are or their ages.

Whats to say that the Dyson propaganda machine has not infiltrated CR with bogus surveys like they baraged the msn, and internet review sites.Like i said its all B.S.

O.K. dib show me what you got to rebuke my statements.

B.T.W its nice to see gasko on the forum again,at least he's got a clue on whats really going on with dyson.

REGARDS

MOLE

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

At some point I expect Consumer reports to reconcile the quote I highlighted with dysons' belt replacements in DC07 and DC14 models.  By inexpensive fix, CR presumes a $2-3 repair cost that in most cases customers/users can do themselves.  As I recall, tho dyson claims these belts are lifetime, it recommneds that belt replacements should be done by authorized dyson dealers.  The cost of the fix can be $35 to $100 and perhaps more depending on brush roll and clutch repairs that may be needed simultaneously.  These clutch models, while discointinued, are probably the preponderence of dyson repairs.  At some point the two differemces, CR's take on belt repairs and the reality of dyson belt repairs, will be reconciled into the data reliability data.  When it does, what will happen? 

Carmine D.

mole wrote:

Hello MOLE:

I've always said if Consumer Reports really wants to get it right, it should factor into its vacuum reliability data survey information received from independent vacuum cleaner store owners and operators who repair vacuums.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hello Carmine,

I agree with you, All macines have their own little quirks if they consulted the real industry pros they probaly would have no reliability ratings at all.

It would go something like this,Orecks work and clean great till the belts stretch and the brush stops spinning ,although it still picks up well on hardwood floors,So we will give it a excellent on bare floors but unaceptabe for carpets.WHAT GIVES?

Kirby great open area carpet vacuums but real customers hate using them,so we will give them excellent for durability.See where this is going.

Raibow a real hightech airpollution device,but only those with a mechanical engineering background can use it.We will give it a fair rating.

Cental vacuums THE HOSE IS TOO LONG,people hate taking the hose out of the closet,we will give it an excellent for longevity,

Dyson hey what can we say due to the adverising and promotion well give it an excellent rating, Would we actually use one here at CR ? Sorry we cant answer that question, we dont want to piss off the Brits.

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:
That’s a great idea.  Why don’t you put a proposal together and present it to CR - ASAP.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

MOLE beat me to it!

Carmine D. 

Trebor wrote:
Severus wrote:
Venson,
Awful lot?  Does "awful lot" have a number and face?

DIB

mole wrote:

Glad to see you come up and out of the burrow for some fresh air.  I'll be glad to take on some of your views and/or salesmanship/tactics and take em apart.  I'll get back to you.

DIB

Trebor wrote:
Dyson sales rose by 2.8% ($1.038b).
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23765305-dysons-pay-cut-in-profits-slip.do

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

So which Dyson sales are up and which are not?   Are the sales up on hand dryers or vacuums?  Are refurbished vacuum sales up or down?  What about canisters, handhelds, and uprights?  Granted I have no reason to care either way. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hey dyson DiB:

Did you really mean to post this old information?  Dyson's 2008 fiscal year ends Dec. 31, 2008 and dyson releases the financial information June 11, 2009?  And ................you post it here Nov. 2009?  So in light of the time delay, should we believe that the 8000 dyson sales every day is for 2008 and/or 2009 or just a number pulled out of thin air for an uncertain future date in time?  One thing for sure, the muti-billionaire Sir james got down graded to a muti-millionaire overnight almost.

Did you read the comments about Sir James and the dyson products that trailed the article?  Hillarious you brits!  Seems like the big bad mouthing vacuum industry experts have a following among some very vocal anti-dyson Brits in the UK who don't like your uncle either. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
This info is 2-3 days old.  Are you not familiar with Google news?  Take a look for yourself.  I believe Moose went over the data lag last year or the year before.

If you remove from the comment list, the...  1) Dyson envious, 2) Axe-to-grind-angry at Dyson for having to compete (move his manufacturing), 3) vac dealer and/or enthusiasts, 4) those who tell half truths - then this comment list is left with some positive comments.

I just spoke to a British woman who has lived here for the last 2 years, I asked of the Dyson love and Dyson hate I’ve read in comments and seen and heard of via the BBC.  She said “Oh no!  I think most our proud of the success of one of our own.”  I asked of all the negative talk and many who were without jobs.  She said it was true that many were without work and felt the fault was with government.  She also added of the Dyson complaining, she said - “We British tend to be moaners.”


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

So you did a survey of one former Brit, and you think that that's a reliable piece of information?   You have one person's opinion.  After you've done a more random sample of say 10,000 Brits, maybe you'll have something worth reporting. 

Most people give their opinions based on design issues.  Anyone with an open mind, evaluates the positives and negatives of each product.  That's the frustrating part of your drivel.  You don't seem to be able to think critically and have an open mind. 

By the way Id like to add the last link I gave here showing a top ten of vacuums in the UK was taken from data of about 147 reviews. Infact if you follow the link you'll be able to read just how many consumers' data notes were collected to summize the top ten.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Severus wrote:
Venson,

You’re blurring fantasy and reality again.  Your fantasy - I need to survey 10,000 Brits of their support for Sir James Dyson.  The reality - I do not need to survey 10,000 Brits of their support for Sir James Dyson - the conservative party already has.

If or when it happens... Tech Tsar Sir James Dyson will instantly become a greater and more formidable provider of solutions and man to defeat for the conning, bad-mouthing, got-nothin, do-nothin independent’s and others.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

If you read my post/response to M00seUK when he posted the dyson FY07 results, I said the same as I did to you:  Data that is 11 months old is not 1-2 day old news.  BTW, your Aunt's opinion doesn't count except to your uncle.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
It's the same thing ever year...  you complaining to me when your beef is with the British system, their online news (who carry the story).

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

I'll quote SEVERUS WRT your post/response:

 "Anyone with an open mind, evaluates the positives and negatives .....  That's the frustrating part of your drivel.  You don't seem to be able to think critically and have an open mind."

Just because that's the way it is, doesn't make it timely news.  As I told M00seUK and others last year, and now here again, if the dyson results were as they were several years ago, Sir James, dyson and you would have the info blasting all over the papers, news, and internet in January [just as you did years ago] with the official numbers posted in November as required, as the old news that it is.    

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
As a privately held, limited company, Dyson's accounts for the period ending 2008 only need to be filed on or around 9 months later, which is why that it is only as of this week that they are in the public domain. Due to being in private ownership, there's next to nothing that can be gleamed from the filing, other than the numbers discussed above. If you're after a breakdown of sales by business unit, by quarter, you'll have to resort to guesswork. Frustrating for Dyson's competitors and followers alike.

Severus wrote:
In the case of Dyson's move to Malaysia, here is their rationale, as described in key management interviews over the years:-

1. The vast majority of our key suppliers are now based abroad.
2. The strength of the UK pound means that we lose money on a percentage of our export sales.
3. Our planning applications for expanding production on the Malmesbury site have been turned down.
4. We need to expand production to enter the US market, before our key patents expire.
5. The reduced costs of overseas production will mean that we can invest further in R&D spend.
6. Recent advances in communication / CAD technology mean that there are less efficiencies to be gleamed from having design and production operating under the same roof.

As in the US, many regions of the UK have in the past 50 years gone from being thriving manufacturing powerhouses, to relative poverty and desolation as unskilled production jobs have been lost to overseas players with far less regulation / operating costs. So certainly, in the 'working classes' there can be a degree of suspicion in the motives when a prominent business makes a decision to move jobs overseas.

600 unskilled positions went from Dyson's UK site in 2001 when production was moved to Malaysia. By way of a comparison 63,330 UK jobs were lost during the first 3 months of this year, across all pay grades.

In the case of Dyson job losses - is any negativity justified? Was there anything in the way of genuine 'victims'? Some thoughts:-

1. It is said that in the final days there were few (if any?) UK-based component suppliers available / dependant on Dyson.
2. Dyson was often said to be a frustration to other businesses looking to recruit in the local area - Dyson offered good pay and conditions which had a sizeable number of the local working population 'beating a path to their door'.
3. Dyson now employs a higher number of people in total at the Malmesbury site than it did before moving production - the majority in skilled roles, but also many semi-skilled / administration roles, such as call centre representatives:-
   
   http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/small-business/article.html?in_article_id=491794&in_page_id=10
   Dyson employs about 110 staff at the call centre, of whom 85 work as advisers.
   
   http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/4685184.Award_for_Malmesbury_call_centre_successes/
   Dyson's Malmesbury call centre has named the best retail and distribution call centre in the UK.
   
   
4. It's unlikely that Dyson would have had anywhere near the success they have had over the last 6 years, if they'd constrained their marketing activity to a limited UK-based production site. Greater success means greater UK tax revenues and on-going investment in R&D activities.
5. Dyson have long been pro-active in supporting education in Design & Engineering within the UK and around the world:-
   http://www.jamesdysonfoundation.com/

The negative perception of Dyson in the mind of the occasional British person is, in my view, largely the result of selective reporting in the media at the time of the announcement on the job move, getting in the way of the full picture... and also lasting resentment from the pubic at similar labour moves in the past.

In the people that remain unconvinced... that Dyson are a traitor of the highest order... what patriotic, locally-made purchasing choices can they realistically make? As I understand it, Numatic's Henry is the sole contender. A respectable enough machine on its own merit, with a good following - although lacking in any recent innovation to the design and around twice the price of canisters with similar features.

However, if you want an upright, a bagless or a powerhead vacuum cleaner your domestic choices are somewhat restricted. British people who shun Dyson on principle and instead buy a Vax or a Hoover brand... well, that's not exactly a rational decision, is it? Apple Inc. used to manufacture in the USA at one time - they don't any more. Should patriotic US citizens be avoiding the iPhone in droves and buy a touchscreen handset from LG instead?

Well done Moose.

As most here will tell you, it really makes no difference to us.  The point is so obvious that it's laughable. Every one gets it except Sir James and his fan club.  Dyson's gone from monthly and quarterly news releases on how well dyson sales and profits are going to a dead silence.  Reporting the last 2 years' results 11 months after the fact.  

The truth is crystal clear:  Dyson was a multi-billionaire in 2006.  In 2008, he's a multi-millionaire. 

Remember what I said?  Forgot already.  Here it is again.  Money is easy to make once but much harder to keep making over and over again.  Even with almost $9 MILLION US handed to Sir James on a silver platter.

The truth comes to light [sooner or later], despite all the spin, excuses and sugar coating.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
What exactly do you find laughable?...perhaps it's his combined annual net income of $300-$340m (2005-2007) that you find laughable?...or maybe his daily wage of $320k (two years - 2006 and 2007) is laughable?

Did you ever hear the joke...  A dumb guy is driving his car slowly down the road.  A trucker wants to pass but the dumb guy won’t move out of the way.  The trucker becomes angered and begins honking and shouts at the guy to “Pull to the shoulder” (of the road).  The trucker yanks the dumb man out of his car, sets him down and draws a circle on the dirt shoulder and demands “Stay inside the circle.”  The trucker retrieves a baseball bat from his rig, he walks to the dumb guys car and destroys it.  To the truckers astonishment he sees the dumb guy laughing.  The trucker is blown away by what he sees and demands “What’s so funny!”  The dumb guy says...  “Well, when you weren't looking, I stepped out of my circle 3 times.”

Keep laughing.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

What's laughable are you, and your out-of date dyson data and jokes.  Ancient history.  You and Sir James are living in the past.  It's not 2005/6 anymore.  It's the end of 2009.  Here's a news flash: The competition has overtaken you/dyson.  You're looking at the good old days in the rear view mirror. 

Carmine D.

Something doesn't add up

 If  8,000 cleaners a day US is more than the sales figures of 2004 -2007 why would Dyson be making less money? Unless it is fewer, and if sales are dropping around the world, then less revenue would make sense. But what's this about an increase in market share? If your market share is increasing, then shouldn't revenues be increasing also? I'm reminded of the Wizard of OZ, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

"...As I understand it, Numatic's Henry is the sole contender. A respectable enough machine on its own merit, with a good following - although lacking in any recent innovation to the design and around twice the price of canisters with similar features..."

Eh? Twice the price of canisters? Get your facts straight MO0se.. the Henry is a tub canister roughly priced at £90 and the Vax V100 which is its nearest rival is £20 cheaper.. not exactly double the price. Both these canisters have larger dust capacities than slim line sledge canisters and are thus built to withstand bigger domestic cleaning.

vacmanuk wrote:
I made the observation as my father needed to buy such a vacuum for his workshop recently. The Numatic cleaners are the usual choice and easy to get hold of in the hardware stores. But they're a little pricey at around the £100 mark, so after some searching, we found the following at around half the price :-

Earlex WD1100 Workshop Combi-Vac Vacuum and Blower
http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/home-improvement/earlex-wd1100-workshop-combi-vac-vacuum-and-blower.asp

Trebor wrote:

Hi Trebor:

Read again what M00seUK says about the dyson financial results.  He's right on the money!  I highlighted the most relevant part to your concern.

M00seUK wrote:

Forbes magazine lists the wealthiest persons in the world every March, as dyson DiB pointed out here when he first posted the information.  Forbes did an article/interview with Sir James for the first time in March 2007 with $2 BILLION for his 2006 wealth.  He appeared on Forbes list in 2008 with $1.6 BILLION for 2007.  He appeared in Forbes again in 2009 with $1 BILLION for 2008.  The cut off for the Forbes list is $ ONE BILLION US.  However, Forbes lowered the bar for its wealthiest Americans recently to $990 MILLION because so many fell off the BILLIONAIRE list.  You can see the trendline over the years with Sir James and therefore dyson, since he is the owner.  Do you think Sir James will make it in March 2010 for 2009?  As M00seUK points out in his post, your guess is as good as another's.  Of note too is that the article DiB posted above which refers to Sir James as a multi-millionaire, not billionaire as was the case in the past.

Carmine D.

Dyson Malaysia - the only assembly plant worldwide.

• Employees:  Over 200 skilled workers.
• Producing: 100,000 units every week.
• Sold: Nearly 30 million vacuum cleaners.
• Countries:  47

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/9/6/focus/4655225&sec=focus

Times Online:  Rich List

RESULTS FOR 2009
Ranking: 76
Worth: £560m ($930m)
Down: £200m  ($332m)
Source of wealth: Household appliances

In February, the 61-year-old inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner pledged £5m ($8.3) to the Royal College of Art for its new campus in south London. Dyson James, parent company of the family-owned appliance maker, based in Malmesbury, Wiltshire, had sales of £611m in 2007, up £100m, and profits of £88.8m, up 7.3%. Other assets, such as Dyson’s £15m Gloucestershire mansion, take the family to £560m.

RESULTS FOR 2008
Ranking: 98=
Worth: £760m
Source of wealth: Household appliances

Source:  http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_2009/article6104959.ece

CarmineD wrote:
Just a reminder...  You're not having a controlled conversation (you've stacked the cards) in a controlled environment (your store), using controlled side by side comparisons (your trickery or using non-real world junk science) with little Ms. Trusting, you're having it on the web...  so belly up with a source (proof).


DIB

Trebor wrote:
dusty wrote:
Some time ago, it was said....
Q:  What’s the number one selling motorcycle?
A:  Honda.
Q:  What’s the number two selling motorcycle?
A:  A used Honda.

Dusty, thank’s for setting the record straight.  Stating Dyson's are unreliable because they're in shops being repaired is a old con (if told by dealers and those who know better) and this con is often told in the UK too.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

Your info and Forbes for 2007-2008 jibe.  With dyson's net worth at $930 MILLION for 2009, as suggested by the both articles you posted, unless Forbes lowers the bar, Sir James will no longer be included as a billionaire in the March 2010.  By logical deduction his net worth, read wealth, has declined from 2007 to 2009 by over $1 BILLION.  In other words in 2 years Sir James, and by association, his dyson company has lost half its 2007 value. 

Now, ............if dyson's net worth is down by 50 percent, then dyson's sales are down.  Yet, total new vacuum units sold in 2007, 2008 and most likely for 2009 are almost steady at the same level:  20 MILLION.  So...by logical deduction some brand/s, read competition, are gaining market share in units on your fave brand.  At least in the USA, which we are told represents over 2/3 of the new dyson vacuum market. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

The article says "only British assembly plant worldwide.... you omitted an operative adjective.  Of note, at least for me, is that new dyson vacuums are not sold in Malaysia and Sir James claims that although housed in Malaysia dyson's plant is run like a British company.    Except it employs the locals not Brits. 

Carmine D.

Are you "using?"  Only a fool or crook would balk at James Dyson's come-from-nowhere remarkable achievement and success.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I can assure you DiB I am none of what you say.  And only one who is one of these himself would judge others in that way.

No one here, most especially me, is arguing about dyson's mark on the vacuum industry and his new-found vacuum related wealth.  My point with you and others has always been, from the first you/they boasted of his wealth via Forbes and other publications, that making a money fortune is easy.  It's keeping it that is hard.  Sir James, despite your affiliation/realtion to him, and your futile attempts to convince others, most of all you, is proof.  2 years and out $1 BILLION.  Let's see what's in store in the year ahead.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Remember too dyson DiB, success and achievement is not a sprint in life, it's a marathon.  Sir James, if you ask him, would most likely agree.

Carmine D.

Has anyone tried the DC28 with the AirMuscle nozzle technology?

Has this solved the issues with the clutch?

I don't see a full size Dyson canister with a power nozzle. Are the new smaller canisters going to totally replace the larger ones?

Trebor wrote: Hi Trebor,

I tried one out at Best Buy a while back and certainly liked the hose suction. Also I noticed that they'd got on the bandwagon and followed Hoover's lead by also incorporating electronic height adjustment. What I didn't get, considering all the bright ideas and mechanisms, is how they managed to mess up the low height adjustment. The cleaner is fine on its upper setting but when set for low pile it feels like you're shoveling snow.

The smaller DC22 series canisters are too expensive and also too small for practical use in regular-sized households. I don't see anyone but frivolous souls or collectors on this side of the sea bothering. Their suggested prices soar over the "full-size" DC23 models. In either series, one comes with a turbo-nozzle and the other with a PN.

Venson

Hi Venson!

Probably too much suction on the low carpet, no way to back it off. The Miele S7 is a bear to push on any carpet at full throttle. Dealer told me full power is really designed for bare floor and hose use. The auto adjust electronic models do back off the motor on carpet.

Trebor

Trebor wrote:
Hi Trebor,

We've sold a few of these and no problems have come back to us.  We also use one in the store when we're doing Sebo cleaning powder demos and no matter what carpet we're on or what level the machine is at we haven't had even a hint of a clutch issue.

Dusty

dusty wrote:
Hi Dusty,

I tried the DC28 at my local Best Buy which has industrial type carpet tile. It's very low pile and for whatever reason the DC28 I used was indeed difficult to push when I set it to low. What could have been the cause?

Trebor, I have had no problem with my S7 set on high speed for carpeting. It cleans well and is not hard for me to push.

Venson

Venson,

Maybe you are in better shape than I, but I thought the S7 was rather hefty. Of course I am used to a Tech Drive Kirby

Trebor

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

I have a G5 tucked away somewhere thus I'm well aware of weight issues. Anyway, I'm used to full-size vacuums since way back and am kind of glad. You can't imagine all the money I've saved on gym memberships.

Best,

Venson

For those into the Vax stuff, I just bought their latest Mach Air model today. I've been hankering after something to replace my Quicklite upright for some time (U.S Dirt Devil Dynammite) and at a reduced cost of £123 I may have got a bargain. However it is not all it is cracked up to be and Dyson will NOT have to worry. New review soon!

Venson wrote:
The Miele's lowest subscore was for handling.  There were 3 user ratings (2 by same person).  The one who posted twice said that the brush roll stalled out on her carpeting.  Presumably she had the suction on high rather than auto.  She is requesting a refund. 

Severus wrote:
Hi Severus,

Can't speak for the rest of the world but my S7 does and has been doing what I need without problem. As I've mentioned, I'm a rural clod come from a background where you had what you had. We had an electric pump to deliver well water but also a hand pump that we used if it failed and we also knew how to prime it during cold winters if and when things froze up. Life went on.

Thus when it comes to vacuums, the steering feature is a "nicety" not a necessity as far as I'm concerned. Lots of things influence my reason for purchase but, bottom line, what I care about is whether what I buy cleans well. I have used standard uprights for years, meaning the Kirbys, heavy old Hoovers and Eurekas -- you name it. Changing direction with a standard upright has never been a problem for me and making acute turns only meant a push down on the handle to bring up the front end and pivot the cleaner on its back wheels. If that's all tragedy was I'd be very glad.

Although it's not a canister vac, using the wand and hose, I can work my way up or down steps with it with relative ease. Also, it has yet to present a problem regarding stalling. Any gripes I have are related to price and that the cleaner's internal parts are not easily accessible to or serviceable by the average owner. The nozzle plate does not clip on but requires a special screwdriver to undo it. If I ever experience belt failure it means a trip to the shop as far as I can see.

I am not dismissive of the overall issue of vacuum weight and maneuverability but considering the times and our economic situation I am often given to wondering over what people are going to do if things really get difficult and/or -- less convenient.

Best,

Venson

Venson, I really liked the S7 when I trialled it but in the UK I found it a bit too big. However I do stand by and say it is a better upright than most on the market.

Venson wrote:
As a Royal Powercast user, I too don't mind a hefty vacuum. It's the price to pay for superior performance.

Severus wrote:
Believe it or not I've got one of those tucked away too.

Venson

Severus wrote:

Excellent vacuum.  Died an ignominious death due the weight.  I used one for a week around the house in Virginia.  Built like a tank.  Provide years of service with little TLC.  But heavy.  My dear Wife loathed it.  But jumped for the ORECK instead.

Carmine D.

mole wrote:
Mole,
It’s your position…the prototype Dyson DC07 running hard for 10 years is unimpressive.  But is it not also your position and obligation to bad-mouth the competition at every step and at every corner?  Lets see…when James Dyson launched the DC07 and backed it by a two year warranty – the competition said the Dyson ain’t no good.  When James Dyson answered the price-to-warranty value criticism and padded the warranty by three more years (and other mfgs. followed), bringing the warranty to 5 years – the competition said the Dyson ain’t no good.  Now when it’s learned Tom had a looks-like, works-like DC07 prototype two years prior to the U.S. launch and ran this “No bags to buy-No Loss of Suction” vacuum for 10 years and ran it hard – the competition rhetoric continues to be…the Dyson ain’t no good.  Is that about right?

DIB

dyson DiB:

Dyson offered a 2 year warranty, not 3, on full size vacuums up to Aug 15, 2006 when it extended to 5 years.  Which? magazine rated dysons worse in reliability for 8 consecutive years until dyson extended its warranty to 5 years.  Which? did an about face and began recommending dysons, in large part according to its own account, because of the 5 year warranty. 

BTW, dyson handhelds were/are still 2 years on warranty, tho battery packs, I believe, are excluded.

The Royal powercast mentioned above came with a 6 year motor [free parts and labor] warranty.  Actually had the start date for the warranty stamped on the serial number plate. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

The fact is...  Dyson’s made in the UK have proven less reliable than the Dyson’s manufactured in Malaysia.  If my memory is correct, Which Magazine did not make this distinction.  Which Magazine like CR will continue to control information and posture so to save face and keep subscribers subscribing.

TTI, Bissell and Hoover UK responded to Dyson’s 5 year warranty.  In addition to the warranty, they take their marketing and innovation que’s from Dyson.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I'm at a loss dyson IB where you got the 3 years in your post and I posted in part to set the record straight on the dyson warranties.  Your take, I believe, on Which? is wrong.  Which? specifically said in its publication in 2006 that dyson product reliability was better as witnessed by dyson itself with the extended 5 year warranty for product sales after Aug 15, 2006.  Tho, some here would argue that the dyson product reliability, despite the longer warranty, is no better. 

Not uncommon for one vacuum maker to follow another, especially when the products are sold side by side in the same venues.   WRT innovation, as I keep posting to you, technique and performance trump innovation every time.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Cameron,

Don’t you think Which Magazine giving a better reliability rating to Dyson only after Dyson up'd their warranty to 5 years is a weak position and misleading to it’s readers?  Using Which Magazines logic...then Euro Pro could also receive high marks and rankings with a 5 year warranty, although this does not remove the hassle and frustration when the appliance fails.  And when it fails so does this readers subscription support.  No, no, no, make no mistake, Dyson products (overall) work and hold up as they should.  Of course they could strip it down to nothing (few parts, few moving parts), make it choke on a bag, make it 1950 compliant, charge 3x's more...and call it a Kirby.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

"What if's" and hypotheticals about Euro Pro have nothing to do with the facts about Which?, warranties, and dyson reliability, except perhaps for you, to digress from the subject.  

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:
So it’s settled...  Which reliability ratings cannot be bought, but earned.  Since Which rates vacuums fro 0-6 years old they can no longer include British made vacuums.

Did you read?...  “Despite the problems, Dyson owners remain the most likely to recommend the machine to a friend, Which? reported. “ ....this is what T.G. told Trebor too.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

Like Consumer Reports here in the USA with regard to vacuums and reliabilty, Which? is a consumer guide not the gospel.  Both leave much to be desired, but they are a consumer reference and starting place for the uninformed.  The best source of facts and information about vacuums are the pros and experts in the industry. 

WRT your reference, words are meaningless.  Actions speak louder than words.  The best recommendations for a product/brand is buying another one for yourself and/or for your friends, family and the people you influence.    

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I would suggest... Which is gospel/close to gospel to millions of readers (paying customers).  CR claims to have 19m [total] sets of eyeball’s per month.  Which and CR have the responsibility and a self-burden of getting the real-world facts straight.

As for most (not all) independents...  would you suggest a buyer going to one of your friends...perhaps the guy who’s nailed his Dyson’s to the floor and bad-mouths them (per you)?  Most vacuum buyers haul-as past their local independent and onto a big box out of distrust.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

WRT CR and Which? Just because you say that's the way it is/should be, doesn't make it true for all vacuum buyers.  The world is not ruled by cold hard facts alone, despite your beliefs.  Judgement and experience also factor into the facts.  The pro's and experts in the industry provide the wisdom to correctly interpret and apply the facts. 

WRT nailed down dysons, I know of no cases to back this up except your saying so here on many occasions and attributing wrongly to others.    

Carmine D.