Vacuum Cleaners Discussions |
|
Venson
Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Points: 1900
![]()
|
 |
Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . .
Original Message Oct 21, 2009 6:59 pm |
|
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
 |
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
Reply #36 Nov 5, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
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
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.
|
Motorhead
Joined: Nov 2, 2007
Points: 409
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
Reply #37 Nov 5, 2009 2:29 pm |
|
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. 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
|
Severus
If my vacuum can remove even one spec of dirt that yours misses, then mine is better than yours - even if there's no proof that mine would have picked up as much dirt as yours...
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 397
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
Reply #38 Nov 5, 2009 5:45 pm |
|
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 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.
This message was modified Nov 5, 2009 by Severus
The smart tyrant writes his own story to ensure that it is favorable. The lazy will repeat lines from the book without fact checking.
|
Motorhead
Joined: Nov 2, 2007
Points: 409
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
Reply #39 Nov 5, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
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.
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?
This message was modified Nov 5, 2009 by Motorhead
|
Severus
If my vacuum can remove even one spec of dirt that yours misses, then mine is better than yours - even if there's no proof that mine would have picked up as much dirt as yours...
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 397
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
Reply #40 Nov 5, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
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? 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.
The smart tyrant writes his own story to ensure that it is favorable. The lazy will repeat lines from the book without fact checking.
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . .
Reply #42 Nov 6, 2009 6:34 am |
|
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.
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.
This message was modified Nov 6, 2009 by CarmineD
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . . (older Dysons still working)
Reply #44 Nov 6, 2009 6:41 am |
|
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.
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.
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Jimmy Dyson does try hard . . .
Reply #45 Nov 6, 2009 6:59 am |
|
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
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.
|
|
|
