Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson opens its first pop-up shop today, created by the product company’s in-house team. If Dyson deems the venture a success, it will consider opening a permanent store.

http://www.designweek.co.uk/dyson-opens-bluewater-pop-up-store/3007793.article

DiB-ster wrote:

The question is:  Why is vacuum suction, tho less than 100 percent 100 percent of the time, unable to provide a thorough and acceptable cleaning job 100 percent of the time? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

It wouldn't matter to Dustmite if Miele's suction is greater than Dyson's from empty bag to full bag, it only matters that Dyson's suction is constant.    Dustmite has read Sir James' book, and he has been fully indoctrinated.  The only thing that matters is constant suction. 

DIB I can see where you're going with this but consider the following: 100% suction all of the time isn't neccessarily a good thing and I dont know why you want all that data to show bagless or Dyson is better than a bag because you argument is flawed; OF COURSE owning a Dyson or any bagless means in reality you'll never have to buy a bag but you will have to buy other consumables such as a BELT or FILTER in a Dyson's lifetime. That puts it in line with "conventional bagged" vacuums too But, for carpet wear especially Dyson uprights can be a bad thing determined on the quality of the bristles they put into their beater bars and secondly the abrasiveness or strength of the bristles in question. If the bristles are strong generally wouldn't it in THEORY mean more wear to carpet tread and pile as well as the 100% suction all of the time? Just how much of the carpet are you picking up versus actual dirt with a 100% suction all the time claim regardless of the strength of the beater bar fitted? Even with a flat head/suction only assisted floor head the threat of 100% suction all of the time can't be good for every carpet / material flooring. As for Miele, their market share is a lot larger than Dyson based on the fact that they make a lot more than just vacuums. Dyson tried with other avenues, trying to make a good go of their washing machines despite being the most expensive on the UK market. Despite their Contra-rotation sides and a good idea at the time, the company stopped it because they weren't making money = imagine, a company as revolutionary as Dyson having to stop a model with their name on it because it isn't making money.

Severus wrote:

It wouldn't to Dustmite if Miele's suction is greater than Dyson's from empty bag to full bag, it only matters that Dyson's suction is constant.    Dustmite has read Sir James' book, and he has been fully indoctrinated.  The only thing that matters is constant suction. 

It should be noted that if that was a real christmas tree with real pine needles, it would block up the chutes and elbows and airpaths on the dyson shown on display,as it would on any other vacuum thats  set up the same way,  I believe the consumer would care less about the constant suction garbage when it takes 5 hours to clean it out.OOPS anothjer dyson refurb.

MOLE

mole wrote:
Merry Mollie Christmas to you,

Lol.  I'm goin with 100% suction since this is what the masses understand and the number one reason they abandon the sack.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote: Dustmite in Box,

Thank you for clearing that up.   It really helps to illuminate where you're coming from and your perspective.  Clearly no loss of suction is the only thing that matters to you. 

CarmineD wrote:
Cameron,

The consumer based sack-vac is near-dead in the U.S. and half-dead in the UK.  Let it go.

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Oh I really didn’t care, only I like to take shots at Oreck (corp) and Miele and their Dealers who do not fly straight (many of em).  It feels good.

Hey Miele Dealers, would ya be a pal....  would you mind posting the models of your top 3 money makers (bread and butter) and top 3 gougers (oops) I mean your highest margin vacuums.  And post the costs of bags, filters, belts, and the recommended maintenance schedules.  And what it costs in annual bag replacements so to maintain 100% suction, 100% of the time?

Lucky1 wrote:

GOUGERS???? Is that like charging $450 for a $100 Malaysian vacuum. Seriously you have a problem with the price a dealer charges? Are you anti-capitalist? Do Dyson employees work for free? In addition, especially in this day and age VALUE is a commodity that should be worth something. Buying a disposable product in a box from some minimum wage unknowledgeable lackey that carries a warranty that is nearly impossible or costly or inconvient to collect SHOULD be cheap... whereas buying a quality product from a knowledgeable source that can repair and service said product should have value. Your too small minded to see it. Hope you don't gouge YOUR employer TOO MUCH.


----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----

I'm just asking for a fair shot at your style of capitalism.  Turn-a-bout is fair play...I'd love to hammer on the high priced sack n chokes and the men behind them as you and your buddies do here of Mr. Dyson and the men behind him.

DiB-ster wrote:

DiB-ster:

I recommend you go back and reread the ASA findings WRT dyson's grievance filed against EUREKA/LUX Intensity.  You should be very familiar with the ASA findings and rulings since you posted here.  As I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, the ASA after evidence provided by an independent industry expert and EUREKA/LUX ruled that with a full bag of dirt the Intensity outcleaned a dyson DC14 with empty bin.  Keep in mind, the Intensity is a lightweight vacuum, has one of the smallest dust bags on the market and it beat out dyson's DC14 , a full sized with 100 percent suction.  I believe by over 60 percent better in performance.  As you can see, dyson with 100 percent suction 100 percent of the time was acceptable.  Intensity with a full bag and considerably less than 100 percent suction was superior by 60 percent.  What conclusions do you draw from this DiB-ster?

Carmine D.