Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Looking back over the past year, one thing conspicuously absent from this forum is a rabid Rainbow enthusiast.  Perhaps it is difficult to justify the outrageous price of these door to door wonders.   To some extent, a Rainbow owner has to believe in the Rainbow sales pitch and doesn't want to be confronted with any negative information about the Rainbow.    I also noticed that overstock.com is no longer selling the refurbished Rainbow SE's with the Wesselwerks small power nozzles.    Given the economy, it's got to be tough selling $2000+ vacuums - even if they can purify one's home. 

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Roomba has had a corner on the robotic vacuum here or some time.  It would definitely take a highly efficient deep cleaning robotic vac to beat Roomba out.  Remarkably, Roomba customers have not fussed much about thorougness as long as surface dirt is removed.

Dyson has been doing PR for its DC06 for quite a long time but I have yet to see it on the American market.  It is designed with cyclonics but I don't think that as part of the sales spiel necessarily is impressive to anyone buying a vacuum cleaner that requires a minimum of hands-on involvement. Roomba has gained no kudos for thoroughness or high filtration so far  but I don't think most buyers care as long as it does a decent job of removing surface soil.

Popular Roomba's more similar in style competitors like LG's Roboking and European Electrolux's Trilobite also seem skittish about approaching the American market.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/1282/

Venson wrote and Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS, VENSON:

The article in the link which is about dyson's robot DC06 is dated May 2, 2004.  Almost 6 years ago.  This is the final statement at the end of the article.

"The DC06 should be available in Australia at the end of the year, and is expected to cost around $6000." 

Dyson is still in the Australian market.  It's still possible it will be available but I suspect the price will go up.  As in all things that are dyson, the product pitch is always superior to the actual performance. 

Carmine D.

retardturtle1 wrote:

Hello turtle1:

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 

HOOVER WT/TEMPO and EUREKA uprights are the best on the market today for brush rolls.  But would require major mods to a dyson DC07 head nozzle.  A very distant second in brush rolls is ORECK.  For a DC07, w/o the clutch and minimal modifications to the nozzle head, the ORECK wooden brush roll and bristle tufts would be an ideal size, shape and weight. 

Carmine D.

procare wrote:
Procare,

You seem fond of inventions that don’t quite ‘cut it’ with the public.  The real world rejects inventions regardless of how much sincerity goes into developing it.  The salad spinner comment was a joke and ‘in your face insult’ to Carmine’s forgoing reading the Newcombe patent I spoon fed him.  He has a long history of shooting off his mouth against anything-Dyson and delivering nothing in terms of research. - The insult was fitting and deserving and long overdue!  I did honor the inventor with a nice compliment too...of course you intentionally left this out.  I honored this forgotten invention by publicly posting it here and by contrast the Three Stooges using it on film as a dust blower gag (for million/s to see) probably sealed its fate (fairly or unfairly).  If it had a downstream filter on it, I do wonder how quickly it would clog and how a clogged filter is better (and a money maker) than the cheaper and lighter weight cloth bagged vacuum.  Based on what you and your buddies say here against Dyson inventions and innovations...  No-doubt if you lived in Newcombe’s day you’d attack his attempts and bag alternative vacuum cleaner invention.


Dyson Invents Big

procare wrote:
Procare,

You enjoy playing the minimizing game...not unlike the umpteen vacuum competing independents and/or the Dyson-envious.  I say your Roots blower claim is interesting, but it’s bogus.  Dyson reps say [square] ‘Root’ comes from math, I agree.

You’ve yet to link or post anything that supports your Root claim.  Typical.


Dyson Invents Big

procare wrote:
Procare,

I can play the minimizing game too...  if someone places a second suction motor on a vacuum cleaner... is this an invention, is this an innovation, or is this an obvious and sequential step?


Dyson Invents Big

procare wrote:
Here's the good news!!!!!  I do not know, nor want to know what the hell you're talking about (I've never heard this term).

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Your worship of everything dyson and refusal to recognize the obvious facts otherwise regarding the man and his products is indicative of a shill.   Ultimately, self-esteem is measured by integrity not name calling.  Integrity is saying the truth when it is unpopular to do so and the consequences are negative.  Since I've been posting here, I have systematically and constructively criticized most of dyson products with cause.   You and someone here before [now gone] heaped slander and names on me.  Despite such, I continue to be an honest broker here.  Giving constructive advice and criticism on all brands including your fave. 

As I said and will continue to say until you provide evidence to the contrary, when it comes to all things dyson, the pitch is always superior to the products.

Carmine D.

DIB,

  When I asked you why Dyson was called a " Vacuum Sexifier" , it was for my info what it was . He is in England referred to as a noted "Vacuum Sexifier". I have never heard of it also. But being you are everything Dyson I thought you would know. It sure doesn't hurt to know what what someone is called.

                                              Procare

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

I'll offer this in response to your observation.  In "slick" marketing, makers often try to impute social value or human emotions into an otherwise lackluster product.  Why?  To build buzz and spark sales.  Have to have one.  Be the first! "Sexifying" common household products has been around for along time but not called such.  Most relegated the comment to "it's sexy" with regard to appearance rather than performance.  It's a marketing/advertising ploy that makers use to veil a luckluster mediocre product in a light that allows intrigue [read higher prices].  Sound familiar?

Carmine D.