Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Here's a set of reviews by people who have said they have had Dysons for well over 5 years, some even 15 years old! http://reviews.argos.co.uk/1493-en_gb/4064389/reviews.htm Very impressive! Dysons only getting better. Also, here's a very neat video of Sir James Dyson himself bashing the s**t out of his very own DC24! http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/25/video-james-dyson-runs-his-own-durability-test-on-a-dc24/ Some other neat and (from what I've found to be) exclusive Dyson videos: http://www.crunchgear.com/tag/dyson-08/

Hertz wrote:
I believe our moderator has said something to the effect that "if you take care of your vacuum, it will take care of you."   It would be extremely surprising if there weren't any old Dysons still in service.  One also sees old Ford Pinto's and AMC Gremlins and Matadors on the road occasionally as well.  While these make nice stories, reliability is about estimating things like median time to failure of a large sample of items.   I'd like to know the typical lifetime of a Dyson model xyz rather than a user's experience on one particular vacuum.  

For Dustmite's benefit, I will add that I'm not saying anything negative about Dyson.  I don't repair Dysons and I have never owned one, I have no idea what their median lifetime is, or time to first failure.  Those who repair Dysons would be more familiar with design weaknesses they might have and any poor design features - if any.  My comment is that reliability should be based on a large sample, not a couple of possibly extreme samples.  Of course these comments are not exclusive to Dyson - they apply to all brands.

Contrary to popular belief, many consumers don't want a vacuum that lasts forever.  They want to upgrade every so many years.   Certainly it is notable that Dyson offers a 5 year warranty on new vacuums, and according to Trebor, they have been replacing faulty hoses under warranty.  Dyson has done fairly well in the Consumer Report's reliability ratings.   These ratings are of limited value due to flaws in CR's methodology, but it's still good to be near the top. 

Upgrading is a real customer incentive to buy.  Plus having a second or even third for another level/special purpose cleaning job.  Like a second floor.  Steps. Etc.  Here's the appeal of iRobot.  Consumers like having the vacuum do its household work while they are away.

Carmine D. 

Mmm even the cat will do it if you're away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ-jv8g1YVI

I think the iRobot gizmos are more just automated carpet sweepers and that they don't meet standards that we generally set forth for regular vacuums -- deep cleaning ability, yah dah, yah dah, yah dah.  It's popularity does say a lot about consumer concern or lack of it.  If it looks clean, all is well with the world.  The owners don't seem the least bothered by carpet care mandates.  Users are happy that their floors appear decently kept and even happier that they don't have to be involved in the work of accomplishing that.

As for vacuum longevity, most of the folks I know never get as enthused as I about "upgrading" a vacuum.  New electronics, new cars -- yes.  But vacuum cleaners -- no.

They pay about as much attention to their vacuums as I do a straw broom and just want a machine that at least appears to be doing what they need at a price that will not inhibit budgetary fun elsewhere.  When they feel they aren't getting their due, tthen they start looking for a change.  In any event we've had quite a history with popular vacuums that endured use and even abuse over long periods of time.  Longevity is price prohibitive.  Vacuum cleaners with the potential to last now cost an arm and a leg with price tags easily exceeding the $1,000 mark. That is not about to change.

I don't have a reference from which to make value comparisons back to the 1940s but the Electrolux that cost 80 bucks back then and is still solid and running today is not what is intended for today's market.  This would also apply for may other established  brands.  It's all about numbers.  People don't often appear impressed by how long you've owned something.  It's now all about, "It's got this, it's got that."  AND -- being dollar value has dropped so low -- the $500 you may put down toward a "better" vacuum is looked upon as a pittance makers and vendors.  I hear of very few vacuum makers touting durabiliy as much as they do so-called innovations.

With makers ability to cheaply but heavily saturate the public as regards advertising, the ever devloping art of spin plus planned obsolesence we have no choice except to keep buying. 

I've come to view the whole thing of household appliancew purchases as more a rental scenario.  The longer my lease is the less I have to anticipate having to come out of pocket for x-span of time.

If I shoot say 600 bucks on an appliance and if I have it for six years, by today's standards ownership cost me merely a hundred dollars a year give or take the price on consumables like bags and filters..  (That's my feeling as to where the market stands.)  If good performance is constant over those six years then I guess both the maker and the owner are supposed to have something to brag about.  Every year that the device operates usefully beyond that six years rationalizes  the cost.  As an instance, the near two grand one might have to pay for an Aerus I assume is expected to be justified by the 20-year warranty and promised free yearly tune ups which mathematically would turn out to be about $100 a year when you divide purchase price by the length of warranty and so on.  However, not all of us are prepared to invest that far into our futures. 

Venson

Venson:

While I often bragged about all the 25 eyar old appliance in my old home, when I put on the market to sell, I upgraded all the applainces to new.  More of an expense than I thought, because I had to also upgrade the electrical specs of the house to meet current county codes.  Helped sell the house in a down market.  Also, I gifted the HOOVER Z with the house.  I used it for 6 months while I was preparing the house for sell.  It did a wonderful job on the 25 year old wall to wall carpets.  Even after with the English yellow long haired lab.  So good, the carpets didn't need upgrading/replacing to sell the house. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

25 year old carpet.  Used a vacuum on it for 6 months and you want to give credit to the vac for the carpets longevity.  Too bad the rest of the world did not know about this carpet restorer before the z bit the dust.  Actually you used it longer than it stayed on the market.

Well, if it isn't the nutty buddy from Stuckey's!

Wasn't my decision to keep the 25 year old carpets.  It was my real estate agent. 

HOOVER Z was my test of it while I patched and sanded walls and painted tghe whole house inside and out.  Wanted to see how the best fared at life's worse clean up jobs.  It did just as expected.  Ideal. 

Partners in the rug cleaning job were a RICCAR bagged, and bagless EUREKA Whirlwind, and several others too numerous to mention.  HOOVER Z was the finisher.  Paid $350 at BEST BUY on sale in March 2006 and it stayed with the house after I left in August and the house sale in December 2006.  I did buy another new Z in Nov 2007 from HOME DEPOT for $100 and gifted it new to the local church.  It's still in use.  I serviced one time after a large paper clip lodged in the dirt path and developed a dust/dirt pack clogging off suction.  No parts were needed. Simple to work on.  About 10 phillips screws and entire unit breaks down right to the motor.  It's still going strong with all wear parts like filters, belt, brush roll, switch, cord hose still original. 

I will most likely buy another Z for my own personal use when the time and price is right.  BTW, the RICCAR and EUREKA were warriors.  Gifted those away too before moving.  The RICCAR was about 6 years old at the time of donation and purchased as a floor model/display from an indy for $150.  The EUREKA was 4 years old at time of donation and purchased from a student of mine after he got a part time retail job at a local Kohl's.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:
25 year old carpet? Is that all? We had a 40 year old one and it was hideous, hideous, hideous! Wall to wall starting in the living room and went all through the hall to our 4 spare bedrooms. My parents only kept it because it came with the house and was certified 100% wool which for the UK back in the 1960s that stuff was like gold dust. The Canadian guy who built the house for his own family had no taste whatsoever; Thunderbirdd wall paper in the kitchen, pink ceilings, green walls in the bedrooms and tasteless wall coverings in other parts of the home. The bathrooms had SMURF wall paper! I recall having to rip the wool carpet up and oh the bags I went through that day turfing red Scottish tartan carpets never mind the Sebo bags that filled with carpet underlay and general dust that hadn't been lifted for about 40 years!

I got quite a shock the first time I washed the carpets I can tell you!

vacmanuk wrote:

What amazed the agent is that we had an English yellow lab that shed year round in the house for the last 9 years in the home.  She said if she didn't see the lab she would never know.  NO stains.  No smell.  No hair.  I vacuumed daily.  Carpets were wool too.  I opine that quality/performance of vacuums can be imputed to how long they keep your carpets looking and feeling new.  Here in the USA, HOOVER stamped on vacuums not just "Beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans," but also "HOOVER makes rugs last longer."  HOOVER did so for many years.  No other vacuum maker would/could.  25 years is a long carpet life for w-t-w.  Why?  When the house is empty it's easy to see new carpet versus old worn.  If a seasoned real estate agent can't see this difference in carpets with 25 years of age and specifically says keep the carpets you have then the vacuums/homeowners are maintaining rugs properly.

Carmine D.

Another video proving Dysons are well built, quality machines:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-RK7Pc4aBg&feature=related