A really cool insight to the workings behind the company and how they develop what I believe to be some the most well designed vacuums with overall good-great build quality in history.

Hertz wrote:

Your statements and the conclusions you draw thereon are contradictory in my way of thinking.  If these dysons, which are still active models and currently sold, are of such high product quality and performance and require nothing more than a quick once over with a vacuum, wipe down and some spray lubicant [as you claim], why are they tagged for recycling?  

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:
12 Dysons? Lordy, wouldn't one be enough? Oh.. wait a moment.. are these all broken/drop for spares/need repaired vacuums delivered on a palette by any chance?

DYSON do not make high quality vacuums; join up to Which UK and see the reliability data for yourself. Have a look online to data that Dyson has tried to suppress. Their machines are good for the majority of bone idle owners who can't be bothered to buy bags and can't be bothered to empty the bins when they are full even though user instructions clearly tell the owner to empty the bin before it gets full. What happens then? Oh the seals and the filters have to work overtime. Ding dong - the machine starts to weaken.

The company rate average on maintenance and parts. Dyson is not LEXUS or any other comparable company you can pick for things less likely to go to go wrong. Refurbished, reconditioned and repaired Vacuum cleaners sold on EBAY UK appear to be DYSON than any other brand - I wonder why that is? Seriously, are you stupid enough to actually think that by putting a bagless cylinder bin which, by the way, becomes airborne the moment the seal is taken off, that by putting the bin into another bag that the dust you can't see somehow flies down into the bag you're emptying? Get real! Buy yourself a globe water filter machine and see just what happens when you empty your Dyson bin into a bag.

Isn't it ironic that, still at the end of the day you're putting the bagless collected dirt into another bag to dispose of it safely? A manufactured bag with a seal does it quickly, cleanly and efficiently.

You posted this Hertz.  http://www.mycncuk.com/forums/showthread.php?940-Dyson-Digital-Motor-(Vacuum-Cleaners)

Shame on you.  What a disappointment to waste our readers' time and efforts. There's no empirical data here on DDM.  Just a brief short lived blog of old posts going back to August 2007, 2008 and June 2009 on people's feelings and emotions regarding DDM.  Nothing concrete to read/learn except more utter nonsense.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

They were VERY poorly maintained Dysons that simply needed to be FIXED UP. Given the OBVIOUS abuse these machines went through, it's a TRUE TESTAMENT to their quality that they still run and are still in one piece; there's deep gouges in some of the plastic - yet the color of the plastic is not paint, but THE WHOLSE PLASTIC THROUGH AND THROUGH determining quality and pride in making their machines to a high standard - their hoses are still in tact yet are covered internally with soot, and there's some scratches on the bins. These machines went through hell, yet mechanically function fine; I have yet to power all of them on. Vacmanuk; Dyson DOES make high quality vacuums; I've read reviews where they've lasted for over ten years, my neighbor's has lasted three, other other neighbors AT LEAST three - and mine are a good 1 - 2 with careless-cleaning-lady like abuse and their built like tanks; I can stand and literally JUMP on the different ares of the head and base and NOT A SINGLE CREAK! The narrower side will give a SLIGHT creak if I stand RIGHT BY IT, but overall their build like Miele's, or in the main areas certainly are in terms of the plastics and seals. EVERY SINGLE PART is replaceable and these machines are *VERY* serviceable except for the belt and brush roll, but that's even been alleviated by the newer models. Again, I have allergies, and the air coming out of these machines is CLEAN. It smells and feels cleaner than my Miele's Air Clean filter.

CarmineD wrote:

It's sad to see someone not care to educate themselves when there's data at hand; no, it's not empirical data which I can understand the disappointment of, however if you CARE TO READ (which successful people do) then you'll see it's not "just another brushless motor." I was simply posting the link to educate readers that Dyson does seem to have made yet ANOTHER revolutionary product. Oh, and Carmen, I can see why you're so biased against Dysons and bagless machines in general to the point of the denial of the truth it seems like sometimes due to you having a severe asthma problem; they're quite sanitary if one takes the necessary preliminary actions to maintain the emptied dust in a plastic bag.

Hertz wrote:

At the premium retail prices of dysons, and the supposed product quality and ease of repair [as you claim], it seems reasonable that these users, if satisfied with their dysons and since these are still current dyson models, would have had repaired and they would still be in use.  Some of these may still be under the original warranty.  Recycling is like the glue factory for the horse.  It's the end of the line, and a short lived one at that.  Your example shows that unlike your claim, dysons are no different than the cheap bagless disposables that people buy and use for short periods and then dispose.  The only difference is that these dysons are 4 and/or 5 times the prices of the cheap bagless vacuums. 

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:

Not from reading the blog you posted.  The discourse is mixed for/against DDM and its application to hand tools only, not full sized vacuums.  There are no concrete conclusions on DDM vice traditional motors in this blog, which has posts that are at least one year and even more old.  Quite the contrary varying differences of personal opinions.    Waste of time reading and I supect the reason it's not up to date by these posters who are supposed successful people [as you claim].  BTW, the jury is still out on DDM motors and dyson's handhelds which are consistently rated lower than hand helds with conventional motors.

Correction.  Pneumonia not asthma.  BUT, there are over 70 million persons in the US who suffer from sinuses and allergies, many year round and many with very severe conditions.  Like the "very asthmatic daughter" you posted.  Think she'd buy and use a dyson?  These allergy and sinus sufferers are all susceptible/prone to dirt/dust triggers causing breathing problems.  Allergy/sinus triggers brought on by operating bagless vacuums even dysons, which are no different and no more sanitary, even as you suggest, with the ridiculous procedure of dirt bin dumping inside a bag inside a trash container.   

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:
Be it on your own head. You clearly haven't read any of the posts Ive discussed with you in the past. 10 year old vacuums are fine if they still run and then I'd consider with the minimum of maintenance to keep them going IF they are longer lasting and worth the expense. With SEBO's X I got that already, 15 years old and one replacement drive belt. Also although Gerry Rubin may well be a pain in the neck his Dyson testing isn't that far-fetched. Since you're a fan of You Tube you've probably seen those tests as well.

PRINCETON, N.J., June 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Miele introduces scientific evidence that proves their vacuums (with an AirClean™ Filter-bag™, certified HEPA filter and Sealed System™ engineering) are more effective at safeguarding indoor air quality than the leading bagless vacuum. In fact an independent laboratory confirmed that Miele vacuums capture and retain 99.99% of harmful pollutants – on average 21x better than the HEPA-filtered bagless rival. "The results clearly demonstrate that Miele vacuums equipped with the AirClean™ Filter-bag™ are the best at eliminating dangerous fine particles released into the air when vacuuming," says Nadine Gast, Senior Product Manager for Miele. On average, the leading bagless HEPA-filtered vacuum emitted over 175,900 lung-damaging particles per minute during the test.

"The evidence shows that a bagless vacuum equipped with only a HEPA filter cannot effectively protect a home's air quality or prevent particle emissions that exacerbate allergy and asthma conditions," explains Gast. "That's just when the vacuum is running... what the test doesn't show is just how many particles are released back into the air when the bagless vacuum bin is emptied. It's an indoor environmental disaster! If you can smell the dust after cleaning the bin, you are already inhaling fine lung damaging particles." A Miele AirClean™ Filter-bag™ with its unique spring-loaded collar locks shut when removed to trap particles and keep them out of the airstream.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indoor air pollution is a concern for everyone, not just those suffering from respiratory conditions like asthma, allergies or emphysema. Especially considering that 90% of our time is spent indoors with pollution levels up to five times greater than outdoor air. http://www.epa.gov/

The Study

Miele commissioned Interbasic Resources (IBR), a recognized laboratory, to conduct an emissions test comparing their vacuum against four leading HEPA-filtered brands including Dyson®, SEBO®, Riccar® and Simplicity®. The results prove that the Miele vacuum, with its Sealed System™ engineering, equipped with a unique AirClean™ Filter-bag™ and certified HEPA filter, had significantly lower rates of particle emissions than competitive models. "In fact, the particle emissions from Miele's vacuum was next to nothing," says Gast. Each test was replicated three separate times according to the strictest scientific protocols. "Our AirClean™ Filter-bag™ is the best protection we can offer families to safeguard their homes from vacuum cleaner dust," per Gast. Copies of the complete study can be found on www.mieleusa.com.

SOURCE Miele

Carmine D.

Right on Carmine!

Another report I've just found: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/dyson-vacuum-cleaners-fail-to-score-in-reliability-tests-562422.html

"...

More than 5,100 people with different brands of upright cleaner and almost 2,600 with cylinder models were questioned about their reliability.

Overall, 79 per cent of upright vacuum cleaners and 91 per cent of cylinder models up to six years old had not needed repair. But among owners of Dyson cleaners, only 75 per cent with upright models and 81 per cent with cylinder versions said their machines had not needed attention in the first six years.

The best performing upright makes were Sebo, Hitachi, Oreck, Panasonic and Electrolux, while Morphy Richards, Bosch, Numatic and Miele came top among owners of cylinder cleaners.

Despite the poor results, owners of Dyson upright cleaners - brainchild of the British inventor James Dyson - were among the most likely to recommend them to a friend.

On upright cleaners, Which? said: "Yet again, Dyson is the only brand with below average reliability. So think twice before buying one." It said of Dyson: "It may design the most effective cleaners around but how well it puts them together is open to question."

HOOVER also get a pasting in this report, and I'm not entirely surprised. They have struggled with build, reliability and innovation since the U.S company pulled out in 1993.