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.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, you are so biased and short-sided and blind sometimes it's hilarious. They were POORLY MAINTAINED. Do you not realize what that implies? They have been through HELL and back and STILL WORK. The plastic is till there (with on at least two the cord clips broke, but there are Miele's with even more concrete components that have broken with enough or even less abuse from what I've heard), again, they have NEVER been cleaned out, the filters have NEVER been washed or cleaned, and the brush bars have *NEVER* been freed of hair. One of them even looks like a cylindrical spool of yarn w/ barely ANY visible appearances of the brushes!! These machines are *FAR* better built than any other retail vacuum besides Riccar/Simplicity and some German brands (also Lux of Sweden's higher end canisters are decent, too), but I've personally put ALL my force into applying pressure to the sides of the cyclone assembly where the filter goes, and the plastic doesn't even break a sweat - and I'm big, strong, lengthy armed dude haha - and not to mention I can stand and JUMP on the cleaner HEAD, the two sides where they are JOINTED, and RIGHT ON TOP of the filter cover which filter is FAR Better quality than all but german brands and some Lux machines. Also, the dust bin itself is of VERY high quality polycarbonate - I can bend it to where it's nearly touching inside from one side to another and it doesn't even creak! I pity those whose bias blinds them of facts, such as yourself CarmineD. I'm not trying to be insulting, but everything you say about Dysons (almost) is simply FALSAE and biased, and I'm SAYING this because I OWN one and use one every day now and I have TWO Miele's and a Kirby G4 in my current possession to compare them and it to.

Hertz wrote:

Buying a dozen dysons from the junk heap doesn't prove your claim that they are different.  Let alone that dysons are better.  To the contrary, it proves just the opposite in my opinion.  Dysons are the same as all the less expensive vacuum competition on the market today, if used and abused.  Similarly, I can cite numerous brands and models of vacuums at lower prices that last and perform just as well as dysons when maintained and used properly.   No difference.  At one time dyson enthusiasts here pointed to the fact that holding prices high/steady made dysons different [read better].  BUT, prices of dysons are tumbling lower, and lower, and lower.  Just like all the other vacuum brands.  No different but the same. 

Carmine D.

Lousy vacuum cleaner or good vacuum cleaner, it looks like Jimmy D's doing alright.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/supersail/news/491898/nahlin-visits-the-river-dart

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

Here's a brief history of the Nahlin for those interested, albeit it has nothing to do with vacuums except now Sir James the marketeer who made his brand the "it" of vacuums now owns it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahlin_(yacht)

Perhaps it's a floating salvage yard for all the recycled vacuums he plans to trade in for the sales of his brand?  NYC recently uncovered a ship's hull buried in the ground as land fill.  Must be nice to have the money to buy and restore one.  Interestingly he decided on an old one rather than the purchase of a new one and had it rebuilt by a renowned German firm.  Wonder if that's an indication that bad economic times are befalling dyson and its founder?

Carmine D.

PS:  This does make dyson different as the thread suggests.  Not sure that means better vacuum wise except for the marketing madness that reaped the founder fame and fortune not to mention the 2 lawsuits and their payouts.

CarmineD wrote:
Well said, Carmine. I completely agree here.

CarmineD wrote:

You're again blinded by your bias; no other "cheap" brands could have gone through the abuse these have and still survived. They plastic is *MUCH* higher quality than cheap-china brands, MUCH better performing, and again, LAST LONGER. Any cheap-china piece of junk will last maybe 4 years tops; there are Dysons still going strong after 7-8. BIG difference. Not to mention what usually goes in the Dyson is the motor which is actually VERY user-replaceable. The plastic doesn't crack, break, or fall apart if cared for properly - and as evidence from my experience, if even UNCARED for! Also, you can't even begin to argue that the engineering behind Dyson's cyclonic system is *INCREDIBLE*. Why? Because it works!! Genius to say the least. Also, they're SEALED systems! With VERY high quality motor seals and motor gaskets deep in the motor housing, with VERY high quality filtration. NO other brand - not even some Riccars and a Sebo model Miele tested can compare buddy. That cute link you posted where Miele is "21x" better also contains a nice bit of information where a Dyson DC25 FILTERED BETTER THAN A RICCAR AND SEBO, but again, you "must have missed that."

CarmineD wrote:

Why Dyson is different: http://www.mieleusa.com/products/benefits/filtration.asp?nav=30&snav=24&tnav=26&oT=272&benefit=119 Good try, but this just proves not only that your biased and/or blind against the facts, or just that Dyson makes a VERY high quality filtration vacuum that not even a Sebo can touch *evidently* Good run, but obviously Dyson makes a quality machine and and for the filtration alone, let alone the longevity of their DC07's and on, AND their cleaning ability.

Hertz wrote:

No, quite the opposite.  You missed one of the most salient points of the study.  Despite the vacuum's filtration during operations, once the user removes the dirty bin and dumps the dirt indoors all the vacuum's filtration/indoor air quality is voided.  It's all for nought.  Dirt is back in the air and breathed.  If dumped outdoors, the user is exposed directly to/inhales the dirt from the vacuum.  Lose-lose for both users and household air quality.  Dust/face masks are recommended for the dirt bin dumping and air purifiers for indoor air. 

Excerpt:  ...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."  

Carmine D.

 

Hertz wrote:
How can you be so naive to suggest that all Cheap China brands last a short time? Where's your evidence? I've rented apartments that have the old LG upright that was made in China and they're easily 8 years old and STILL going. How do I know that? Because the same company Ive rented from for the last five years all have a fleet of these cheap Chinese upright vacs that suck up dirt and dust efficiently. You need to have your head tested, Hertz before you can make fleeting statements!

Hertz wrote:

I laughed out loud when I read this.  You argue the obvious.  You extol dysons for lasting 7 years and berate cheaper brands for lasting 4.  But of course we expect vacuums priced like dysons in the range of $400-$600 to last 7-10 years plus with normal use and routine expected maintenance.  It's a given when plunking down that much money.  Why is it such a big deal for you about dysons.  From my perspective, and probably others, the earliest model dysons are still only 8 years old at the most in the USA [the brand was launched April 2002 with DC07].  The jury is still out on dyson's longevity and durability at least in the USA.  There are some more years to go before a reasoned intelligent decision based on supportable evidence regarding dyson's quality and longevity.  I find it ludicrous to base any credibility on the opinions you formulated over a few days about a dozen dysons bought off the junk heap.  Along with one dyson you bought for $30 and repaired by vacuuming, wiping down and spraying with silicon lubricant.  If I'm paying $400-$600 for a vacuum, I need more reason than that.  But thanks for the laughs.  They were priceless.

Carmine D.