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.

speaking of Dyson, the prices have been tumbling lately.  Costco.com has the dc14 with mini turbo brush for $299.99. 

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11504379&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&eCat=BC|103|4716&N=4000044&Mo=34&No=2&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&cat=4716&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

Severus wrote:

Brand new and with a 5 year warranty.  Yet, interesting SEVERUS, dyson's official web site in the USA sells remanufactured DC14 models with only 6 month warranty for $299.  Why would dyson permit its authorized retailers like COSTCO [and others] to undercut prices?  Doesn't jibe with dyson's policy/MAP of enforcing artificially supported retail prices that we use to know so well just a few years ago.  Things change.

Carmine D. 

vacmanuk wrote:

Like I said, if you do it CAREFULLY in home, it's not an issue at all comparative to how much your actually DUMPING IN THE BIN! This is a video testament from a USER! Have you seen Miele's tests?! A Dyson filters better than a SEBO upright or a Riccar, and I can EASILY believe it with Dysons high quality seals and BEEFY filters. BAM!: http://www.mieleusa.com/products/benefits/filtration.asp?nav=30&snav=24&tnav=26&oT=272&benefit=119 Carmen, the clutches aren't what break on a Dyson - there has probably never been more than 5% of the clutches breaking in America - it's the BELTS that wear out and ARE replaceable w/o replacing the clutch; I just talked to a Miele Diamond & Dyson dealer that I bought my used Solaris from, and he said in ALL his years (about 12 at least) he has NEVER seen a broken clutch, but the BELTS wear out. The clutch is a great idea, but when people use a vacuum on thick shag area rugs the belts burn up faster, thus the belts just needed to be beefier is all.

Hertz wrote:

Didn't dyson claim the belts were lifetime?

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:
You know Hertz, people like you turn me off forums like this. Its time to act your age. Your viewpoint suddenly becomes ** law ** and you dont seem to take on what others are saying. I suggest that you start growing up and stop trying to start fights. You are NOT discussing the original post you put on here, but rather trying to get your viewpoint across whilst other members don't get a viable chance to offer a viewpoint.

I suggest that you get yourself a particle meter and test it in conditions. Put in on You Tube when you put the particle meter near the rubber seals of the Dyson bin. Then you'll see if you think that the Dyson filters better than ANY bagged vacuum cleaner that has better filtration. Never mind relying on others videos when there's not a grain of truth scientifically to prove their point.

Hertz,

 Back in 1976-1984 Electrolux(Aerus) had clutches on their uprights and I have not replaced one belt while they had them to this day. They had abetter clutch system as well as a better belt system.

                                                                                                                               Procare

http://www.epinions.com/review/Oreck_XL_Platinum_Pilot_Vacuum/content_509893578372

A member who feels particularly strong about the bagless idea. I rather like this quote:

"...one of the reasons I hate bag-less is because of the mess and bacteria that is clinging to the container...in my opinion this is a health hazard with anyone who suffers from allergies..."

vacmanuk wrote:

I've read this review before.  What I noted right off before reading the narrative is the discrepancy in the rating.  On the 4 rating factors the user rates 3 of the criteria as 4 and one a 5.  Yet, overall rates the product 3 Stars.  I would have thought based on the detail and doing the math, it should be 4.5 Stars.  Unless the user has no intent to tie the individual raatings to the overall rating.

On your note of interest, the user's comment hits the nail on the head about bagless.

"...one of the reasons I hate bag-less is because of the mess and bacteria that is clinging to the container...in my opinion this is a health hazard with anyone who suffers from allergies..."

I agree with the user's statement.  Anyone who uses any semblance of reasoned argument has to agree with the statement.  It is incontravertible whether you are a fan of bagless or not.

Carmine D.

A vacuum could rate 5 stars on each of the categories listed and still be a poor performer.

None of those categories reflect the performance on multi surfaces, cost, or deep cleaning.

How would the reviewer know if the machine was durable when it was returned within 30 days.  He disliked it enough to return it so why give 5 stars overall when looks were the best rated category?

HARDSELL wrote:

I suspect you're right.  BUT, it seems counterintuitive to me from just looking at the ratings/stars [without reading the narrative].  Which if you do [read the narrative], the user states in two places that product is high for quality of its construction/warranty and even states that ORECK's water lift [for suction] trumps dyson easily.  User says [on quality]:

"I liked many of the features and based on the data it is a good solid machine!"

"Do I think Oreck makes a good machine well...yes!  They give you 30 days to try it out and return it if you don't love it!  Additionally this bad boy comes with a 10 year warranty and free annual tune ups too!  So yes, I think they make a good machine...but not for me."  

But we digress and divert.  The comment of interest as vacmanuk points out here is the user's observation on the leftover debris in the bin after dumping. 

"...one of the reasons I hate bag-less is because of the mess and bacteria that is clinging to the container...in my opinion this is a health hazard with anyone who suffers from allergies..."

Incontrovertible using any semblance of reasoned argument.  I agree with the user's conclusion and vacmanuk's rationale for posting the review to prove his point on bagged versus bagless. 

Carmine D.