Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Interesting opinion piece. 

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2010/09/dyson-vacuum-thief-should-have-checked-consumer-reports-.html

Terrific article SEVERUS.  Excellent commentary on the actual performance of dyson vacuums both ups and canns.  Fair to middlin performance in comparison to the current crop of vacuums at an exorbitant price.  Reliability, so far according to Consumer Reports, better than most big box retail store brands but after all you're paying a lot more for dysons too.  If price doesn't buy better performance at least you have it longer.  Some consolation for dyson buyers and users.  Unless you talk with the independent vacuum store owners and operators who repair vacuums and dysons.  They have a much different perpsective on dyson repairs and reliability than CR. 

Carmine D.

Mmm. I wonder if it was a certain member off here who stole them.

vacmanuk wrote:

Might explain the conspicious absence of a few regular dyson posters here.

Carmine D.

I'm not sure whose dumber, some certain people who act like they've been molested my Sir James Dyson himself (though they might like it, no sweat tho), or Consumer Reports, who rates a Kenmore machine over a Miele. Either way, it's hilarious.

Hertz wrote:

Hi Hertz,

I like Miele.  I own Miele.  I like Kenmore and have owned Kenmore.  I can say without reservation a good number of Kenmore's better vacs are comparable to Miele's despite a few shortcomings.  (Things that I might notice but that the average buyer might not give a moment's thought to.) The deciding factor is whether to spend $400 to $500 for a satisfactory machine or $1,200 instead.  Not a large part of the American public is equipped to go that far these days.  CR strives to show that good cleaning performance can be had across the price spectrum and I'm glad for that.  Even so, I see lots of people going for vacs in the $200 or less range. 

As for Dyson, in real terms, it's been tested and found to be cute but not stunning.  Dyson's success is due to advertising savvy not necessariily brilliant performance.  To me, this has a lot more to do with the public's general lack of knowledge as far as cleaning and machinery goes.  But that's just my feeling.  I understand Dyson just about as much as I do Madonna or Lady Gaga in comparison to Ella Fitzgerald or even Ethel Merman.  The issue is that we no longer judge quality for its own sake or what claims of it are founded on.  Worth is now merely judged by what makes the most money or that that's been smart at making itself "popular".

Venson

I just joined Which? UK Consumer testing yesterday (similar testing site to GHI/CR) and found the following table on their website for vacuum reliability. I do hope the thief is not in the UK:

Upright vacuum cleaner Which? reliability index

Brand  Score

Miele  96%
Sebo  96%
Kirby  89%
Oreck 87%
Panasonic 85%
Vax   84%
Dyson 79%
Electrolux  79%
Hoover  71%

I would like to reiterate that even though I'm not always in favour of consumer testing stats my own experience of Dyson has been below par. However the best model I owned that lasted a lot longer despite filtration problems was the original DC01. It was built and felt better to handle than a lot of the newer Dyson uprights out there that have been built with thinner plastics and bits.

vacmanuk wrote:

Thanks vacmanuk.  I like the UK Which? reliability rating schedule for several reasons.  Intuitively it appears realistic.  This gives truth to the findings.  I suggest Consumer Reports revamp its reliability system and implement the same system as Which?  I know independent vacuum store owners and operators who take huge exceptions with the CR vacuum reliabilty data.  My thoughts are CR is aware of the shortcomings too and adds all the notes and caveats to the repair/reliability percentages for that reason.  Unfortunately these caveats negate CR's reliability data usefulness.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi guys,

Maybe . . . but aren't these ratings based on consumer feedback?  I'd take some caution here. Kirby vacuums, as an instance, are more in number for report in the U.S. than in the U.K. I'd like a comparison of user input data first  -- how many versus how many.  I would not expect results for this kind of rating to exactly match up on both side of the sea.

This is much like the U.S. voting system.  An election win here can be called a landslide if merely one-fourth of eligible voters out of how many hundred million inhabitants of the country turn up at the polls and then a large majority of those few cast a vote for x-candidate.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

Yes, Consumer Reports' reliability data for vacuums are driven by consumers' reported data.  Not vacuum repair and industry professional/technical staffs.  At issue for me with CR, based on the consumer driven data, is the number of survey responses received for each brand over the useful life of the models.  I believe there is a built in bias for a lower CR score when more survey responses are received for a particular brand/s which tend to be used longer by users.  Like expensive brands such as MIELE and SEBO.  Similarly, the CR reliability bias favors a better reliability rating for brands with fewer responses and/or that are disposable after a few years.  

To level the scores, the survey data needs to be judged on what constitutes reliability repair problems.  For example, ORECK routinely provides free annual service/check ups and repairs with the purchase of many of its products.   If ORECK customers take advantage of the free services, the ORECK brand is dinged as less reliable because it requires more frequent returns to the shop. 

More expensive brands like MIELE and SEBO are returned more frequently over the course of their useful life [usually 20 plus years] to the vacuum shops for repairs.  But they last longer and provide more years of service to their owners in the process.  Less expensive brands, say $50-$100 BISSELL's, Dirt Devils, and Eurekas may be used for a year or so, then scrubbed for a new vacuum soon after the warranty ends rather than repaired/returned to repair centers for service.  These disposables have fewer trips to the repair shops with lesser years of useful live.  But they appear in the CR data to perform as well or better for reliability than more expensive brands that tend to be repaired more frequently BUT used as many as 20 plus years. 

Ideally the best mix of reliability data is both consumer and industry driven.  With the details presented for readers/buyers of the particular brands and models for their years of ownership and service, and types and costs of repairs over their total useful lives.  The drawback to collecting and reporting this way is that some brands and models don't last that long on the market.  Hence, they do well in CR surveys because not many are sold and reported on over a long period of time.  Another bias in CR reporting.  Just like cheap disposables.  The more and sooner a brand brings new models to market, and scrubs the old, the better the brand's reliability ratings.  Why?  CR really needs 4 or more years to collect trend data on a brand and model for reliability purposes.  If the models are discontinued every year or two, and replaced with completely new models, there are less consumer surveys received and less repairs reported.  For CR that combination translates into better reliability data reported.  IMHO.

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:
Maybe the data is collected from consumer feedback Venson, but I've read more damaging UK reports on Kirby online than anywhere else. That kind of puts a slant against the high percentage that Which have found.