Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Look at these gems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNBxAE1FWyU Seem to get good reviews, too: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bosch-BSG8PRO1GB-Cylinder-Vacuum-Cleaner/dp/B001E5CBRU/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=kitchen&qid=1271175245&sr=1-6 Does anybody here have any personal experience with Bosch? Are they Made in Germany? I do believe these new machines are, like Bosch's REAL products; not their somewhat decent but simply re-badged bagless upright that was supposedly a Vax and Dirt Devil re-name. Not even sure if that's true. But anyways check out that new bagless machine. A German-Made bagless?! This should be sweet. That new technology looks very interesting, too :D Ten year motor warranty, as well. Very impressive!

vacmanuk wrote:

"Proved," you said? There was nothing to prove. It was and has been common knowledge that bagged vacuums have to be emptied at some point to provide good performance. Some bagged machines are better at it than others. Come to think of it, for quite a while bag size and dust collection capacity was considered a real factor for making purchase decisions. It has been forgotten by consumer periodicals and subsequently by bagged vacuum consumers.

The Miele bags I use are over the four-quart line by way of capacity and do quite well in regard to maintaining air flow/suction power. The multi-layer high-filtration bags do allow for good suction longer and improved dust containment.

Bagged versus bagless, the real advantage for me is not having to either think about or need to make bag changes more than once every three or four weeks and that's just fine by me. Things here at the old corral don't get any cleaner for want of suction that lasts forever.

-Bagless machines, per manufacturers' instruction, require far more frequent emptying. Forgetting that point -- I've raised more dust and gotten my hands dirtier clearing out collection bins than I ever did when emptying even ancient Electroluxes or Hoovers with cloth bags. That should make Dyson feel threatened.

Whatever the case, it still appears to me that Dyson, despite its monetary success, is overly sensitive and a poor sport that will do or try anything to dampen competition. The ASA ruling leaves me cold and also makes me highly suspicious as to whether it is a bedfellow of Dyson. Despite what I think or don't think of its product I can say flat out that I think far less of the company due to its constant yapping and kvetching. Sometimes it's better just to shut up and do your work.

Bosch can probably get around the issue by simply inserting something like "maintains high suction better and longer than other/most BAGGED vacuums" within its advertising text and there would be little or nothing that the ASA or Dyson could say or do. AND -- there'll be far less from its bagged competitors.

Best,



Venson

Venson wrote:
My point is that the bag can't be used twice, Venson. That was Dyson's original mantra. A lot of the old Hoover vacuums in the UK still have reuseable paper dust bags - not to also exclude vacuums that use the reuseable washable fabric dust bags that need shaken out or machine washed to obtain the original strength of the vacuum cleaner. Many don't when either bag material types are put in the second time. That was Dyson's point in his original marketing (not with this recent complaint per se as it deals with "energy performance" results) but I feel the same can be applied to any dust bag - IN MY EXPERIENCE, there hasn't really been one on the market that maintains full suction from the moment it is taken out of the packaging and inserted into the vacuum cleaner because it progressively clogs and reduces the suction. There are SOME bags of course that maintain suction longer in terms of longevity but as we have proved so many other times before in this forum, suction isn't just the only principle that maintains air flow and as you know Miele, Sebo and Bosch have generally excellent sealed suction systems to counteract leaky air/dust emissions and at the same time, protect the bag on board as well as prolonging the suction due to the high filtration and bag structure.

I use the same Miele bags as you Venson - once they get full, there's little suction left over at the lowest power rating I prefer - if I want the dust to be picked up - the vacuum's suction has to be increased to pick up. Why should that be the case? Obviously the vacuum needs more power to let the suction pad the bag with dust! The Dyson cyclonic action minimises that - I've used Dyson vacuums where the bins are bursting out with dust in the cleaning jobs I've done (before I offered the company my Sebo DART vacuum to show them the dust disposal and far cleaner approach - company responded with buying two Darts and a Henry bagged canister vacuum.) whilst still using the Dyson when bags start to run out because of the suction principle that just keeps going - regardless of whether the bin is full or not.

You refer to bagless vacuums as if they all have the same capacity - but not all brands do - and it's a point that UK consumers still go over when buying a vacuum cleaner - bag capacity/bin capacity is still a major factor when it comes to buying vacuums. The Henry tub canister wouldn't be where it is today in terms of popularity - if it didn't have a large bag capacity (generally 7 litres, or in my case 4 to 5 months of general household traffic dust excluding any DIY work that clogs the bags quicker.) whilst the washable fabric shake out bags are used by many in the commercial industry who have to deal with shaking the dust out - let them do it  - I prefer disposable bags because it is cleaner, even though in the back of my mind I know that I'd be spending more money on bags than I would do with any Dyson or the TTI Hoover/Vax/Dirt Devil suction that has been copied from Dyson DualCyclone parts.

As you and I will know, Miele do not recommend using the same bag twice. I ran out of Miele bags for my S140 stick vac (which is being used by my mum) yesterday. I sucked all the dust out of the bag with my Sebo Felix  - there is still suction available from the IntensiveClean bag, but it wasn't as strong as it first was when it was brand new. The HyClean bags aren't any better - infact they seem to provide as much action as sucking through a straw when the vacuum's bag is fully packed with dust AND the vacuum's suction control is lowered to the lowest setting. This occurs on both my old S571, S381 and more recently the Ecoline S4212. It is no different to my SEBO vacuums either when the bags fill up and need to be replaced because the suction is slowly running out due to a clogged bag.

Whilst I agree that Dyson is being sensitive to what brands are advertising, they are simply trying to keep ahead of the game, but the way they have approached and raised the issue is rather vague in my mind and uncalled for. I guess that's just what happens in business but I'm with many who agree that their approaches are underhand for the most part and who ever gave Dyson the right to constantly appear superior? Again I feel this is just what happens in Business.

Bosch haven't done their homework in their own advertising either. When they released that vacuum cleaner on the market, they claim that the motor on board maintains the same power as a full 2100/2400 watt motor. It seems the ad didn't have that particular wording to provide evidence to the original statement of "...50% less energy to maintain performance..." Would that, for example be with the variable suction control being used or relation to the dust bag, or both, or something relating to the motor that Bosch have actually fitted?

And its not as if Bosch are unique in using the eco-marketing consumer grabbing headline that by fitting a lower energy motor to maximise performance, their model is any better than the rest, or as efficient. Electrolux, Hoover and all the major brands including Miele have all done it. In my experience, vacuums that have lower than 3000 watts will never really affect electric bills. I've tried by looking at my own and there is no real difference to using a higher powered vacuum against a lower one where my actual electricity usages are concerned. Just because a vacuum may throw a trip switch or if the electricity load is too high, doesn't point to higher electricity usage charges - and a lot of owners seem to get confused with that a lot of the time. It points more to the actual electricity the whole home is using including the room in question where the vacuum has been plugged into - if it already uses a high source of electricity per room, the vacuum may well overload the system.

Regardless of the companies involved, ASA should never hold up as a standard for enforcement and banning product claims: "...likely to mislead."  Too qualified to be a standard of measure for advertising.  It either does or does not.  With the qualifying verbage, any and all product claims should be banned.  Why?  Somebody, somewhere, somehow, some way is likely to be mislead for a variety of reasons many of which have little to do with the truth.  The advertising standard should always be: "Likely to mislead an informed knowledgeable third party with no vested interest in the product maker or claim." 

Carmine D.

The ASA generally get two types of complaint; either a consumer who purchased a product and found the claims lacking or a competitor who believes that the advertising is false or stretches the truth to an unreasonable degree. I wouldn't say it's fair to suggest that Dyson, by making a complaint are being ungracious -  check out the number of complaints (the vast majority not upheld) made against them by their competitors over the years.

In this particular case, it depends on someone who has a commercial interest. Someone with the technical knowledge and funding to be able to make a good, convincing case against the claims being made. 

Do Dyson have a rationale, beyond merely spoiling a competitors campaign? I think they do. For many year Dyson have designed their bagless technology to make effective use of the motor. Whereas many bagged competitors have tried to make a big play by promoting the power draw of the motor, as a measure of the machine's effectiveness.  Now, this competitor is trying to justify, by some questionable logic, that lower watts can clean just as well. Would I personally sit by and watch potential market share go to a competitor who has some misleading, largely irrelevant ECO claims being made, without them being challenged? No, I would do something about it.

On the subject of dyson and ASA and untrue product claims, 39 consumers of dyson vacuums brought a grievance to the ASA against dyson for its claim:  Never clogs, never loses suction.  2 vacuum companies joined the grievance AFTER the consumers filed:  ORECK and HOOVER.  ASA agreed with the consumers that the dyson claim was not true and can't be used.  ASA told dyson to cease and desist from using the claim, which dyson agreed to and did.  This is the best case scenario.  Consumers of the dysons [no vested interest] WITH vacuum makers [professional industry expertise] joining forces to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a product claim[s] is/are false, untrue, and disengenuous.  The combinination was too convincing for ASA to rule against ion favor of dyson. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Well, in the context of that complaint I read '39 consumers of dyson vacuums' as '39 people who allow the bin to continually fill way past the MAX marking'. I've seen people's Dyson vacuums get plugged up before now - but never in personal use, when ensuring that the bin is dumped regularly. I find no first-hand evidence that if used correctly, that the no loss of suction claim is at all invalid.

Dyson have previously demonstrated in that in dual cyclone bagless cleaner, although in general use, a tiny, tiny amount of dust particles might get through to the filter, the minuet loss of suction would be more than made up by fluctuations in the voltage / air pressure. 

Dyson's legal for the current claims are: "Dyson proves no loss of suction and pick up performance using results from IEC60312 Cl 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, ASTM F2607, F608 and F558, and DTM755 - an independently conducted Dyson test. Dyson proves Dyson’s most advanced cleanerhead technology and engineered to pick up more dirt based on the results of IEC 60312 Cl 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, ASTM F2607, F608 and F558, and DTM 755- an independently conducted Dyson test."

However, I'd say that concessions might have to made considering reasonable use of a product - it's human nature to forget / be unaware of why you should dump regually. Hence why some recent Dyson recommend checking the filters every 2 months, down from the previous 6 months. I have a DC24 with the 2 months recommendation - but based on my own, considerate, use could go at least 18 months before needing to wash the pre-motor filter. Ideally, dual cyclone vacuums would have a shut off before any overloading could plug the cyclones - but practically, for a domestic cleaner, I'd suspect this would be very challenging and add to the handling weight.

M00seUK wrote:

Well..........NEVER means never.  It does not mean NEVER ...."if you follow the instructions in the User Guide."   If it did, dyson should have said so.  BTW, dyson's original filter service and cleaning instructions to dyson users stated that the filters should be cleaned every 6-9 months.  And dydon did not include the "legal caveat" you cited above which came after the ASA ruling against dyson.  As did the revised filter service cleaning schedule of 3-5 months in all future dyson User Guides. 

To wit:  dyson's claim of "lifetime belt" and "filters."  And zero costs over 5 years.  "Likely to mislead." 

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

Electrolux added the automatic shut off and pop out feature in its paper bagged tank line in the mid 1950's. 

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi M00seUK,

The idea's quite nice but it would mean employing strategically placed dust sensors in a bagless machine.  That would probably cause a rise in cost unfavorable to most consumers and probably more maintenance issues for keeping the sensors clean.  Anyway . . .

Funny thing happend yesterday.  A salesman was explaining the difference in two canister vac models of the same brand to a mother and her teenage daughter.  When he told them that one had a full bag alert and that the other didin't the daughter asked, "Well how do you know when the bag is full?"

"You look," I said.

I am always amazed how things that are simple can so easily escape people lately.  I don't know whether that is attributable to over-hype of so-called feature advantages. 

Venson

vacmanuk wrote:

I only know of a few people who recycle vacuum bags and I never heard of Dyson's using that as a sales campaign pitch point.  As well, for good or ill, disposable bags in the U.S. were definitely intended to be used once and then tossed.  They are a great convenience of course but disposable bags also appear to be and have been the vac industry's way of maintaining connection with end-users -- and their money. (Forgive me, I've been reading Noam Chomsky.'s Manufacturing Consent.) Due to replacement likelihood, disposable bags -- replaceable belts and two types of required filters -- generate far more continuing revenue than replacements for permanent bags.

As far as I'm concerned, suction level debates often makes mountains out of mole hills.  I do not claim that bagged machine suction does not lessen somewhat, say from week one's insertion of a fresh bag to week four when the bag is nearly full, but I strongly state that available suction in better models is satisfactory for the same tasks all along that period of time.  As for power consumption levels, I live in an old building that has my aprtments two circuit breakers down in the basement and the only access is through my landlord's office.  Trip a breaker on a Sunday or a holiday when he's not around and you have to wait 'til Monday to get it switched on again.  Thus no ironing or vacuuming with an air conditioner on, etc.  That in mind, I use the Miele(s) using several speeds and have no problems.  I do this sometimes as compromise to avoid consumption related problems and sometimes because the work at hand calls for it.  Speed switched all the way down, I can clean really light scatter rugs using the power nozzle to effect a better clean with les effort, switched all the way up I can zip over bare flooring and stairs very quickly.

As well, I have only had two vacs that had automatic power adjustment but liked both very much.  The Hoover Dimension canister that I owned started up at about mid-speed when set on "automatic" and only increased if it sensed a build up of dust in the bag or if there was a particular concentration in the area that I was cleaning.  Made perfect sense to me and was my idea of useful as far as energy efficieny was concerned.  Come to think of it, it was one of the most sensible vacs Hoover ever made.  Can't figure out why they stopped putting it or something like out.

Bagless vacuums still do not generally offer collection capacity for continuous cleaning as genrous as many bagged vacuums and require more work to keep them running properly.  I open the bag chamber of my bagged vacuum and everything I need to see (bag and pre-filter) are right there.  If the look of  the pre-filter doesn't please my eye I can change it without a lot of fuss and the bag's a breeze to replace.  My idea of heaven.  My other vision of Heaven is merely to be in that wonderful position of having just enough.  Therefore, if I have just enough suction to everyday get work done efficiently and quickly, I'm happy and hopefully duly grateful.

Last but not least, a very large part of vacuum cleaner advertising claims rely on malarkey.  I have seen this occur with generations of American vacs of all brands.  I don't think we need special agencies to protect us from madness in the vac makers' conference rooms as much as we need consumers to apply a little common sense.

Venson