|
Forum
/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl General >> Vacuum Cleaner Forum >> The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cleaner /cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1174316534 Message started by earthworm on 03/19/07 at 11:02am |
|
Title: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cleaner Post by earthworm on 03/19/07 at 11:02am In one corner we have the Simplicity and the Oreck, and some others vs the newer ones that are bagless, but must have a costly filter. I now have both, and I still wonder, which is the better ??? The Eureka Optima filter is about $14, but can be cleaned a number of times. The Oreck bags cost about $2 each, but are easier and cleaner to change. I do wonder if it is true that the Oreck is the hotel/motel owners vacuum of choice. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/19/07 at 1:37pm earthworm wrote:
True and accurate. ORECK produces and sells a special XL 2 "Hotel Series" with guarantees ranging from 7 to 21 years for "professional" use by hotels, motels, hospitals, airports, home/maid cleaning services, and nationwide institutions. Like them or not, ORECK has a solid history of over 45 years in the vacuum industry in the USA, made and owned in the USA, and a network of over 500 Clean Home stores nationwide that sell and service ORECK products (as well as other brands). ORECK vacuums are approved by the Carpet and Rug Industry every year and carry the Ease-of-Use Commendation by the Arthritis Foundation (www.arthritis.org). The latest Consumer Reports rates the ORECK XL21-700 number 14 with an overall "VERY GOOD." ORECK consistently maintains these ratings by CR year after year. Unlike a certain bagless brand with 3 models that have dropped in the CR rankings to 16, 17 and 24 as the CR rug cleaning tests become more difficult. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by HARDSELL on 03/19/07 at 8:48pm earthworm wrote:
Maybe because the are durable. Definitely not because they outperform any other brand. They are light and easy to maneuver, therefore the cleaning staff would like them. Too bad the are such poor performers. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/19/07 at 9:09pm Hi "Earth", Easy maintenance always counts because its a given that not many like to either vacuum or have to fiddle around with one for long. If this is the case for the average consumer it is even more the case in regard to the average maintenance employee who just wants to get the job done and move on. In areas where's there's lots of milage to put in on carpeted floors along with other regular tasks, a bagged lightweight upright with a disposable bag of good size, that is fairly sturdy of build and that is simple to maintain saves time and money despite expected abuse. I'd be hard pressed to imagine any business establishment that sucessfully gets an employee to properly clean bagless vacuum filters for long. If time is money, then to my mind the two dollar bag pays for itself by the decrease in time required for a decently paid worker to effectively clean out a bagless vacuum or a vacuum with a re-usable cloth bag. However, in the home it's all a matter of your religion. If you're a fastidious "cleanliness is next to godliness" type then the maintenance regimen for bagless vacuums might well not seem too big a deal. For the less movitated who, if it weren't for a vacuum cleaner, would be sweeping stuff under the rug and walking away to leave the Lord to move in mysterious ways and work a wonder, the disposable bag is a definitely sure shot. That said, on behalf on baglessness, that Iridium of mine is still doing well without a lot of fussing with it. This vacuum has been very easy for me though I don't understand why I am beginning to see more used ones turn up on eBay. Regards, Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/19/07 at 10:47pm HARDSELL wrote:
Hello HARDSELL: If you turn the ORECK power switch on as you use it, you'll get better results. ;) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Sanitaire on 03/20/07 at 2:27am I do wonder if it is true that the Oreck is the hotel/motel owners vacuum of choice. Well Eureka Sanitaires are the commercial vacuum of choice, but yes a lot of maids and hotel also choose Orecks. They're very popular with the companies for a large part because the companies are worried about getting sued by workers with health problems like arthritis and they have to have the Orecks around because these people use vacuums all day and the Oreck are approved by the arthritis institute, which allows them to get out on lawsuits. Lot's of maids like them as well because they're so easy to handle. They have really great bags, and bags offer much better filtration then bagless vacuums. Oreck actually clean the air as they vacuum. That air that comes out of them is cleaner then the air outside. I mean you go outside and turn the Oreck on and it's gonna start catching all kinds of pollen and mold and spores and airborn bacteria. Bags really work well and that's why we don't see any of the really amazing vacuums going to bagless, outside dyson who has his whole other thing going on. Oreck are very effective vacuum on carpet because they have one of the most powerful brushes around. Outside of the Xl21 they're loud and actually I consider that to be the biggest health liability, it's very hard to use a loud machine that hurts your ears for any sustained period of time. By far hearing loss is the most important health consideration in a vacuum, and important consideration in the enjoyability of use. I think the new Xl21 is much better built and it's certainly the quiestest upright made, but the old XL's were kind of flimsy, I still really like the design a lot though, very simple, very ingenious, I think he had got a lot of the finer point of vacuum design. If I was buying a new vacuum I'd be buying a new white 2 speed Oreck XL21. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/24/07 at 9:36am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
True and accurate. ORECK produces and sells a special XL 2 "Hotel Series" with guarantees ranging from 7 to 21 years for "professional" use by hotels, motels, hospitals, airports, home/maid cleaning services, and nationwide institutions. Like them or not, ORECK has a solid history of over 45 years in the vacuum industry in the USA, made and owned in the USA, and a network of over 500 Clean Home stores nationwide that sell and service ORECK products (as well as other brands). ORECK vacuums are approved by the Carpet and Rug Industry every year and carry the Ease-of-Use Commendation by the Arthritis Foundation (www.arthritis.org). The latest Consumer Reports rates the ORECK XL21-700 number 14 with an overall "VERY GOOD." ORECK consistently maintains these ratings by CR year after year. Unlike a certain bagless brand with 3 models that have dropped in the CR rankings to 16, 17 and 24 as the CR rug cleaning tests become more difficult. Carmine D. [/quote] Some more specifics on ORECK users: The Oreck XL2310 used at the Windsor Court (number one rated hotel in the world); Westin Innsbrook; Sheratons; Marriott; Trump Taj Majal; Diplomat; Omni Royal Orleans; Plaza; Ramada; Quality; Red Roof Inns; Ritz Carlton Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by dial-a-matic on 03/25/07 at 10:35pm I use my ORECK 9100 everyday and still it picks up PERFECT, my home has stone, hardwood, and Berber and I love how I can go to floor to floor without doing anything, unlike a certain Bagless plastic trash heap! that I cant replace a belt without purchasing a whole new clutch ;D! -a- |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by tiger21 on 03/25/07 at 11:42pm Sanitaire, OSHA which has regs on sound and the need for hearing protection would not consider the Oreck sound harmful. The regs are for 90 decibels and the Oreck is far far less than that. If it was to high OSHA would require hearing protection. Then Oreck would lose a lot of customers. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by dial-a-matic on 03/26/07 at 10:33am I LOVE the sound of sanitaires! and the sound of convertibles! -a- |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by cprohman on 03/27/07 at 12:06pm guess_who wrote:
I've had exactly the opposite experience. I have never had much luck getting employees to change bags, so bagged vacuums have been maintenence nightmares, getting plugged up from over-filled bags. Meanwhile they do dump the bagless vacuums, so the bagless ones work better. Now that we've been using the Dysons for 4-5 years, I have seen a few times when the filters don't get washed, but on the whole there have been dramatically less issues than with the bagged vacs. Interestingly, where we used bagged canisters, those bags do get changed, but bagged uprights were a real problem. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/27/07 at 3:35pm Hi, Do you think your staff is more mindful of emptying the dust container because they can see it? What I have seen so far are bagless machines that suffer from the owners' belief that constant sucton claims also mean little or no maintenance. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by VacOMatic on 03/27/07 at 5:00pm It would be helpful if bagless vacs offered indicators or some kind of warning that told users the second stage filters are clogging. It can't be __that__ expensive to add a simple suction indicator! Some cheapie bagless vacs I have seen "hide" the second stage filter (bissell, some hoovers, etc.) so the user has no way of knowing the vac's clogging up until the vac simply won't pick stuff up. Not good design. Where the well designed bagless excells is in handling fine powders (capture, etc.) that quickly overwhelm a bagged vac __unless__ that bagged vac has a large, filtrette bag. Ever notice in Consumers Union testing that usually the uprights and cannisters with the largest, filtrette style bags do best in their tool/airflow tests? |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/27/07 at 6:18pm VacOMatic wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, both Euro-Pro Infinity bagless uprights (the teal and red models) have this feature (a light) to tell the user that the filter needs cleaning. MSRP are about $200 and $250 respectively but both are discounted from these prices at all the big box retailers. I have not used these long enough to see if the feature actually works well. And the red model is on my list of wants to inspect and use. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/28/07 at 8:03am guess_who wrote:
Hello Venson: The maker of a certain bagless vacuum and even some industry professionals including sales people promulgated this myth to an unsuspecting US vacuum buying public. How? By stating and prominantly displaying "0" costs after the purchase (on product literature and cartons). Other bagless makers jumped on the bandwagon (for the profit of course). Unfortunately, the US vacuum buying public bought into the lie and they got burned. I believe that some (public and professional alike) have even imputed a "moral high ground" to the bagless maker (in part because of this). And to a large extent by saying "bags" are old-fashioned technology. And they argue that it is "mean-spirited" and "evil" to question the truth of the bagless maker's claims let alone say the product's peformance is just mediocre. But I digress. My sense is that Consumer Reports will discuss this misinformation and even deception directed toward bagless buyers and users (performance wise not philosophical). And CR will set the record straight. At least I'm optimistic that CR will detail the pitfalls of bagless vacuums vice bagged when it discusses vacuum maintenance and vacuum reliability. Time will tell. We'll have to wait and see. Which? has done it overseas with reports of vacuums in comparing reliability. But it has had more time with the bagless phenomenon. Inevitably Which? rates the bagged vacuums like Miele and SEBO as the best for reliability results year after year. And we know the worse! CR has come close with its inherent distaste (some may say slant) for the health unworthiness of bagged vacuums (i.e HOOVER FUSION and Eureka Optima and the general health warning about the uncleanliness and health hazards of dumping bagless). But has not issued its final judgment on the pitfalls of bagless vacuums. Some vacuum manufacturers are actually ahead of the industry curve for bagless maintenance by offering self-cleaning HEPA filters and light indicators to remind users of the need for filter cleaning. CR should give praise to them too. If not for the results, at least for the efforts. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/28/07 at 1:58pm Hi Carmine, Thanks. As for health hazards, there are probably a million household tasks that bear possible health hazards. Cleaning toilets, washing out garbage cans and litter boxes and even the manner by which we do the dishes, just as examples, expose us to all kinds of unfriendly microbes yet most of us survive. In simpler times all that was required was plain soap, a bucket, a rag and a broom and life moved along just fine. However, we've been "shocked awake" as it were by advertisers' hyperbole over the last several and are constatnly running straight out to stock our homes with products to make us safe. The laugh here is that we hear even less about the safety margin in the use of those products. So while I'm waging the war on germs with my rubber gloves, chlorine bleach or other chemicals, I'm still exposing myself to potential harm. That doesn't mean we shouldn't clean but that we might be better served by reality checks now and then. I'm all for lessening or removing health risks but realize that it is so far impossible to avoid a good many. I think the more advertisements weave tales of potential woe the more we need to refresh ourselves regarding practical science before buying. I like my bagless Iridium (which I think has been dropped by Sears) but have bagged machines I think as much of. Though it is to my mind Best in Show in comparison to any other bagless non-Dyson originated canisters, it still requires my occsasionally having to remove the shroud to get out collected debris when emptying its dust container -- no simple dump and put it back. The washing of the dust container may or may not be necessary but I like seeing it relatively clean. All this does lead to some exposure to dust but the doing of it isn't significantly messier than thoroughly cleaning out a re-usable bag. On the other hand, just removing and replacing a disposable bag or a pre- or after-filter now and then is awful nice though it comes with a cost. Vacuum emissions and messy maintenance are surely worthy of our concern but sadly are not the greatest of them. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/28/07 at 5:13pm Hello Venson: On the matter of the microbial threat, I respectively disagree with most who are not concerned. But will limit my post to some salient points. Reading of Henry Mazur, President of the Infectious Disease Society of America (www.idsociety.org) has heightened my awareness of the issues and concerns. Consider: Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands of Americans every year and can strike anyone, young, old, healthy and chronically ill. Annually nearly 2 million US patients acquire infections in the hospital and nearly one in 10 of these patients die; more than 70% of those infections are resistant to at least one of the drugs used to treat them. In the last decade, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a serious problem outside the hospital, incluidng among our soldiers returning from Iraq, and the number of infections caused by these bugs has skyrocketed among healthy people. The media regularly reporting horrifying stories of otherwise healthy children and adults felled by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and of US soldiers infected with Acinetobacter baumanni. If you have some time and want to read more about the threat, I strongly suggest you and others do. It's an eye opening experience. Having worked in a dust and dirt environment for most of my adult life (due to vacuums, paint thinner, and lacquer paint, with buffing compounds and the like) and never using masks and gloves, I can only say I surely had the angels and saints looking over me. I nearly died from pneumonia and still susceptible (due to a lung bacteria as a result of dirt). My 9 year old lab developed diabetes at 4 YO due to an airborne virus and I administer insulin to her twice daily. She is lucky to be alive. Some of the other pets that acquired the disease when she did, died as a result. And I don't have to mention the deaths of 9-11 workers who succumbed subsequently from breathing related ailments caused by their exposure. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/28/07 at 6:41pm Hi Carmine D., I'm awfully sorry to hear of your unfortunate experiences. As I ended last time round, I maintain there are greater concerns for us than vacuum emissions. The things you've spoken of just proved it. In light of the things you've stated, I feel there is little to protect us beyond that which we may try to do to bolster our immune systems and/or maintain our bodies and health as best we can. However, there are no miracle detergents, disinfectants to shield us from the kind of things you're talking about. It is hard to know or understand why one individual exposed to the myriad bacterial and chemical encounters we experience daily comews to suffer and another under exactly the same exposure does not. This is an issue quite close to my heart because someone very important to me died in a hospital after battling several infections having nothing to do with the reason he'd been brought in. They were encountered and cropped up there during an eight month stay. If there'd been a vacuum cleaner that could have helped improve his condition, I'd have been there with two. If there'd been a bathroom cleaner, an air spray, detergent, a gadget or anything that could have helped him stay alive in what I'd obviously mistook as the best and cleanest environment he could be in -- one of the best hospitals in New York City -- I and other friends would have had the stuff hauled there by the truckload. Yet for all that hospital's access to drugs, germicides and devices, none saved him. He is lost to us and sorely missed. In light of that, when I get hit with adverts telling me that if I don't rush out to get Brand-X cleaner my bathroom will qualify as a swamp or that if my vacuum doesn't filter down to x-microns I'll be asphyxiated, I smirk and turn the other way. Then I think of good old Aunt Lucy, 95 and still with us, who spent many a cleaning day sweeping with a broom and doing the john with nothing but a bucket of water a little ammonia. Regarding the rise of new maladies, I think one, there are scenarios involved that are probably much the same as those applying to native Americans here -- strangers show up not only carrying wampum but lots of bacteria and viruses they'd long developed a better tolerance for. However their hosts had never been exposed to the like and that often unfortuantely proved deadly. We are now living in a world in which you can move long distances from one part of it and back again in a matter of hours carrying and bringing who knows what. Two, there's the old example that if you have a room full of flies and you get out the sprayer to blast them away, not all will die. Some will live, breed and bring forth a more resistant strain. There was a strain of veneral disease a good many years back that developed overseas by way of persons selling their services while under treatment for the same before treatment reached full course. What did we end up with? Bacteria that penicillin couldn't kill. And we' lived a long time thinking there was almost nothing penicillin couldn't do. There are many, many awful things happening every day and everywhere that we can neither stop nor decrease. For purveyors of goods to imply that a machine, chemical or whatever can be the cure for our ills is oft times equally as awful. We can only do what we reasonably can to survive in this world. Beyond that, all that's left us is prayer. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/28/07 at 7:12pm guess_who wrote:
My heartfelt sympathy for your loss. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/28/07 at 7:48pm guess_who wrote:
Venson: Some SEARS stores, like the one in N. Las Vegas, carry a bagless Kenmore Progressive Cyclonic Bagless Canister Vacuum Models 26822/23. It is no longer called the Iridium. And the MSRP is $399. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/28/07 at 7:54pm Thanks Carmine. I was wondering because I did not see it in the line-up of canister vacs on the Sears website. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/29/07 at 12:28pm Hi again Carmine, You may already be aware off this but I was not. I checked the online Sears' site but did not see the Iridium. When I checked again this morning I did see the Dyson "Stow Away" canister ($474.98) in its place. The info copy bears the "The only canister vacuum that doesn't lose suction," blurb so I think LG's Iridium is probably a thing of the past as far as Sears is concerned. Also, the rug nozzle is "powered by a separate motor" which I takew to mean its been electrified. Sounds like a little push and shove was going on and Dyson got the upper hand. Nonetheless, the new Electrolux bagless remains in the line-up. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/29/07 at 2:13pm Hello Venson: Here's some info on the Sears Proressive Cyclonic Bagless canister (from the product literature): 15 vortex cyclones 12 amps 2 liter dirt capacity Power controls mounted on the handle (3 stage low, medium, high touch pad control) InteliClean System with LED Display (detects dust and dirt and adjusts cleaning power for rugs and floors automatically with LED display when on) Aluminum telescopic wands Cord length 19-21 foot (depends on model) and automatic rewind 4 manual step toe tap pad height adjustment on power nozzle Dual long-life LED headlights on the power nozzle Low profile power swivel nozzle Washable HEPA with easy access allows 4 washings every 6 months and still effective HandiMate Jr air turbine tool Horse hair floor brush See through hose 3 in 1 Combo Tool (dusting brush, upholstery brush and crevice tool) stores on handle Soft tire canister wheels I knew that SEARS planned to carry the DC21 Stowaway. It appears that some SEARS stores, like the one in Vegas, is matching the SEARS Progressive brand name for the cyclonic bagless to the dyson brand name for canisters. While other SEARS stores are matching the Electrolux brand name for the bagless canisters against dyson. That's my sense. And the MSRP on the SEARS Progressive is $399. The SEARS Progressive canister claims: "15 Individual cones separate the dust from the intake air to maximize suction power and cleaning performance." We recently saw BEST BUY discontinue the Electrolux line (including the canisters), only to bring them back after the Consumer Reports ratings and rankings in October 2006. The Iridium canister was not a popular seller, so I am told. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/29/07 at 2:51pm Hi, I just checked in with my Sears in nearby Rego Park, NY. The salesperson I spoke with says the Progressive bagless has been discontinued. I mentioned the Dson Stowaway and its listing online and she informed me that they do not have them in the store at present. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/29/07 at 3:11pm Back again . . . Now gang don't things mixed up. I don't hate Dyson -- I just will never buy one. However, for those of you who will and just can't wait. I did searches on both nextag.com and pricegrabber.com, and the standing price is $500.00 approximately ($499.90 to $499.99). Sears Online only is offering the lowest price of $474.98. My Boy Scout good deed for the day is done. Thank you very much. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/29/07 at 3:14pm Thanks, Venson. As of 2 weeks ago yesterday, the SEARS Progressive Cyclonic Bagless canisters were still in stock and for sale at the SEARS store in N. Las Vegas. And was told that the DC21 Stowaway was due. The Electrolux bagless canister was not, nor was the Iridium and neither were ever carried, so I was told. At my next SEARS visit, I'll check in to see what's there. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/29/07 at 3:17pm guess_who wrote:
I can't say that because I did buy the DC07 pink at TARGET. I gifted it away. And I'm still on the dyson mailing list as a registered dyson owner. And exchanged telephone calls and emails with dyson on the shortcomings I experienced with the dyson DC07 pink on my carpets and its helpline. To which dyson was extremely professional in its written reponse. I was not accused of being a "dyson hater" or "mean spirited" and "evil" and/or somehow lacking in personal and professional attributes like truthfulness and sincerity. Dyson said it would forward my email to its Engineering Department for future consideration. (I provided this email exchange to a poster on this Forum along with proof of my dyson DC07 pink purchase and personal use). That's how "trust but verify" works. :) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by cprohman on 03/30/07 at 8:46am guess_who wrote:
Yes, Venson, I think that's exactly it. With bags, even if there is an indicator, they seem to think that "just one more vacuuming without changing" won't do any harm and that the next person can change it, and of course, the next person thinks exactly the same thing. With the Dysons they can see the bin, and as it approaches the "Max" line, they can see exactly where they stand. As for cleaning the filter, the key there is having a schedule that you follow, which is a manger's responsibility. If you left it up to the individual vacuumers, I agree that it would never happen. In a home, I suspect some do a fine job of remembering to clean it, others don't. I agree that a warning light telling you to clean it would be a useful addition to the vacuum. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 03/30/07 at 11:03pm Now you see it, now you don't. The Dyson Stowaway canister does not appear tonight at the Sears site. There was some sort pf problem with the interactive display but I wonder if the manufacture was not too pleased about the falling away from the party line price. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/30/07 at 11:45pm guess_who wrote:
Hello Venson: An interesting thought but...SEARS is not concerned about what other canister manufacturers think/do especially a new comer to the cann market like dyson which already has a tainted past (the dyson DC11 canister). My sense is SEARS will take on the dyson DC21 Stowaway because it carries dyson uprights already AND SEARS Kenmore canisters comprise 25 percent of all the new canisters sold every year. A canister buying customer may potentially ask how the dyson canister stacks up to the SEARS Kenmore canisters. By having the dyson DC21 in stock and on display, canister customers can compare both brands in the SEARS store and make a purchase there and then. No need for going and looking elsewhere for a store that carries the DC21. BTW, I recall SEARS stores had the dyson DC11 canister in May 2004 one month before BEST BUY stores. And BEST BUY launched the dyson line in the USA. I'm willing to bet that for every 1 dyson DC21 canister sold in a SEARS store, at least 25 if not more SEARS Kenmore canisters will be sold in the same store. As Jimmy the Old-Time Pro said cann makers and sellers in the USA market are playing in the dirty part of the field. And that's where SEARS plays alone and plays the best. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 04/01/07 at 7:51am Hi Carmine, The Dyson Stowaway is back online at Sears. Guess for how much . . . $499.98. There are games going on. I think Dyson would have been so much better served to leave well enough and let the prior slight discount at Sears be an incentive to buy. This is why I dislike business so much -- life just can't seem to go on without that last -- and usually unnecessary -- nickel. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/01/07 at 8:03am guess_who wrote:
Hello Venson: SEARS conceded the battle (caved on the $25 price increase) to win the war: Keep and grow 25 percent of the new canister vacuum sales market in the USA every year. It's a dirty game. SEARS is the biggest player and plays to win. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 04/01/07 at 8:21am Hi, Nonetheless, the consumer won't win anything until a price reduction. Per the manufacturer's specs, we're talking a 23 pound machine (I assume that is the weight when all is on board for storage), a .44 gallon bin capaciy and a 16.4 foot power cord. I'd suggest anyone who'd like one waits until the price is down by a hundred bucks not only to get it cheaper but to send a message. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/01/07 at 8:23am guess_who wrote:
Venson, you're right. The price will come down. THe question is how: Fall drastically and/or gradually. Remember the DC11 and DC15. The DC15 dropped $100 in less than 6 months in October 2005. This was a red flag to buyers. Poor DC15 marketing resulting in poorer DC15 sales. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 04/01/07 at 9:00am Hi Carmine, Indeed I do remember well. I especially remember a woman browsing in Bed, Bath & Beyond quite vociferously stating, "I'm not paying $600 for a vacuum cleaner," after she'd laid eyes on the "Balls" price tag. This contined to be very interesting to me as a couple of other female shoppers had taken note and a small congregation of three soon decided that what was important was "getting the job done" and that the job could be done for a lot less than the store was asking. Though allowing sellers at least a chance to make the purchase a bit more attractive by slight falling way from the MSRP might merely be another sucker play that the consumer is the brunt of, it would encourage better volume in regard to getting the ball (pardon the pun) rolling saleswise. Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/01/07 at 9:15am guess_who wrote:
Certainly worth a shot on SEARS part to have the edge price wise on the DC21 in the remote case that a customer insisted to buy. Dyson dropped the "ball" too with the marketing terms for the DC07 Original: An exclusive model for Wal*Mart for $378 with a 2 year warranty to replace the DC07 All Carpets. The buzz on the Forum about the facts and circumstances of this event is legendary. As are the Wal*Mart people who were responsible for the fiasco and are now long gone and forgotten (as the dyson model). Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/12/07 at 4:14pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Hello Venson: I made my obligatory monthly visit to the SEARS store in N. Las Vegas to scope out the vacuums. The SEARS Progressive bagless canister is gone: Display and stock. I was told that it was an awful seller. Not worth the space it occupied on the shelf. I was told the same about the Electrolux Twin Clean bagless canister. So I don't expect it to survive any longer. The sales person said the only vacuum that he's seen that was worse was the dyson DC11 canister. He's been doing the vacuum sales for about 16 years. On a good note, the SEARS store is in the midst of its big season sale and the vacuums featured like the SEARS bagged canister (the green quocomole) for $129 and bagged HOOVER WT SP for $199 are displayed and ready for demoing. Some lookers too, mostly paper bag buyers, but strolling the vacuum aisles to see what's on sale. BTW, while this store carries the full dyson product line it passed on the dyson DC16 Hand Held. Why? The 5 minute run time on a full charge (SUCKED was the word used to describe the short usage time). And the price $149. Chalk up another loser for 500 dyson engineers. Sells the Black & Decker bagless hand vacuum with pivoting head and self cleaning filter. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by guess_who on 04/12/07 at 9:23pm Thanks for the heads-up Carmine. I think it's a shame that what is a perfectly good vacuum didn't get the push it deserved and, to my mind, got left to sell itself. It's as good as , if not better, than anything Dyson's come up with so far. I also feel that if the pricing had been a bit more attractive maybe it would have had a better chance. Nonetheless, that's all water under the bridge. It's my hope that at least Euro-Pros bagless will prove good sensibly priced competition. Has there been an increase of stories with happy endings in regard to Euro-Pro's customer service? Best, Venson |
|
Title: Re: The filter vs the bag type of vacuum cle Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/12/07 at 9:35pm Hello Venson: I think it is safe to say that after the dyson DC21 Stowaway dies an ignominious death, the bagless canister in the USA will go the way of the horse drawn carriage (as a particular poster on the Forum use to like to say). Save the E-P which priced the bagless cann wisely right out of the gate (pardon the pun). Carmine D. |
|
Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.1! YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved. |