| Name |
CKMorrison |
| Email Address |
private |
| AIM |
|
| YIM |
|
| ICQ |
|
 |
| Gender |
|
| Age |
|
| Location |
|
|
| Personal Quote |
|
|
| Privileges |
Normal user |
| Rank |
 |
| Points |
56 |
| Number of Posts |
56 |
| Number of Reviews |
0 |
| Date Joined |
Nov 7, 2007 |
| Date Last Access |
Jul 4, 2008 7:35 pm |
|
 |
Re: The New Miele Upright Cleaner
#1 Jun 2, 2008 2:56 pm |
|
Hi 'Catlady',What type of brushroll / agitator is fitted to the New Miele Upright? Is it a simple brushroll, or does it have beater bars? Is the brushroll metal or plastic? (Thanks in advance). |
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
#2 May 26, 2008 6:16 pm |
|
Hey Carmine, I’m going to ask not to be used as a reference (although I did say a lawsuit was plausible) on any future pie throwing posts. FYI, I happen to like your challenges and I appreciate what Motorhead contributes here, especially Dyson. Thanks. The reason we saw only 1 manufacturer knock off Dyson LTD’s innovations is due to James Dyson’s resolve and using the courts (lawsuits) to define/remind others what belongs to him. The courts and news reports punished Hoover Candy terribly over them stealing James’s intellectual property. – This sent a message loud and clear to the vacuum manufacturing industry. Only after the Dual Cyclone patents expired did Hoover Candy, and Bissell copy James’ Dual Cyclone. Hoover U.S. gambled on producing a vacuum using near expired Dyson Dual Cyclone patents, which may or may not have been money up or not much money up for them. I think Hoover/Mayag lost on this lazy gamble in the short and long term. Why? Great ideas come from outside inventors, not just employed engineers. What outside inventor will be stupid enough to trust a willful thief? DIB
But Hoover/Candy do not use the dual cyclone set-up. They use a single cyclone and pleated filters.
Hoover/Candy got its knuckles rapped over the 'Triple Vortex', which was shown to be a variation of the dual cyclone set-up, with an involute vortex separator. Hoover was thus banned from using the technology for an extra year beyond when the other manufacturers could use it. However, Hoover had already moved onto the single cyclone + pleated filter arrangement, as used in the 'Vortex Power', 'Hurricane', 'Whirlwind', and 'Dust Manager', and 'The One'.
|
|
|
Re: Dyson DC24 / DC25 Vacs: Sir James Brings his Ball back
#3 May 26, 2008 5:59 pm |
|
My point is that Dyson, having previously been somewhat wary of pedals, controls, switches, etc., is now fitting those very things to his machines.
|
|
|
Re: Dyson DC24 / DC25 Vacs: Sir James Brings his Ball back
#4 May 23, 2008 5:12 pm |
|
Be interesting to see if Dyson put any of these features on it's machines in the future! I personally don't think they will, James Dyson and his Team as DIB has pointed out likes to think out side of the box and be different and not follow everyone else! All the cleaners I've used with foot release pedals which lock the handle have at some point broke! To put a handle release lock would not suit the Ball design or the design like the DC07\DC14\DC17. The DC07\DC14\DC17 would have to have a foot pedal which is what Dyson wanted to get away from and to have easy to use machines. Foot on the front pull back on the handle to use. Easy solution with these models to go over uneven surfaces push handle to upright position tilt back on rear wheels push over surface (uneven) push foot on the corner of the cleaning head to lower back to floor and away you go again! Just a different way of using a vacuum. Not to everyones taste! The hose on a Dyson is separate to the main airflow and only engaged when needed. Less blockages better airflow and shorter path to the collection bin when using the vacuum normally. They wanted to get away from the hose being part of the main airflow from the cleaning head to the collection bin/bag, causing longer air paths and more potential for blockages and poor airflow. I can see the point when you only need the hose, the DC15 and I think the DC14 is the same. You can pull the wand out the top and without releasing the wand\handle from the machine unclip the hose so you have only the hose to use.
Well I don't think James Dyson is thinking 'out of the box', (apart from placing cyclones in series, and the ball wheel). He seems to be trying to not use available technology, but ultimately ends up doing so. If he wants to make the most efficient cleaner, he should use Hoover's later agitator designs, in order to give the carpets a decent beating.
As to a foot pedal, what is that fitted to DC15, 18, 24, & 25?...it's a foot pedal! And staying with foot-operated controls, what about the clutch-belt models DC04, 07, & 14? Those too, are foot operated (or hand, if you can be bothered to bend down). I have used a great many cleaners with hoses as the integral dirt path, and never had any major problem with them. The hoses fitted to the Hoover and Electrolux machines of the 1980's and 90's, tended to be of a thicker pvc By the way, what happened to Dyson's "constant diameter airways" and "MEMA" filters? Anyway, I'm not very pleased with the DC15 leaving old dirt in the carpets.
|
|
|
Re: Dyson DC24 / DC25 Vacs: Sir James Brings his Ball back
#5 May 22, 2008 3:53 pm |
|
My problem with the Dysons is that the lack of sensible features make them awkward to use, particularly the lack of carpet height control, and the exceedingly useful handle-pedal lock. I find (and other people I know, have also found) that the Dysons are awkward to maneouvre over different height levels, such as the threshold strips between rooms. Or trying to go from fitted carpet onto a hearth rug. With a Dyson, you have either to reverse over the height difference, or bend down and lift the head over, or put the cleaner fully upright and lift it onto the rug. With most other upright makes, one simply presses down upon the machine's handle, the cleaner head pivots upon the rear wheels, push straight over the height difference - and you carry on cleaning. Simple. Also, the cleaning hose is a nuisance, having to haul out the aluminium wand in order to use the hose itself. Who is going to use an unwieldy wand, to vacuum around fine ornaments on a mantlepiece? Not me, nor several ladies I know. |
|
