Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iH9bdT5tcFOJz0hhY1fBBfP9KbLQ

http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/productmodel.asp?model=DC22

Hi M00seUK

So the DC22 that was launched in Japan is launched in the UK!  It also confirms it is a small model like the DC12 as it was thought when the Dc22 was launched in Japan it was bigger than the DC12!

No mention of the DDM in the UK versions!?

DC18

Great news, thanks for posting.  I agree with DC18 on the size; I thought it was going to be a large machine too, in the pictures it appeared larger than the DC21 (which is the same size as the other Dyson canisters but still small compared to other brands of "full-size" canister).

I can only hope this model (or a variation of it, DC23 perhaps?) will make it to the 'States, with the DDM of course.

Motorhead wrote:
It's listed on the USA site also.

M00seUK wrote: Interesting, I checked the USA site again and it still shows the DC21 as the only canister model. 

DC18 wrote:

Appears so, for both models. They feature core separation, which perhaps adds slightly to the unit size.
It's a good price point, It's 10 GBP less than the larger DC20. Perhaps Dyson thought that including the DDM would be a tough sell, if it made 'Baby' more expensive. Although it would have been nice to have a DDM option, like to turn the brushbar in the Animal model. Maybe they want to keep current production for the Airblade for the moment?

Motorhead wrote:
Sorry, you're correct. Dyson.com was directing me to Dyson.co.uk

True adding the DDM would push up price point.  Should sell well if slightly less than the DC20, the Animal DC22 is not a bad price either!

DC18

Well, I'm certainly stumping down my cash for 'Baby' when it hits the shops. I live in the city in a place with wood floors throughout and something like this is certainly needed, especially in the new builds - they have next to no storage space to keep a vacuum.

You will have to let us know what the Dyson baby is like M00seUK when you get one!

Moose, Thank You!

.

Dyson Baby:  I have seen the DC12 called Baby on an Asian blog but I thought it was nickname people gave their DC12.  A search shows Dyson registered the DC12 Baby here.  The DC22 Baby-Animal lists a turbine nozzle, but the hose looks to be electrified.        DIB

Not a good time for "baby" to be born.  Even a dyson baby.  Read it and weep.  It's often said that timing is everything in business.  Dyson's timing IMHO couldn't be worse.  It doesn't look good for the home team dyson fans. 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080117/wall_street.html?.v=51

AP
Stocks Extend Plunge; Dow Falls 306
Thursday January 17, 6:14 pm ET
By Tim Paradis, AP Business Writer Stocks Extend Plunge As Manufacturing Index Falls; Bond Insurers Fall Amid Fears of Losses

Carmine D.

Hi DIB,

I'd say the hose is electrified to power the controls, even though you did mention it has an air-driven nozzle.  But I wonder if a motorized power nozzle would work.

Just a guess.

Motorhead,

 

In comparing the two canisters, (Japanese and UK photos) they almost look identical.  Only upon close inspection do you see slightly different wands and hoses.  The nozzles look the same on both photos.  Is not having a power nozzle in the UK a good thing?        DIB

 

UK:   http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/product.asp?product=DC22-ANIMAL

Japan:  http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000Z9YOH6/pasoconeco-kitchen-22

So no Digital Motor used in the latest models?

I was just going to say no DDM in any of the new models by the looks of it!  Looking at the price points of the UK versions of the DC22 Baby Dyson the DDM and power nozzle does not look like they are on this model or that would push the price point up!  They are both cheaper than the DC21 (UK) model!

DC18

The DC22 baby cann might have some appeal here in the USA.  Price and performance are the keys to success.  CR will take the baby dyson cann through the obstacle cleaning courses and report the results.  Let's wait to see what CR says before it is declared a vacuum icon for the ages [like some of its predecessors].  Timing is everything.  It may be too late for dyson to capture the baby cann market in the USA except among jaydee fans. 

Carmine D.

For those who are not tormented with Dyson-Jealousy, enjoy.        DIB

.

DC22 pictures, a few good shots of the power nozzle:  one two three four

The hose is mounted in the wrong spot

MOLE

Very nice DIB, thanks for sharing.  I anxiously await the arrival of the DC22...definitely nothing wrong with the improved low-profile Motorhead.  Not that the DC21's was that big, but this will make getting under furniture and getting the rug clean underneath even easier than it already was, and that's saying a lot! 

Nice close ups, thank you DIB for sharing the pictures. I bet the motor head on this DC22 is simular to the ones used on the DC24/DC25 using one complete brush bar and powered at one end!

DC18

Trilobite wrote:

.

Trilobite,

It seems the DC22 “Baby” and DC23 have been abandoned at birth.  You’re right, there is no good information of the filtration to be found at the Dyson UK site.  The DC22 press release praises the filtration capabilities, although the web site is lacking badly.  Is keeping potential consumers in the dark a strategy?  If the DC22 is praised to much (Dyson's greatest filtration to date) perhaps it will hurt with the selling off the older DC19, 20 and 21’s?  It looks like Dyson may have may have to much inventory of these older cylinders.        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

If you scroll up a few and see my post from Jan 18, you'll know the reason and have your answer.

Carmine D.

 

Click to view Supersized HQ.

WHAT HAPPENED,

WHAY MARKET WAS DYSON TARGETING WITH THIS MASTERPIECE.

SORRY JIMMY BOY YOU LOSE AGAIN..............

MOLE

mole wrote:

Hello Mole:

I was wondering the same on both:  What happened to the dyson baby cann and what is the target market? 

Carmine D.

Having looked at the DC22 (and the DC23) in a shop and picked it up etc... this is heavier (feels heavier) than the DC05 canister (now discontinued in the UK!) and looks bigger too!  I wonder if the DC22 is bigger than the DC12 Japan model!  I think the DC05 should have been named 'Dyson Baby'!  Probably due to the bigger bin and cyclone top with root and core technology makes the DC22 look bigger!  Still a very small compact powerful machine!

DC18

DC18,

Hello, I hear the DC22 is a middle size between the DC05 and DC21.  The DC05 is small sitting next to a DC21 (by about 20-30% smaller).  I believe the DC12 would of made a great dealer exclusive and should have been here in the U.S. long ago.  In terms of size-to-power technologies it has no competitors (that I am aware of), it is radically unique and could not be undercut by retailers.  Removing the phone-home capabilities may or may not be necessary for it to be a success here.  Sell it as is, a straight suction machine.        DIB

 

P.S.  Dyson had the “Baby” trademarked for the DC12 in other countries.  Agreed, "Baby" for the DC22 is a bit of a stretch.

Hello DIB

Thanks for your info.

DC18

The Japanese DC22 filters can go years[?] before between filter cleaning.  I just found the UK's DC22 instructions online and it says "To wash filters at least once a month."  What's up this?        DIB

 

http://www.dyson.co.uk/support/help.asp?article=1457&product=DC22-ALLERGY

Hi DIB,

That's rather interesting as well.  Must be a discrepancy on the website, I believe the DC22 filters can go for 6-7 years without washing. 

I agree with what you said about the DC12 as well, that would have been a fantastic machine for the US as a compact canister (with the DDM of course).  To me it seems the DC22 while bigger than the DC12 is still smaller than the 21 and 23 hence the "Baby" designation.

-MH

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Check out the filter washing schedule discrepancies between the Canadian DC21 (every 6 months) and the Canadian DC23 (every 3 months).        DIB

http://www.english.dysoncanada.ca/customercare/manuals/ca/DC23_motorhead_caen.pdf

http://www.english.dysoncanada.ca/customercare/manuals/generic/dc21_ca_manual.pdf

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

As explained to me by the Dyson rep and as we tell the consumer, the whole idea is to be more aware of the filters in the unit.  It's the same reason the filters on the DC24 are labled to be checked once a month...might not mean they need cleaning but at least check them to make sure.  We've been running the 23 and the 21 in store for awhile now and I can say that the 23 allows less dust to the secondary filter than the 21 does.  Could you go without washing for six months in the 23?  Sure...maybe even a year...but you'll always get that one application that where people vacuum every day in a big home with lots of pets and kids.  Those applications probably need to follow the 3 month schedule...perhaps even sooner. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry.

Dusty

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Not sure why that is, like Dusty says to make people more aware to check the filter regularly regardless if they need cleaning or not!  Can't see the DDM has anything to do with it!  I don't wash my filters in my DC07 or DC1much but do check them from time to time!

DC18

dusty wrote:

Dusty,

Thanks for the info.  The newest and most radical cyclonic filtering vacuum cleaner on the planet comes with a manual that suggests filter maintenance every 3 months is nothing short of a disaster.  If I remember correctly the Japanese DC22’s (both DDM and standard motors) are advertised (per Dyson Japans website) as going 5 years until filter maintenance.  And this is a HUGE business advantage over the present and future competition.  Dyson needs to separate himself and his technologies (his vacuums) as far superior to his competitors.  The DC22 can do much better it if James chooses.  Many manufacturers are in line with cyclonic patent pendings.  This is war and Dyson will loose the cyclonic filtration wars if he does not change some of his business and design beliefs ASAP!  Chinese Hoover certainly demonstrated they are willing to lye down prone and sell themselves with a unbelievable cheap multi-cyclonic.        DIB

P.S.  Playing it safe on the filter cleaning I agree with, but the DC22 should go at least 1 year at minimum before filter cleaning.

.

Carmine and Mole,

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link…  If you find the weak link in the discrepancies between how the DC22 filters in the various regions, this will lead you to why the DC24 and DC25 do not filter as good as they most certainly should.  Let me know if you need additional hints.        DIB

.

*Owns factory/s in 3^rd world countries as well as the brand, vice others who must pay for their sub-contractors mark-ups. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB Man:

You and the dyson menschkins should cut your losses on this filter farce and the DC07 and DC14 clutch and brush bar.   You have a bigger battle to fight.  Dyson fans, not MOLE and I, have to craft a legitimate defense when vacuum buyers ask why they should pay $500 plus for a dyson that requires monthly filter maintenance.  Especially after being told for 6 years that the filters don't clog: The reason always given by you to warrant the high dyson price.  Ball ain't goin to hack it!

MOLE gave the reasons several weeks ago with absolute no rebuttals received. 

First, the dyson claim "never clogs" is a myth and always was.  We know the answer.  ASA told us and dyson.

Second, the latest root technology with the primary, secondary and final dirt separators is far inferior to the earlier dyson versions.  Therefore more fine dirt has to be filtered by the pre-motor filter which then clogs if not cleaned monthly.

Third, the dyson brush bar was soooo puny on the DC07 and DC14 that the fine embedded grit normally removed by most vacuum brush rolls, [which clog filters], was not exhumed in sufficient amounts by dysons to clog the filters.  Much stayed in the rugs instead.  When dyson ramped up the brush roll design on newer models, more fine embedded dirt/grit was exhumed from the rugs than with the earlier dyson models.  Making monthly filter maintenance a  dyson/user requirement to warranty the vacuums for 5 years. 

And finally, all the above.  I choose all the above.  You can fool all of the people some of time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. 

Carmine D.

Hey DUBBA,I mean D.I.B.

The more you post this nonsense the more you are ruining yours and dyson reputation.

You flip flop more than John Mcshrub.

Dysons filter great? our claim to fame,well now since we made it work better after years of research and development,it doesnt filter so great any more.

The more dust and dirt the machine picks up the harder the filters have to work,[HINT,HINT,HINT,].

MOLE

mole wrote:

Mole,

Did you pull away from fantasy role playing and “Nailing Dyson’s to the Floor” long enough only so to name call?  I understand Dyson’s separators well, you don’t.  I understand my praises and my criticism’s here are indexed and far reaching.  James Dyson can make his separators filter much better if he changes some beliefs.  I know what I am doing and I know what to type to get the indexing I want.        DIB

mole wrote:
Mole, first of all, are you from Indiana?  You sure sound like a Hoosier to me!  You type like a Hoosier, you have Hoosier ideas, you run a Hoosier vac shop, and I bet you live in a Hoosier home

The ASA ruling that has been quoted here offhandedly so many times does not have anything to do with the claim of no clogging!  The ASA was completely satisfied that the machine does not clog or lose suction if the customer follows the printed directions included with the machine.  Which, understandably, something Hoosiers have a hard time understanding

What the ASA ruling had to do with (and the ASA is in England NOT in America, and is not a LEGAL authority) was the implied claim that the Dyson does not have filters at all.  That claim was implied rather than directly stated, there is a clear difference.  What Dyson actually said in their advertising was that there is no filter in the cyclones to clog, which is true.   But the average consumer took that to mean there were no filters at all, which is not true.  Dyson changed their claim to reflect the fact that there *are* filters, which, if you follow the directions, don't clog!  If you view the ASA ruling you will see that is true.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

A mole is a little creature that crawls under ground and is a nuisance (pest) to the world.  When confronted they dig deeper and hide.They do not see well if at all.  Naturally they are at the bottom of the intelligence chain and serve no useful purpose. How could you expect a mole to follow directions?

Hey Motor:

Awful lot of IF's in your story about the ASA taking dyson to the watershed over its false claim: Never clogs. 

I have a story for you too from a famous childrens' fairy tale:  If the hound didn't stop to rest, it would have caught the rabbit.  But it did, and it didn't. 

ASA bids Sayonora on the old steel guitar to the dyson claim: Never clogs.

Carmine D.

For those that haven't seen it, the ASA ruling.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42594.htm

Dusty

HARDSELL wrote:

Hey HS:

As usual you slant and give half truths to suit your needs.  Moles see quite well.  Just not with their eyes which are very tiny.  Instead, moles use their other senses which evolved to compensate for their eyesight.  It's a myth that they can't see just because they have poor eyesight.  It's also a myth that they are dumb.  They are quite intelligent.  Hence, spies who infiltrate intelligence agencies and gather classified data/information are commonly called "moles."  

If you furrowed in the ground all day, what good would eyesight be to you?  Well, forget the last question.  You don't, and it's still no good!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You contradict your self.  First you say they see without using their eyes. Then you say they use their senses to compensate for eyesight. Where were your senses when you stated this?

I agree that senses compensate for poor eyesight, however that is not seeing.

Read my statement again.  I never stated emphatically that  they do not see.  If they see at all they have tunnel vision at best. 

Hey HS:

Ooh!  I detect some anger in your post.  Not good for you.  I changed my message just for you. 

CarmineD wrote:

I especially like the spy and mole connection.  Truth be told here, MOLE's are much more creative, interesting, intelligent and have a better sense of humor than HARDSELL's.   The latter have much to much pent up anger.  You'd think they were given a free dyson to test, just to say nice things about it on vacuum Forums, then sell it for cash after 3 years, only to get caught in the end and found out by everyone! 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Your detection is not so good.  Of course considering the source I don't expect it to be.  I see no need to get angry with the mentally challenged.

I am sure that with your IQ a mole does seem intelligent. 

You are the only one making accusations about my DC07.  Remember,  I have no assciation with the vac industry.  No freebies and no biased opinions because of my past. 

You really should foirgive Dyson for making a monkey out of you as a consultant.   Which is mole and which is Carmine?

DysonInventsBig wrote:

O.K smart guy.

Now i will pose another question for you to answer,

What does dysons cyclonic technology [what ever system they are calling it this week],have to do with dust and dirt removeal out of the carpeting.

My educated opinion is that it has absolutly nothing to do with performance or dirt removal, it does not mean SQUAT how many cyclones are used where they are located and inverted or sideways.

Do you think Sir Jimmy wants me on his team?

If you dont respond I'll know why.

Have you ever indexed spark plugs, why dont you give it a try sometimes,Mr inventor........

MOLE

HARDSELL wrote:

I just LUVS my Dyson,its the bestest vacum i have ever used, THe kolors are soo koole, the Nice yung women on E baye said they laste fer eva, She liked me soo muche she gave me free shippin,

The above is a typical review on amazon.com,

Notice how the dyson posts get more hostile as time went on.??????????????

MOLE

The irony is that the above post actually looks like something Mole would write.  And unlike that post, most of the well-written Amazon reviews on Dysons I've seen praise the machine, not surprisingly.  And the most critical reviews are generally the most poorly written, which makes me wonder if the person actually knew how to use the machine in the first place, or was intelligent enough to read an instruction manual.  Not likely.

-MH

mole wrote:

So eloquently written mole.  Otherwise I would have thought you wrote it.

I could not find a Dyson model that rated less than 4 stars overall.  Most are 5.  The DC16 even rates 4 stars.

You monkeys should go back to what you do best.  You can turn over. Carmine's turn to scratch.