Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Has anyone seen this yet?  It just hit the shelves a couple of weeks ago at Wal-Mart (not even on the Hoover or WM website at this point), I picked one up around that time after speaking to Tom G. (who was the first one to tell me about it) but had neglected to post about it on here until now.  I finished posting a review in the Reviews section, needless to say I am very impressed with the machine now that I have been using it for a couple of weeks and highly encourage everyone to at least head to Wal-Mart and check it out. 

For those of you who haven't seen it, TTI/Hoover has finally jumped on the multi-cyclone bandwagon after experimenting with dual-cyclone for a couple of years with the Mach series, and only recently getting *that* right with a redesigned shroud for the Mach 3.  This Whisper is completely different, it's a copy of a Root Cyclone Dyson and a damn good one at that.  At $120 I am blown away by the type of machine it is, very substantial and not cheap-feeling by any means.  It's a completely new design, and appears to contain elements of the Mach series, the failed "One" cleaner in the UK, and, oddly enough, the LG/Kenmore Premalite.  At first glance it appears to be a dual-cyclone machine, until you either look at the side of the box or separate the two halves of the cyclone assembly.  Indeed, there are 6 high-efficiency cyclones hidden above the bin, and they look just like a Dyson's.  You will also notice the cyclonic "arrows" on the Hoover logo in front, for added emphasis

Carpet performance is good, it handles very nicely (positive weight) and the double-chevron brushroll helps pull the machine along; the bristles are soft but still effective.  What sets it apart from the Dyson though is above-floor cleaning convenience.  You push a button and the handle wand releases, you do not even have to let go of the handle; you're using the SAME ergonomic handle you just vacuumed the carpet with.  The wand is long as well, and does not need to be inverted for use.  There are only 2 attachments, and the wand isn't adjustable, but the brush/upholstery tool is, I presume to reach tight spaces.  I suppose if worse comes to worse other standard 1 1/4" attachments could work, it appears to be the same though I have not tried it.  I'll check that out further and post the findings.  The motor is soft-starting (like the Hoover Z), and the brushroll (driven by a separate motor) automatically starts and stops when the handle is lowered or raised, if the brushroll switch is on.  There are also 2 indicator lights showing when the brushroll is on, and when the suction is blocked.

This machine is basically a Dyson DC07 or DC14...at a third of the price.  Being a Dyson fan I hate to say it, but Dyson may be facing some competition with this machine as far as regular uprights are concerned, once it is more widely available and more people find out about it.  It's no match for the DC17 in terms of performance, obviously, but I can't see any reason why the 7 or 14 would be more desirable, as strange as that sounds.  If it was inexpensive and worked well but cheaply made, then it's obvious the Dyson would be the clear winner (as it usually is), but that's the thing...this machine does not seem to be cheaply made at all.  Definitely no WindTunnel here and I can't see why it wouldn't last a reasonable length of time.   On the other hand, while possibly not-so-good news for Dyson this could be some positive news for Hoover, perhaps the first of many machines to come?  It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

-MH

I discovered just now, on another discussion forum, someone who I presume is TomG, discussing the machine's merits.

Search "Hoover Whisper" and ye will possibly find...

Thanks for info Motor and a good review, save the mention of the 'failed HOOVER Z'.  Like the comparisons to dyson.  Very detailed and informative.  Will serve HOOVER sales well.

W*M here doesn't have it yet.  I thought perhaps for the 4th July but haven't arrived yet I'm told.  Excellent price too in a bad economy which is predicted for months and maybe years out.  Especially for a WM sales venue.

HOOVER has the 'hush" mode on the EmPower going back to 2004 and still.  Consumers love it.  The article you quoted from Better Homes and Gardens praised the EmPower with its hush mode feature.  4 Years after the fact.  Better late than never. 

Not surprised to see the "hush" mode emerge in a ramped up new HOOVER TTI bagless.  The EmPower for $80 is still a popular seller among all the W*M competitor big box retailers.  Nice to see the feature now available in a W*M HOOVER TTI model. 

By the way, have you checked out all the HOOVER 100th Anniversary models.  3 uprights and a canister.  Nothing new but certainly collector interest for you and Tom G.  Been out since mid June 2008 to commemorate the HOOVER Century Anniversary.  I figured TTI would do something for the big HOOVER Century mark.  Didn't expect a line of models.  Upright bagged, bagless and both.  And a cann.  Pass the info along to Tom G if he doesn't know already.  He'll be pleasantly surprised to know TTI and HOOVER are doing just fine. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Okay, so you're switching back to supporting the Hoover brand now?

Motorhead,

I appreciate the review.  I must say it is hard to watch a man (Dyson) work so hard, spend huge sums on engineering, spend huge somes on advertising and much time educating the public, then only not to protect himself with some additional patents that could of/should of prevented Hoover, Bissell, Vax, Dirt Devil from having Dyson like technologies.  I would have thought James would protect these assets with vigor by securing additional patents.  James’ vacuum future will be one of competing against his own technologies in the market place.  Watching his clear bin copied by much of the industry must have been hard.  Watching his cyclone and bin reconfigured must be even harder, harder because it could or should of been prevented.  Samsung has 4 to 5 multi-cyclonic patents pending, but will most likely use only one of the designs in a future product and use the other 3-4 patents as insurance by keeping others locked out of these designs.  Perhaps this is a downside to James having so many young and inexperienced (to the worlds ways) engineers and/or patent attorneys.      DIB

M00seUK wrote:

No M00seUK, never switched.  But you made me laugh. 

I'm a vacuum man.  Bagged, not bagless, except for specialty models. 

HOOVER and ORECK have the names and reputations in the vacuum industry in the USA.  Just giving credit where credit is overdue.  HOOVER is the premier carpet cleaner and groomer.  That hasn't changed in 100 years in the USA.  ORECK, coming on the half century mark, is a worthy, but very distant, second.  IMHO.

Carmine D. 

DIB:

I mentioned before that the patent thinking and laws are a changin in the USA.  The discussion was in regards to drugs.  But same applies across the board.  Can't make marginal product changes at the time of expiration and extend the patents forever.  Like the good old days. 

Isn't it Tom G that always says in the vacuum industry no one remembers who did it first but the one who copies the best and sells it for less.  If I recall correctly.  Or was it Motor?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

Extending his patents serves no use here.  Writing entirely new patents that would lock out clustering cyclones above the bin is both legal and prudent.  There is very little room on an upright to place 5 or more high efficient cyclones cleanly and now others have them.  TTI and Bissell did not put the money or work in! - James did!  He will be competing against himself because he left the patent doors wide open.

Unfortunately it is probably true, consumers do not care who stole, copied or reversed engineered from who.  Bill Gates was proven to be a predatory monopoly and do the majority of people care?  No.        DIB

This HOOVER first caught my eye last week, when I was at Walmart.  

If you want to know what it looks like, go to  the link below. Walmart's website does not have it up yet.

http://www.vax.co.uk/shop/upright-vacuum-cleaners/Vax-VZL-501-Turboforce_Zero-vacuum-cleaner

Two key features that could be deceptive 

* Non-stop suction

How many vacuums actually stop sucking as opposed to just a substantial decrease in suction. If Dyson made this claim the red flag would already be dropped on them.

* Washable lifetime HEPA filter - no replacement filters to buy

Are replacement available.  If so this must not be a lifetime filter. Again Dyson has been criticized severely on the forum fot this claim.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

I agree completely with what you said here.  Being a Dyson fan this is bittersweet; I'm glad that cyclonic bagless is slowly becoming more mainstream (and will continue to be) for everyone to use and that TTI/Hoover did it RIGHT this time around, but at the same time it is painful to watch Dyson potentially become another "me too" company; the one feature that stood out for the longest time is starting to become incorporated into other manufacturers' machines.  However, Dyson has many innovative designs besides cyclonic separation (the Ball design for one, and the DDM), and knowing Dyson they learn from their mistakes quickly, so I'm sure they will continue to innovate and secure future patents so this will not be the case the next time around.  Not to mention that Dyson will continue to be highly respected among enthusiasts as the FIRST with this technology, even if it now isn't the only one.

-MH

HARDSELL wrote:
Hi HS,

Since Dyson now isn't the only one that never clogs or doesn't lose suction (TTI and Bissell have been using these statements as well), not to mention the filters, greedy competitors such as Oreck will not have much footing for a dispute in the future.  That, and the idea that other manufacturers (both low and high-end) will not want to hold out with outdated technology much longer and keep losing more and more sales, will eventually lead to more companies jumping on the cyclonic bandwagon one by one and adding at least one bagless model to their lineup.  Even Oreck, with its direct-air version, complete with 30 MPH high-efficiency cyclone...

Motorhead wrote:

Hello MH,

The link that Mike provided only says ' non-stop suction ' .  To me this is not the same as no loss of suction.  Unless a vacuum is clogged it should produce suction regardless how full the bag or bin.  Suction will, however, decrease with a bagged or most bagless as they fill.  I think the key word is STOP.

Is the life time filter a pleated one?

Hey there gents:

I use to think the same: "Non-stop suction" and "Constant suction" were cop outs by the vacuum makers because they could point to residual suction even if considerably weak.  Not anymore.  

When used in conjunction with a brand name and model these claims carry the same strictness in suction meaning as:  No loss of suction.   In a dispute, the FTC will hold the vacuum maker[s] to a higher standard on these claims and side with the buying public.  Not the lower standard by siding with the vacuum maker[s].  The NAD ruling against dyson set a precedent.  It raises the bar for companies who make such claims.  ORECK is trying to raise it even higher for vacuum maker[s].  ORECK has nothing to lose.  It's claim is: Simply amazing.  Can't use a suction gauge to measure that claim in numbers.

Curious to hear what Dusty the word smith expert says.

Carmine D.   

 

HARDSELL wrote:
Hi HS,

I understand what you're saying now.  And yes I wonder what the reason was behind the word choice...

The "lifetime" filter is a pleated rectangular filter, curved to fit in the housing.  It is accessed through a removable cover on the lower front housing (which IMO is a bit flimsy and made from the same metallic-colored plastic as you see on cheap toys).  Since the filter can be removed I wonder if it isn't in fact intended to be replaced if worse came to worse, in the event of horrible pet smells and such.  Bet we'll see replacements available in the near future, after this machine becomes more widely available (and more have been sold). 

-MH

CarmineD wrote:

Hey Carmine,

I have never seen NAD rule against Dyson’s “No Clogging” and/or “No Loss of Suction”, nor have I seen it covered in the news (newsworthy stuff IMO).  How did you come about such information?        DIB 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Same place as usual.  The Fairy Tale Book.

CarmineD wrote:
Are you refering to Orecks "simply amazing" claim or Hoovers "non-stop suction" claim?

Dusty

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Sorry guys.  Relax.  Settle down.  Take a chill pill.  My bad.  [Before posting here, I was reading the NAB, and must have had it still on my mind.  Happens when you reach my age: OLD.]

Meant to say ASA ruling against dyson.  Of particular note is that the ASA is a UK ruling authority, which BTW is dyson's country of origin.  Pretty bad when your own shoot you down dead in the water on a gray area matter: advertising claims typically passed off as sales puffing.   Maybe no more? 

My point is this: The powers that be here in the USA will be looking at advertising claims and holding the makers feet to the fire on these advertised statements.  No passes.  Benefit of the doubt will go to the consumers not the vacuum makers.

I'm waiting for the "lifetime" claim on filters and belts to get challenged.  And it will!  MOLE is right on the money on this farce.  May I add too, just as he was right on the money over 3 years ago when he said dyson's farcical claim: Never clogs, never loses suction is laughable.  He was right over 3 years ago and still! 

Carmine D.

dusty wrote:

Hey Dusty Man:

I'm referring to all suction claims specifically made by vacuum cleaner brands. 

Do they have to meet minimum advertising standards or maximum advertising standards? 

Do 'Non-stop suction"; "No loss of suction"; and "Constant suction" all get held to the same high standard and meaning in the printed word.  So vacuum brand makers can't cop out when called on the carpet by each other/consumers who rely on the claims?  Will the US ruling authorities err on the side of the consumers, and not the vacuum makers?  By no longer giving the vacuum makers a pass [when suction diminishes].  Will the ruling decisions lower the bar on these vacuum suction claims?  Or slowly start to raise it and hold vacuum makers accountable for their written claims?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Manufacturers will always stretch the truths about their products, it makes for good television.  If complaints arise people like NAD and ASA are there to handle the situation and to that I say more power to them.  I have more respect for Dyson (and Hoover for that matter)  who abide by the decision rather than Halo who paid no attention to it and now have to do battle with the FTC.  As a vacuum guy I found the arguments Dyson put forth to ASA in defense of their commercial made perfect sense, but then I know the product and I know the competition.  For the average consumer I see where the problems arise.  Exagerating claims is nothing new in any industry (look at the false milage being touted by Hybrid cars) and I'm sure it will continue on.  Let the watchdog agencies in charge take care of the false claims and things will work themselves out in the end.

On Dysons "no loss of suction" claim, that is still used in all their advertising.  As I understand it, ASA had no problem with that part of the slogan and accepted the testing that was done to prove the point.

Dusty

dusty wrote:

Hey Dust Man:

Well said.  I note the major big box retailers don't use the claim: Never loses suction" in their ads for dysons.  I suspect the reason you cited [ASA gave it a pass] is the reason ORECK is pursuing legal action.  Possibly, the reason retailers are silent on the claim in print. Pending legal action. 

In a court of law, judges, juries and lawyers impute more weight to the exact meanings and reliance on the advertised words and claims. 

The problem with the old dyson claim: "Never Clogs" is that many dyson buyers relied on this false claim as the sole justification to pay $500 plus for purchase.  When users learned their dysons did clog they returned them to the retailers and squawked!  Hence the ASA action.  That's the crux of the dyson matter.  That too can weigh in on the reason retailers don't use the dyson claim: Never loses suction.  How does the saying go:  Never say never?  Ops there goes another dyson refurb.

Dyson is going down for the count on this claim too.  Dyson will join the infamous ranks of makers like halo who overstate their product claims.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Dyson has always contended that if the owner will follow the printed directions, the filters will not clog and the machine will not lose suction.  If you follow the printed directions on an Oreck, Hoover, or Eureka with a bag, by the time the dust reaches the full bag mark, the machine will have lost a significant amount of power and the bag will have clogged.  What I'm saying, very simply, is that if the customer follows the directions the Dyson will have 100% suction, 100% of the time.  Now, with other multi-cyclone vacuums on the market (like the Hoover, Dirt Devil Spinnergy, Bissell HealthyHome, Infinity, etc.), if the customer follows the directions, those machines will not lose suction or clog either.  For your information, the Infinity claims right on the vacuum cleaner "Never Loses Suction" and "Lifetime Clean Air".  The Hoover Whisper claims, right on the box, "Non-Stop Suction".  The Dirt Devil Spinnergy claims, right on the box, "Multiple Cyclones Separate Particles at a Higher Velocity Creating Guaranteed Sustained Suction For Every Room You Clean".  The Dirt Devil Spinnergy box also goes on to say "Multi-Stage Cyclonic Technology Prevents Clogging of Filter". 

The fact is, they have ALL jumped on the Dyson bandwagon.  Dyson is not the only one to make that claim anymore, therefore, it will be harder to dispute in the future.  As all vacuum manufacturers begin to use Dyson's technology, it will in fact be the only thing that exists.  Bags will be as obsolete as you are, and their days are just as numbered

-MH

Hey Motor Man:

That's the reason these suction claims are going to get scrutinized closely in the future.  Just as the ASA did with the dyson claim.

Again, disagree.  Do you see a pattern here?  Bagged vacuums are still here after 6 years of dysons.  And will be here long after dyson is gone.  Bagless is a fad and fading fast, especially for high prices paid in the past on dysons.  HOOVER Whispertone: $120.  HEALTHY HOME $250.  Dyson $500.  Dah!  Sayonora on the old steel guitar.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
If bagless is a fad it's interesting then that if you check the Hoover, Dirt Devil, and Eureka websites you will find that there are 65 (give or take a few) bagless uprights available versus only 19 (once again, give or take) bagged models.  The cheapest units?  Bagged.  The most heavily promoted?  Bagless.  Our rep from one of these companies explains to us that the box stores don't want to deal with the hassle of bags, they just want to move product.  Bagless is their choice and that's good because the end result is that people are either sick of cheap bagless vacs and step up to a Dyson or they're sick of bagless all together and step up to a Riccar or Sebo or other high end product.

Dusty

dusty wrote:

Dusty,

The once backyard inventor influences an entire industry and retail too, incredible!  It was interesting hearing you tell how Dyson’s premium priced vacuums helped customers get accustomed and/or except the idea of paying more for technology and/or quality, which helps sell other premium brands too.  I love the Dyson story and it’s far reaching impact.        DIB

Hey Dust Man:

You make a point worth debate.  Let me rephrase.  Big box stores don't want the hassle of carrying bags for bagged vacuums so prefer bagless vacuums.  [Tho these same stores' carry an aisle full of bagless filters].  Why? 

Obviously, the vacuum manufacturers you sited, HOOVER, DIRT DEVIL, EUREKA, and dyson use the big box stores as their major sales venue for their vacuums.  So what do they do?  They produce bagless vacuums for the big box stores.  Look at that sales venue:  Big box stores are synonymous with disposables.  Cheap.  Undiscerning vacuum buyers are getting bagless vacuums forced on them by the big box stores and the vacuum makers that cater to them.  But for how long?  You can fool all the people, some of the time.  You can fool some of the people all of the time.  But you can't fool all the people all of the time.

BTW, the best selling vacuum at BEST BUY stores is the EUREKA Boss Smart vacuum bagged upright for $149.  Never on sale.  Rarely advertised.  Has been numero uno for sales for years, before and after dyson launch.

Carmine D.

dusty wrote:

Hey Dust Man:

Another good point worth debate.  My take:  Dyson sales were brisk in the UK and USA because bagless vacuum buyers [read big box store shoppers] bought into the dyson myth: Never Clogs and they were willing to plunk down $500.  Fast forward 15 years in the UK and 6 plus years in the USA and dyson has a history and a track record.  Refurbs galore and a drubbing by the ASA dispelling the dyson myth.  Result:  Vacuum consumers avoid the big box retail stores and seek out better bagged vacuums at the indy-s. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I personally don't see a big return to the day of the bagged vacuum.  As companies strive to "go green"  they will develop better bagless technology and push the fact that you don't have to buy throw away bags or filters thus helping good ole mother nature.  You can already see it happening with the Bissell Healthy Home and the Hoover Whisper.  Better bagless, no cartridges to replace, lifetime filters.  I read on here that Miele has a bagless patent, don't be suprised to see that on lthe market at some point either.  There was a time when all vacuums had dump bags but when paper came out people loved the convieniance of being able to just throw away the bag.  Times have changed, now people want to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

As far as the Eureka Boss Smart goes, it just shows the power of being rated a "best buy" by Consumer Reports.  It was our best selling Eureka too at least until it didn't show up in the last issue.  Now it doesn't even get a second look.

Dusty

CarmineD wrote:
And almost all of these vacuums have a height adjustments.  Using previous logic should we not then assume that bagless vacuums are the new "American standard"?

Dusty

dusty wrote:

dusty,

Do most have a means of turning off the brush roll?  Carmine mentiond this as a con in the review of his Oreck.  He failed to mention this on the thread that was recently locked.  If this was standard on Oreck and all Hoovers I am sure he would consider it an American vac standard.

I see this as enhancing performance rather than the useless light.  I once strapped a ligh ton my DC07.  No increase in performance.

I see this as enhancing performance rather than the useless light.  I once strapped a ligh ton my DC07.  No increase in performance.

Perhaps you just needed new batteries.  I'm certain that would make a difference :-)

Dusty

dusty wrote:
That companies have a HEART and WANT to go GREEN for the betterment of Earth & Mankind is laughable....that we buy into it, is pathetic. It's a marketing tool no more no less and if it actually does work, merely a bonus. Try working in an advertising for a day any you will get quite an education. The American public is not as intelligent as we give them credit for (note the success of Shark and euro pro, LOL). Companies dictate what they want. That the will of the free market dictates, is an OLD axiom. Give them cow patties and thats the only choice..they buy it. Then Companies conclude "The market place DEMANDS cow paties lets give em more!

I'm not proud of becoming a cynic but the Market demands I be...LOL

dusty wrote:

Hey Dusty:

For disposable vacuums: use and throwaway, yes they are. 

Carmine D.

dusty wrote:

Hey Dust Man:

I thought it was because the EUREKA Boss Smart Vac upright has a huge sticker on it that says it cleans 60 times better than a dyson. 

BTW, in the yearly CR editions for best buy in appliances and the new subscriber mail outs, the EUREKA Boss Smart vac still gets the recommendation as Best Buy for vacuums.  Often with a picture of a yellow dyson with the CR verbage: More money doesn't buy you better performance in vacuums.  That's from CR's hand not mine.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Are you talking about the testers that reported Hoover WT to nave excelent exhaust emissions when outside tests found them to be very unacceptable?  This is supposed to be a HEPA vac,

CarmineD wrote:
The sticker actually reads "cleans 60% better than dyson" and then of couse the proverbial asteric *on plush carpet compared to a DC07.

Interesting that even with CR's best buy rating  the DC07 achieves higher user ratings based on reviews on the CR site itself.

Dusty

dusty wrote:

The Boss blows dust and dirt across hard surfaces.  It does a good job on carpet but is useless on hard surfaces. That was my experience.

Hey Guys:

Talking green for vacuums and acting green are two very different things. 

If vacuum makers, who cater to big box retail stores [HOOVER, EUREKA, DIRT DEVIL, dyson] were concerned about the environment, they'd be making metal vacuums and not plastic throw-aways. 

BTW, the Wal*Mart Super store in LV stocks more racks of bagless filters than paper bags.  Why?  Concerned about going green?  Yes, indeed.  Green as in the color of US money.  Big box stores make more money on the sale of an average price bagless vacuum filter than 10 packs of paper bags.  The HOOVER nano lite bagless sells for $50.  The filter is $15!  The HOOVER Tempo sells for about the same and the paper bags are $2-$3 each. 

Not surprising on the rave dyson reviews.  People plunk down $500 plus on a big box store dyson and justify the wisdom [lack thereof]  of the purchase by praising it.  I call it the honeymoon purchase time.  Americans, in a good economy, will buy anything once.  Classic example is the Regina Electrik Broom.  Worse floorcare product ever made and sold.  Many sold for years and years.  Oftentimes for the same price or more than a decent full size vacuum, over $100.  Pyramid schemes thrive on this human frailty and mentality.  Suck others in by praising the benefits over the costs. 

I believe in the famous words of the great American philosophers:  Lucky1, PT Barnum, and Forrest Gump.  The latter said: Stupid is what stupid does!

Carmine D.

dusty wrote:

So Dust Man, what are you saying exactly by the above?  EUREKA cleans better than a dyson DC07.

Or, are you impugning the DC07 on plush carpets?  [DIB, DC18, Motor are you out there?]  Are you siding with MOLE and I, the dyson critics.  Heaven forbid that we are right.  And Vacuumfreake!

Or, are you saying that the DC07, the signature dyson vacuum with THE MOST AIR WATTS of 270, is the best dyson to use for a vacuum test comparison by EUREKA?  Which is it?

Even an excellent wordsmither like you can't have it both ways. Want to try?

BTW, did anyone answer MOLE on what spec dysoners use these days to boast the superiority of dysons?  Use to be air watts.  I heard that until I was ready to burst.  No more.  Gone from 270 to 200 and less.  What is it now, I missed it?  US $$$.  That's way down too!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Not surprised about the filters.  The pleated Hoover filters should be disposed after each vacuuming. 

CarmineD wrote:
Actually I was pointing out the fact that manufacturers market the claim in the biggest boldest print followed by the * and the very fine print.  Most people don't bother with the fine print, they just see the claim and buy based on that.

The 4870 cleans plush carpets better than the Dyson.  I don't think many would disagree.  Does this automatically make me a Eureka groupie and a Dyson hater now?  That does seem to be the way it works around here. Different vacuums for different applications, it's as simple as that.

Air watts is purely a mathematical formula that equates to squat when it comes to cleaning. Didn't Hoover start that trend btw? I seen to recall them using "cleaning amps" or something along those lines.

Dusty

dusty wrote:

Well Dust Man,

Would you care to explain your reasons for saying that the EUREKA Boss Smart vacuum will outclean a dyson DC07 by 60 percent on plush carpets?  Is it the brush roll?  Is it the height adjustment?  Perhaps both?  Expound for us. 

Air watts are meaningless.  Good to hear you say it too.  MOLE and I told dysoners here for years that air watts is a farce.  They [and I'd be happy to tell you who they are if you ask] didn't believe it until dyson started skimping on the air watts as it improved the design and performance of its brush rolls.  Air Watts was the dysoners' battle cry.  Now, dyson and its fans avoid any mention of air watts.  Farcical measure.  Don't mean a thing if all the dyson brush rolls can do is sing [clutch chatter and ratcheting noise are the technical terms].   

BTW, the cleaning amps are useless too.  No doubt the reason they are long gone.  Same for amps.  Nothing to do with rug cleaning performance.  Not a thing. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

"wonder why the DC07 still our performs all the newer Dysons."   Written by HARDSELL the xxxxxxx.

HS, in his infinite lack of vacuum wisdom, believes a DC07 is the signature dyson model.  But wait, he doesn't stop there.  No, not HS.  After 6 years, 450 dyson engineers, and a swat team/task force of 12 high paid and powered designers, HS states that the new dysons don't measure up to the DC07 in performance.  But wait it gets worse:  HS says $399 for a DC07 is too much money.  He refuses to buy one for that amount. 

You see what he's trying to do?  He's trying to slicky another free dyson!  Any dysoners and fans of new dyson vacuums want to agree/disagree with HS's emminently brilliant revelation?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Gotta love fine print.  The reality is the Eureka can only outclean one Dyson, but to Eureka it's a Dyson nonetheless and provides the basis for their (vague) claim.

The only reason the DC07 is used in this comparison is like I mentioned in another thread; it is the proverbial Dyson "whipping boy".  Any other manufacturers, dealers, etc. who want to make a claim for themselves against Dyson will automatically choose either the DC07 or DC14 since they do have a softer brushroll than the rest.  Again, path of least resistance.  Use a Dyson with an aggressive brushroll (like the DC15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25...) and the claim will undoubtedly be harder to prove. 

As to the idea of air watts, performance has to count in other areas as well.  Good airflow and suction power (more airflow than anything) combined with a well-designed nozzle and brushroll generally means good performance all-around. 

-MH