Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I recently visited a local vac shop, not the one run by a close friend. We discussed Dyson and other brands. He maintains that Dyson WAYYY overestimated the cost of returns/warranty repairs when he invaded the US vac market, which is why the Dysons were given a 5 yr warranty. He said Dyson, despite rumors to the contrary, is making money hand over fist, and show no sign of slowing down. Even though the hose is excluded as a warranty part, Dyson is issuing repair authorizations for them. He also said he is selling Dyson dirt canisters, cords, roller brushes, and hoses like there is no tomorrow.  He said Dyson is ready to cut prices when necessary to boost flagging sales.  The DC-07 will make a reappearance at  $299 or lower when the time is right.

I stopped by Best Buy to purchase a memory card  for my camera, and wandered down the vac aisle, of course. 33 full size vacuums on display. THREE bagged machines, all uprights. Other than Dyson, only ONE canister, a Dirt Devil straight suction. Dyson had on display three cans and four uprights, over 20% of the vac sku offerings!  There are new and interesting things in the vac shops, but nothing has changed at BBR where most of America buys their vacuums.  According to him, Panasonic has lost the contract to build Sears canisters.
All of this is, of course, excellent news for Kirby.

mole wrote:
We'll still be there though.  I can't comment on the U.S but certainly in the U.K the budget "best selling" brand, Vax is churning out the large paper pleated filter coned "cyclonics" at cheap prices and putting their Mach series (and "Zero" related vacuums which had come to the UK before the Mach types) at much higher prices. The "bagless" routine i.e. nothing more than a huge filter to catch the dust from Black and Decker's original hand held dust buster will continue to be sold in vacuum cleaner design; it is cheap to produce and companies don't mind charging the customer extra for putting on mini turbo tools etc.

vacmanuk wrote:

Here's a few reasons.  A permament cloth like reusable is more convenient than a bagless bin because it requires less dumping. The filters for vacuums with permanent reusable cloth like bags are less expensive than bagless filters because the bag serves as the primary filter.   The filters on vacuums with permanent reusable cloth like bags require less changing and cleaning maintenance again because the bag is the primary filter.   Permament cloth like reusable bags are also less costly than paper bags over the useful life of the vacuum.  Plus the convenience of no trips to retailers to buy replacements.  In short all the benefits of bagless and bagged vacuums combined with less lifetime costs and maintenance times. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Honda has been advertising 0 APR.  I doubt sales incentives would increase sales by 49% if Toyota wasn't still the best auto available today.  Remember all those incentives on Hoover prior to them selling.?  It is difficult to sell inferior products even at distress prices.  

I am shifting gears away from a topic that you brought up.  As usual when caught with your drawers down you want to avoid the subjet. 

The discussion wasn't about Dyson being robbed of sales from other bagless vacs.  It was about bagged overtaking bagless.  You still can't produce data to support your whimsical comments.  Get facts then let's talk.

I am already out of the junk business.  I meant Oreck business.  I already knew I did not like them.  Just nol how much.

CarmineD wrote:

1. Good point about less dumping, but let's be practical here - it's more messy and owners won't like that compared to a disposable dust bag.
   
2. Filters for vacuums that use disposable dust bags can be the same as those that have permanent bags - Hoover and Electrolux have done this in the past but the cost of upkeep isn't the same because of poor sealing on the material shake out bag.
   
3. Dependent on the actual material used, fabric shake out bags aren't all the same - Vax's shake out bags for their canisters for example start to deteriorate after five times of the bag being washed. The material isn't designed to last a lifetime and thus needs replacing. Others on the market exist made of similar thin cotton - SMS bags last longer but they're not all uniform and can't always be trusted to seal in the dirt. The bag seals are usually well made but the plastic grid holders that are permanently sealed to the dust channel can go early on due to over heat when left to dry out.
   
4. Because permanent washable bags aren't all uniform, made out of the same material, filters can be damaged because of poor sealing on the bag itself. Usually most bags these days have a simple clip to keep the bag attached together - but this isn't enough to protect filters from being over clogged with escaping dust.
   

vacmanuk wrote:

There is a market for permanent cloth like reusable bags.  Just as there was for bagless.  And is for paper bags.  Science and technology advancements pave the way.  Always contingent on price.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS would you make up your mind.  What do you want to talk about?  Cars or vacuums?  Bagged vacuums like your Royal Emminence.  Bagless like your HOOVER upright.  Or junk like your DC07 that you got rid of. 

Like I said, and will repeat for your benefit for shortsightedness, now is a great time to buy a new car.  Incentives galore.  With toyotas selling at their lowest prices ever in the USA.  But that's what buyers expect.  After all, their loss in retail values are the subject of several class action suits. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

As suspected.  All you got is hot air.  Where is the data?  You are punch drunk again. 

Bullies like you run and hide when they are confronted.

HARDSELL wrote:

I thought Carmine was from the area of the RAGING BULL .

I heard Camine is a great shot with a screwdriver.

MOLE

mole wrote:

Bull is correct.  In fact he should be called BS.

I think he missed the whole car he threw at.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS you're nuttier than the deluxe pecan log at Stuckey's.

Carmine D.