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.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

As usual you are wrong again and I am right.  The latest HOOVER T1 series bagless upright for $129 not only ties with dyson's TOL DC28 selling for $600 in the latest Consumer Reports ratings but also wins the latest HSN buyers' survey as its number one rated bagless [over your favorite dyson].  I might add too that the HOOVER T1 series has a cordwinder, [dyson DC28 does not], a headlight [dyson DC28 does not] and receives better grades from CR for handling and lighter weight than dyson's DC28.  What dyson did in the past is irrelevant.  What it does in the future is speculation.  What it is and does now, or doesn't, is based on facts and is all that matters.  Except of course to you and Dib-stir who still are living in dyson's glory days of DC07.  BTW, the DC07 model, for all the good you claim it was, is discontinued.  For good cause.  It is and was a mediocre vacuum product at best.  No doubt the reason, in large part, you do not still own it.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Who makes the T1?  Hint.  It ain't Hoover.

The DC07 is discontinued.  DYSON is still Dyson though.  Hoover is a name only and is not really Hoover that you boasted about.  Smoke that in your pipe for awhile. 

The relevant thing is that Dyson put a whooping on Hoover and HS put a whooping on carmine. 

We are all familiar with your statistics.  Er, I mean speculation.

You must have blisters on your rump from sliding across the canvas.

CarmineD wrote:
Although Tom Gasko used hyperbole in his predictions, some of his predictions have been pretty good.  Hoover, Bissell, Eureka, Kenmore, Panasonic, and Shark all offer dual cyclone type bagless filtration systems on at least one of their vacuum models.  Apparently, what's his name (steve keeler?) is making a fortune selling his bagless vacuum conversions for Kirby's.  Tom Gasko may have been wrong on some predictions, but his prediction that most major vacuum manufacturers would embrace Dyson style bagless filtration has been on target.   I am not in the vacuum business in any shape or form, so I have no inside information on sales, returns, refurbished machines and so forth.   There are a lot of fad products that don't last a year.  

You would think that if Dyson were truly doing well on sales, that they could provide find someone a little more knowledgeable on this forum to be their advocate than dustmite. 

HARDSELL wrote:

More diatribe.  Dyson is still dyson?  A bit shortsighted HS.  Is toyota still toyota??  A retired former airplane executive is now the CEO of dyson.  Sir James, its founder and still by most accounts a young man, resigned the post.  His dream of conquering the bagged vacuum market still unrealized and fading fast.  Some astute industry observers would argue, with merit, that a non-family non-vacuum man as CEO is very telling.  It's a drastic leadership change.  Some would also argue, with merit, that it's a desperate change.  Sir James has likely family members in the company who were groomed to succeed him at the helm.  Before you criticize other brands and makers with your biased vitriol, question/scrutinize with the same boldness all the brands you blindly and mindlessly praise.  Your shortsightedness runneth over.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

Why do dyson fans and advocates praise themselves and Sir James when other brands add model[s] to their line up by using cyclonic bagless technology.  Dyson doesn't get a cut of these sales and profits.  When customers forego dyson for a competitor then dyson loses out.  Imputing credit to dyson strokes Sir James' ego but takes money away from dyson.  It makes no difference to buyers/sellers whose product copies who and what.  It's about sales.  It's hard to get big box retail customers to plunk down $400, $500, $600 for a bagless vacuum.  Especially with the abundance of good/excellent $129 to $200 bagged/bagless models on the retailers' shelves.  Many of these others with more desirable features that dyson models. In a few years, the industry's vacuum brands came up to speed with cyclonic technology at alot lower prices than dyson.  While dyson, during this same time wasted its time and effort on all sorts of non-vacuum endeavors.  Dyson remains a one vacuum product brand: High priced bagless vacuums.  Period.  Ball wheeled vacuums is just a variation on the same old theme.  It will probably go the same way as dyson's ball barrow.  Oblivion.

Maybe Dib-stir knows and will tell us what happened to the 2007 dish washer patent dyson filed.  It's been almost 3 years now and 500 engineers later.  Anything yet?

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

You ask a good question.  The trick is to treat each person's statements in isolation.  I'm only referring to Tom Gasko's predictions.  He predicted that Dyson style bagless would catch on with other manufacturers as patents expired.  Unfortunately, I'm relying on memory and I don't have time or interest in going back to his exact words.  

Other manufacturers getting on the dual cyclone bandwagon is probably is not good for dyson, particularly when they have better designs for the rest of the vacuum cleaning system and lower prices.  However, that is the way business works.  Everyone copies everyone else's ideas when the patents expire.  Or if you're a Chinese company, you swipe the ideas as soon as you can get away with it. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

The crux of the predictions about the race to copy dyson's bagless technology was its superiority over bags.  The corollary was that bagged vacuums would go the way of the horse and buggy [Tom Gasko's exact words.  Recall he wanted to use the name dyson in his store name].  To the contrary, the industry's vacuum makers copied and marketed their own bagless cyclonic technology because they saw unique sales and profit opportunities.  Compete side by side against the highest priced big box bagless brand in the same sales venues as dyson at alot lower prices.   Bagless vacuum models have succeeded in taking sales away from dyson.  Bagged vacuums much to the chagrin of Sir James and his ridcule of bags, are still the mainstay of independent vacuum store brands in the USA.  Both bagged and bagless models coexist at all big box retailers in the USA.  Paper bag replacements/brands, rather than disappearing, have expanded in quantity and sales at all big box retail stores.  Dyson and Sir James have been far better for the vacuum industry in the USA, both bagged and bagless, than it has been itself.

Carmine D.

I happened on an old Filter Queen magazine ad from the '40s.  The pitch then was that messy bags -- at that time the permanent cloth type -- weren't necessary but the emptying process was over simplified just as it is today.  Dumping FQ's wide-mouth dust bin, indoors or out, was just as prone to spreading dust as bagless vacs are now.

Most vacuums with disposable bags do simplify the issue of emptying but apparently there is a portion of the public that assumes by being freed of the responsibility of buying disposable bags, that's all there is to it for bagless models and that lives have been made better.  The bogus side to all this is that the fine print about frequency of emptying,  filter cleaning and/or replacement is read by few.  That will be great for repair shops and land-fill sites.

Besides basic price, the sale of bagged or baggless vacuums hinges a lot upon buyer ignorance and how much possible buyers like fairytales.  I'm in and out of sales venues of all types all the time and I am hard pressed to recall a time when I've walked in and heard a customer telling a sales guy as opposed to the sales guy telling them.  That said, I think bagless vacuum will prove of great interest to many us out looking these days due to present economic situations.  Were I in need of a machine now, I can't say the idea of bagless wouldn't cross my mind though, well aware of the inconveniences, I'd surely be prone to opt for a Rainbow or other water-type machine.  Next choice would be be to go back to just a plain old permanent bag vac and be done with it.

Venson

Venson wrote:
I was thinking to myself, what would I buy if I  had to buy a new vacuum today (fortunately, I won't have to buy one for a long time).  I had a bit of sticker shock the last time I looked at the CR ratings and saw wondered if the data on vacuum bag prices was accurate.  When you see prices like $5 per bag or more, it makes you think twice about the convenience of a bagged vacuum.  Fortunately both of my vacuums use relatively cheap bags.   In fact, I decided to test out a generic brand for my lux canister, and it seems like the suction has improved slightly. 

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Which generic brand do you use?  From past use, I always felt that the genuine Electrolux bags were the better deal.  It wasn't so much a matter of suction level for me but fill capacity.  I usually set my Lux automatic at the halfway mark, reasonable I thiink, and it shut off once the bag was full but not so full as to lead to my dogging the motor while cleaning.  The generics usually didn't have the multi-layer lining and clogged up more quickly leading me to change them before they were filled to capacity.  Lux bags for the automatic models were/are small but usually provided what I saw as an impressive rate regarding use and performance..

On the other hand, though great performrs, high priced Miele's bags make me very glad the place is small.  You know can put a whole chicken (not the organic kind of course) on the table for the cost of one bag.

Some more -- some less, a large part of the public either are or soon will be challenged by pricing on consumables for vacuums.  Back in the day, Panasonic, Electrolux and some other makers of vacuums we might have assumed used only disposable bags did offer permanent cloth bags as an option.  I wonder if that will come into play again even though the "new" solution to the problem is supposed to be the bagless machine. 

However, I once had a very good friend whom expected gas station attendants to all be Einstein.  Like him, expecting too much may be my greatest fault.  A good, reasonably priced vacuum with reasonable maintenance cost?  Might as well wish for the moon. 

That's why I've grown so much in favor of giving used machines or rebuilts like Lux, Kirby, etc., another run around the track.  Most will go the distance if in good shape and cost far less to acquire.

Best,

Venson