A really cool insight to the workings behind the company and how they develop what I believe to be some the most well designed vacuums with overall good-great build quality in history.

Hertz wrote:

Not from reading the blog you posted.  The discourse is mixed for/against DDM and its application to hand tools only, not full sized vacuums.  There are no concrete conclusions on DDM vice traditional motors in this blog, which has posts that are at least one year and even more old.  Quite the contrary varying differences of personal opinions.    Waste of time reading and I supect the reason it's not up to date by these posters who are supposed successful people [as you claim].  BTW, the jury is still out on DDM motors and dyson's handhelds which are consistently rated lower than hand helds with conventional motors.

Correction.  Pneumonia not asthma.  BUT, there are over 70 million persons in the US who suffer from sinuses and allergies, many year round and many with very severe conditions.  Like the "very asthmatic daughter" you posted.  Think she'd buy and use a dyson?  These allergy and sinus sufferers are all susceptible/prone to dirt/dust triggers causing breathing problems.  Allergy/sinus triggers brought on by operating bagless vacuums even dysons, which are no different and no more sanitary, even as you suggest, with the ridiculous procedure of dirt bin dumping inside a bag inside a trash container.   

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:
Be it on your own head. You clearly haven't read any of the posts Ive discussed with you in the past. 10 year old vacuums are fine if they still run and then I'd consider with the minimum of maintenance to keep them going IF they are longer lasting and worth the expense. With SEBO's X I got that already, 15 years old and one replacement drive belt. Also although Gerry Rubin may well be a pain in the neck his Dyson testing isn't that far-fetched. Since you're a fan of You Tube you've probably seen those tests as well.

PRINCETON, N.J., June 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Miele introduces scientific evidence that proves their vacuums (with an AirClean™ Filter-bag™, certified HEPA filter and Sealed System™ engineering) are more effective at safeguarding indoor air quality than the leading bagless vacuum. In fact an independent laboratory confirmed that Miele vacuums capture and retain 99.99% of harmful pollutants – on average 21x better than the HEPA-filtered bagless rival. "The results clearly demonstrate that Miele vacuums equipped with the AirClean™ Filter-bag™ are the best at eliminating dangerous fine particles released into the air when vacuuming," says Nadine Gast, Senior Product Manager for Miele. On average, the leading bagless HEPA-filtered vacuum emitted over 175,900 lung-damaging particles per minute during the test.

"The evidence shows that a bagless vacuum equipped with only a HEPA filter cannot effectively protect a home's air quality or prevent particle emissions that exacerbate allergy and asthma conditions," explains Gast. "That's just when the vacuum is running... what the test doesn't show is just how many particles are released back into the air when the bagless vacuum bin is emptied. It's an indoor environmental disaster! If you can smell the dust after cleaning the bin, you are already inhaling fine lung damaging particles." A Miele AirClean™ Filter-bag™ with its unique spring-loaded collar locks shut when removed to trap particles and keep them out of the airstream.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indoor air pollution is a concern for everyone, not just those suffering from respiratory conditions like asthma, allergies or emphysema. Especially considering that 90% of our time is spent indoors with pollution levels up to five times greater than outdoor air. http://www.epa.gov/

The Study

Miele commissioned Interbasic Resources (IBR), a recognized laboratory, to conduct an emissions test comparing their vacuum against four leading HEPA-filtered brands including Dyson®, SEBO®, Riccar® and Simplicity®. The results prove that the Miele vacuum, with its Sealed System™ engineering, equipped with a unique AirClean™ Filter-bag™ and certified HEPA filter, had significantly lower rates of particle emissions than competitive models. "In fact, the particle emissions from Miele's vacuum was next to nothing," says Gast. Each test was replicated three separate times according to the strictest scientific protocols. "Our AirClean™ Filter-bag™ is the best protection we can offer families to safeguard their homes from vacuum cleaner dust," per Gast. Copies of the complete study can be found on www.mieleusa.com.

SOURCE Miele

Carmine D.

Right on Carmine!

Another report I've just found: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/dyson-vacuum-cleaners-fail-to-score-in-reliability-tests-562422.html

"...

More than 5,100 people with different brands of upright cleaner and almost 2,600 with cylinder models were questioned about their reliability.

Overall, 79 per cent of upright vacuum cleaners and 91 per cent of cylinder models up to six years old had not needed repair. But among owners of Dyson cleaners, only 75 per cent with upright models and 81 per cent with cylinder versions said their machines had not needed attention in the first six years.

The best performing upright makes were Sebo, Hitachi, Oreck, Panasonic and Electrolux, while Morphy Richards, Bosch, Numatic and Miele came top among owners of cylinder cleaners.

Despite the poor results, owners of Dyson upright cleaners - brainchild of the British inventor James Dyson - were among the most likely to recommend them to a friend.

On upright cleaners, Which? said: "Yet again, Dyson is the only brand with below average reliability. So think twice before buying one." It said of Dyson: "It may design the most effective cleaners around but how well it puts them together is open to question."

HOOVER also get a pasting in this report, and I'm not entirely surprised. They have struggled with build, reliability and innovation since the U.S company pulled out in 1993.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, you are so biased and short-sided and blind sometimes it's hilarious. They were POORLY MAINTAINED. Do you not realize what that implies? They have been through HELL and back and STILL WORK. The plastic is till there (with on at least two the cord clips broke, but there are Miele's with even more concrete components that have broken with enough or even less abuse from what I've heard), again, they have NEVER been cleaned out, the filters have NEVER been washed or cleaned, and the brush bars have *NEVER* been freed of hair. One of them even looks like a cylindrical spool of yarn w/ barely ANY visible appearances of the brushes!! These machines are *FAR* better built than any other retail vacuum besides Riccar/Simplicity and some German brands (also Lux of Sweden's higher end canisters are decent, too), but I've personally put ALL my force into applying pressure to the sides of the cyclone assembly where the filter goes, and the plastic doesn't even break a sweat - and I'm big, strong, lengthy armed dude haha - and not to mention I can stand and JUMP on the cleaner HEAD, the two sides where they are JOINTED, and RIGHT ON TOP of the filter cover which filter is FAR Better quality than all but german brands and some Lux machines. Also, the dust bin itself is of VERY high quality polycarbonate - I can bend it to where it's nearly touching inside from one side to another and it doesn't even creak! I pity those whose bias blinds them of facts, such as yourself CarmineD. I'm not trying to be insulting, but everything you say about Dysons (almost) is simply FALSAE and biased, and I'm SAYING this because I OWN one and use one every day now and I have TWO Miele's and a Kirby G4 in my current possession to compare them and it to.

Hertz wrote:

Buying a dozen dysons from the junk heap doesn't prove your claim that they are different.  Let alone that dysons are better.  To the contrary, it proves just the opposite in my opinion.  Dysons are the same as all the less expensive vacuum competition on the market today, if used and abused.  Similarly, I can cite numerous brands and models of vacuums at lower prices that last and perform just as well as dysons when maintained and used properly.   No difference.  At one time dyson enthusiasts here pointed to the fact that holding prices high/steady made dysons different [read better].  BUT, prices of dysons are tumbling lower, and lower, and lower.  Just like all the other vacuum brands.  No different but the same. 

Carmine D.

Lousy vacuum cleaner or good vacuum cleaner, it looks like Jimmy D's doing alright.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/supersail/news/491898/nahlin-visits-the-river-dart

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

Here's a brief history of the Nahlin for those interested, albeit it has nothing to do with vacuums except now Sir James the marketeer who made his brand the "it" of vacuums now owns it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahlin_(yacht)

Perhaps it's a floating salvage yard for all the recycled vacuums he plans to trade in for the sales of his brand?  NYC recently uncovered a ship's hull buried in the ground as land fill.  Must be nice to have the money to buy and restore one.  Interestingly he decided on an old one rather than the purchase of a new one and had it rebuilt by a renowned German firm.  Wonder if that's an indication that bad economic times are befalling dyson and its founder?

Carmine D.

PS:  This does make dyson different as the thread suggests.  Not sure that means better vacuum wise except for the marketing madness that reaped the founder fame and fortune not to mention the 2 lawsuits and their payouts.

CarmineD wrote:
Well said, Carmine. I completely agree here.

CarmineD wrote:

You're again blinded by your bias; no other "cheap" brands could have gone through the abuse these have and still survived. They plastic is *MUCH* higher quality than cheap-china brands, MUCH better performing, and again, LAST LONGER. Any cheap-china piece of junk will last maybe 4 years tops; there are Dysons still going strong after 7-8. BIG difference. Not to mention what usually goes in the Dyson is the motor which is actually VERY user-replaceable. The plastic doesn't crack, break, or fall apart if cared for properly - and as evidence from my experience, if even UNCARED for! Also, you can't even begin to argue that the engineering behind Dyson's cyclonic system is *INCREDIBLE*. Why? Because it works!! Genius to say the least. Also, they're SEALED systems! With VERY high quality motor seals and motor gaskets deep in the motor housing, with VERY high quality filtration. NO other brand - not even some Riccars and a Sebo model Miele tested can compare buddy. That cute link you posted where Miele is "21x" better also contains a nice bit of information where a Dyson DC25 FILTERED BETTER THAN A RICCAR AND SEBO, but again, you "must have missed that."