Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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.

CarmineD wrote:
You'd think the guy doing that blow out would know better than to breath all the particles that are loosened up and blown out with the compressed air. 

On the other hand, he did clearly make his point that stuff stays inside a bagless vac's inner workings.

Hertz wrote:
MMMM DOUBLE STANDARDS HERE METHINKS.. Let me cast your young mind back to the conversation we had on here concerning the actual vacuums you own? Your reply was;

"...A Kirby Heritage II, Kirby G4 (rebuilt by me and a buddy of mine for NINE hours straight! Bought it in good working condition w/ nearly all attachments for TWENTY FIVE dollars! From a young 14 year old (I believe was the age) kid who happens to be passionate about such products, as well) Electrolux Silverado rebuilt by me and me alone, and a FilterQueen D 31X. GORGEOUS products all of them, but alas you just can't beat the A.) Suction power, B.) Design, C.) Filtration, and D.) Useability of these newer *HIGH* end brands like Miele and Sebo. What about you my man? YOUR TURN! Haha.."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but where in this list is there any evidence of your actual ownership of a Dyson? How can you believe everything that the marketing people would have you believe? What do you say to those who are against Kirby vacuums? Do you agree with them or go with your own experiences? I will say this and say this time and time again - unless you have actual experience where you can justify that your Dyson is cleaner than a bagged vacuum, bring it on. Otherwise stop posting crap on this forum about marketing. otherwise we'll be here all day long fighting out a lost battle.

Frankly the taste of the pudding is the in the eating. Not the blurb on the packet.

vacmanuk wrote:

Yeah, I JUST GOT MY OWN DYSON TODAY. Twelve DC14's in fact. Not only did it pick up very FINE dust that the Miele SEB217-equipped Solaris of mine left behind, BUT I swear my home feels cleaner and more breathable than when I run my Miele with an Air-Clean filter. Fact is: Dyson makes high quality vacuums the filter the air damn well, and you can choose to believe that fact or not. I find emptying the dust bin is very easy and clean overall, and if there's a build up of debris in the bin I simply seal the trash bag over it and shake vigorously, which is, whilst not as EASY perse´as a Miele bag, the benefits DEFINITELY outweigh the "downside" of such an action.

CarmineD wrote:

As long as you don't suck up moisture or anything that would cause the dirt to stick in the cyclone units, there's really no need to blow it out. DYSON IS DIFFERENT for A.) For the INCREDIBLE design and engineering that Sir James produces and invigorates to happen, the high quality and revolutionary vacuums he produces - from my own personal experience here, not just from reviews I've seen all over the place and the obvious performance and quality of his products given empirical data - and the other incredible and revolutionary products he produces (Dyson Digital Motor, for example, yes there are other brushless motors, but HIS IS DIFFERENT, and BETTER: http://www.mycncuk.com/forums/showthread.php?940-Dyson-Digital-Motor-(Vacuum-Cleaners) I just worked on a relatively FILTHY DC-14 I bought used "as is" for $30 that runs GREAT - and I bought TWELVE of them based on an add on Craigslist - "as is" from a recycling/product re-using plant and the cyclones I believe where relatively FINE, yet I took a $6.00 bottle of Teflon/Silicon lubricant and my Miele vacuum and a rag and EASILY cleaned out the cyclones to *VERY CLEAN* condition. I do agree they should make the cyclone unit washable, there's no need, and if they really do ever need cleaning, one can do it realistically by doing what I did: Vacuum, spray lubricant, wipe-down. Quite doable, at least on DC14's.

Hertz wrote:

Your statements and the conclusions you draw thereon are contradictory in my way of thinking.  If these dysons, which are still active models and currently sold, are of such high product quality and performance and require nothing more than a quick once over with a vacuum, wipe down and some spray lubicant [as you claim], why are they tagged for recycling?  

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:
12 Dysons? Lordy, wouldn't one be enough? Oh.. wait a moment.. are these all broken/drop for spares/need repaired vacuums delivered on a palette by any chance?

DYSON do not make high quality vacuums; join up to Which UK and see the reliability data for yourself. Have a look online to data that Dyson has tried to suppress. Their machines are good for the majority of bone idle owners who can't be bothered to buy bags and can't be bothered to empty the bins when they are full even though user instructions clearly tell the owner to empty the bin before it gets full. What happens then? Oh the seals and the filters have to work overtime. Ding dong - the machine starts to weaken.

The company rate average on maintenance and parts. Dyson is not LEXUS or any other comparable company you can pick for things less likely to go to go wrong. Refurbished, reconditioned and repaired Vacuum cleaners sold on EBAY UK appear to be DYSON than any other brand - I wonder why that is? Seriously, are you stupid enough to actually think that by putting a bagless cylinder bin which, by the way, becomes airborne the moment the seal is taken off, that by putting the bin into another bag that the dust you can't see somehow flies down into the bag you're emptying? Get real! Buy yourself a globe water filter machine and see just what happens when you empty your Dyson bin into a bag.

Isn't it ironic that, still at the end of the day you're putting the bagless collected dirt into another bag to dispose of it safely? A manufactured bag with a seal does it quickly, cleanly and efficiently.

You posted this Hertz.  http://www.mycncuk.com/forums/showthread.php?940-Dyson-Digital-Motor-(Vacuum-Cleaners)

Shame on you.  What a disappointment to waste our readers' time and efforts. There's no empirical data here on DDM.  Just a brief short lived blog of old posts going back to August 2007, 2008 and June 2009 on people's feelings and emotions regarding DDM.  Nothing concrete to read/learn except more utter nonsense.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

They were VERY poorly maintained Dysons that simply needed to be FIXED UP. Given the OBVIOUS abuse these machines went through, it's a TRUE TESTAMENT to their quality that they still run and are still in one piece; there's deep gouges in some of the plastic - yet the color of the plastic is not paint, but THE WHOLSE PLASTIC THROUGH AND THROUGH determining quality and pride in making their machines to a high standard - their hoses are still in tact yet are covered internally with soot, and there's some scratches on the bins. These machines went through hell, yet mechanically function fine; I have yet to power all of them on. Vacmanuk; Dyson DOES make high quality vacuums; I've read reviews where they've lasted for over ten years, my neighbor's has lasted three, other other neighbors AT LEAST three - and mine are a good 1 - 2 with careless-cleaning-lady like abuse and their built like tanks; I can stand and literally JUMP on the different ares of the head and base and NOT A SINGLE CREAK! The narrower side will give a SLIGHT creak if I stand RIGHT BY IT, but overall their build like Miele's, or in the main areas certainly are in terms of the plastics and seals. EVERY SINGLE PART is replaceable and these machines are *VERY* serviceable except for the belt and brush roll, but that's even been alleviated by the newer models. Again, I have allergies, and the air coming out of these machines is CLEAN. It smells and feels cleaner than my Miele's Air Clean filter.

CarmineD wrote:

It's sad to see someone not care to educate themselves when there's data at hand; no, it's not empirical data which I can understand the disappointment of, however if you CARE TO READ (which successful people do) then you'll see it's not "just another brushless motor." I was simply posting the link to educate readers that Dyson does seem to have made yet ANOTHER revolutionary product. Oh, and Carmen, I can see why you're so biased against Dysons and bagless machines in general to the point of the denial of the truth it seems like sometimes due to you having a severe asthma problem; they're quite sanitary if one takes the necessary preliminary actions to maintain the emptied dust in a plastic bag.

Hertz wrote:

At the premium retail prices of dysons, and the supposed product quality and ease of repair [as you claim], it seems reasonable that these users, if satisfied with their dysons and since these are still current dyson models, would have had repaired and they would still be in use.  Some of these may still be under the original warranty.  Recycling is like the glue factory for the horse.  It's the end of the line, and a short lived one at that.  Your example shows that unlike your claim, dysons are no different than the cheap bagless disposables that people buy and use for short periods and then dispose.  The only difference is that these dysons are 4 and/or 5 times the prices of the cheap bagless vacuums. 

Carmine D.