Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Since I have been coming to this site I have seen bickering about Dyson, Hoover and a few other brands. But to me it is why is this industry important and why all the different brands and models. My feeling is that they are necessary to maintain a way of life. Cleanliness, health, and just plain keeping everything nice. We started with dirt floors, went to rock and wood floors. Floors were kept up with brooms for hundreds of years. With the advent of electricity the vacuum cleaner came along  with elecrtic motors.

Just so you know , I am aware of the types of early sweepers from the late 1800's.

So the question I put to you is why is it so important to be a bagless society of Dyson? Why Bagged? Why a particular brand over another? Give me and anyone that comes to this site some answers as to why and how is one better than another?

I am watching and listening.                                                                  Procare           54 years in the business and still going strong.

          

DIB:

We've had all the discussions you re-posted above before many times too.  You inevitably repeat the dyson party line .  Why?   Your perspective is always that of one who has his head up James's posterior.  Hence, the reason you look before James flushes. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Thanks DIB but I am not in need of your permission to speak as it is not and never was required here. I'll decide on when and about what I'll reply to even though, in this case, there's little you given us to think on. As usual you're merely spouting "information" you got off a Dyson box or one of Lord Jimmy's press releases. His mouth is no prayerbook and his behind is no stack of bibles.

In general terms, your're plastic bag theory is useless as it merely adds additional steps to what bagless vacs are said to make simple. (That's what the average consumer looks for -- time savers.) If I have to run for a plastic bag to empty a bagless machine that I am advised and encouraged by the manufacturer to empty after each use I might as well have a machine with a disposable bag and save myself the time.

As regards highly sensitive persons -- for whom bagless vac is discouraged -- if a central vac system is not an option, although $#%*bersome and a challenge to maintain, a water-type vac might be the better ticket. All collected dirt, etc., is wet down and merely has to be flushed away.

I would suggest that you go tell Dyson to stop bothering with suing other manufacturers and go for something monumental like taking Consumer Reports to court. It strongly discourages the use of bagless vacuums by those who suffer from exposure to dust.

As for patents, Dyson I am sure will come to see that they're only good for so many runs to the courthouse. Then they'll probably stop moaning and groaning and get to making better product.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB:

You're lack of logic and sense is pitiful.  The students laughed becaused it is funny not because it is true.  Look it's simple even you can grasp:  A bagged vacuum user puts a new EMPTY FRESH bag in the vacuum [in the house, not outside].  Then, in 2-3-4-5-6 weeks, depending on the size of the bag, vacuum usage, the user looks [if it doesn't have a full-bag indicator like most bagged vacuums do] at the bag to see if the debris is up to the FULL LINE, just like they do with your fave brand, except a lot less often.  If so, the user removes the FULL DIRTY bag and tosses in the trash [inside the house not outside in the trash].  They see the dirt picked up too, don't they?  If not, they wouldn't have to replace the bag.  Right! 

WRT bin versus bag, [ASSUMING your facts are accurate since you did not provide proof/source of authority] 46% is not quite half.  So dyson, by bad mouthing bagged vacuums, losses 54 percent of UK vacuum buyers/users.  Dah!  The majority.  It would appear a bright entrepeneur/inventor like James would want to capture all the market not just a portion of 46 percent.  Sounds dumb to write-off 54 percent of the UK vacuum buyers/users even before getting started.  

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Again, DIB, your logic and business sense woefully fails to meet an asset litmus test.  Take the high end amount IN GOOD TIMES of $120,000,000 and divide by 500 dyson engineers.  The result is $240,000 per engineer.  Then deduct the engineers' salaries.  Let's say $100,000 per being conservative, probably more but let's lo-ball.  That's $50 MILLION in salaries.  What's left?  $70 MILLION.  Before paying the in-house cost of the dyson patent lawyers and his hired legal guns in 3 piece suits with 3 names from New York City.  What's left, if anything, is not alot of money, DIB.  Quite the opposite.

Dyson isn't interested in producing/selling leading edge floorcare products.  He wants to sue others who actually do and take a piece of their profits.  Ironically, they may not even know they are infringing on dyson patents.   James: what a vacuum guy!

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

First, DIB, the plastic bag for bin dumping is users with dust allergies, asthma, and sinus problems, not all dyson users.  Right.  Get your facts straight.  Read the dyson user guide.

Second, if users change their vacuum bags inside the house and dispose of the old bags in the trash inside the house, why not do the same for bagless?  The answer is obvious.  ORECK demonstrates the mushrooms of dirt clouds that pervade the inside air from bin dumping even when you can't see them.  Are you and dyson reinventing the bin dumping practice after the fact just for your own convenience?  At the expense of increased user time and effort for bagless bin dumping?  Sounds like a huge inconvenience for buyers/users of bagless vacuums.   Add in the cost of the pre-post filters, especially HEPA, and the several times a year for filter maintenance, and you have huge headaches and out of pocket expenses.

Do you see why 54 percent of the UK vacuum users choose bags over bins?

Carmine D. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

You just told us that 46 percent of UK vacuum users buy/use bagless.  Then, 54 percent use bags.  Bags win over bins in the UK and probably in the rest of the vacuum world.  So what's your point?  You and dirt bins lose.  Bags win. 

WRT seeing is believing, how about all the unseen dirt and dust that gets imbedded in the cyclones over time that users can't see and never gets dumped.  Just builds up.  What is that doing to the filtering capacity and efficiency of bagless operations?  Choking it. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Apparently all the discussions and proof are falling on deaf ears and blind eyes.  Why?  Dyson is suing ORECK for disclosing the health hazards of dyson dirt bin dumping in the home.  Yet, Consumer Reports and doctors  and even you agree it is not healthy and clean.  In fact they recommend using dust maskes to cover the face when bin dumping [inside/out].  Not just for asthma and allergy users, but for all bagless users.  Dumb dyson is suing anyways.  More money than sense.  How much will this frivolous lawsuit cost dyson when it's lost?  Lot's of sales of new, used and dyson refurbs.  The ruling will support what the vacuum industry has siad for years.  It's a health hazard.  May even result in many bagless returns and a fall-off in bagless sales.  I suspect the ruling may even result in a warning label on all bagless vacuums to all users that bagless bin dumping poses a potential health risk to all and pollutes the air.  What do you and dyson think about that?

Carmine D.

After more than 25 years of James Dyson spouting his beliefs/selling his bagless products, the majority of vacuum consumers in the UK still prefer bags.  As they do around the world.  The product choices that a few make are never good for everybody.  There are facts and circumstances that make vacuum preferences an individual matter.

WRT Melanie, aka Catlady, she was outraged by the cost of MIELE paper bags on her new S7.  BUT she said here in no uncertain terms that she would never buy/use a bagless vacuum regardless.  Why?  She is an allergy and asthma sufferer.  While bags are expensive for her needs, she would suffer terribly with a bagless vacuum and more than likely would not be able to do the vacuuming. 

James Dyson forgot all the people like Melanie.  Dyson's arrogance has certainly cost the brand the majority of bagged vacuum users in the UK.  And likely elsewhere in the world.  

The vacuum industry provides users with options.  Let them decide what works best for their money and needs.  Not James Dyson, who is the least qualified in the industry to know and the most prejudiced too.

Carmine D.

If you do not like paying for bags just buy an Oreck.  They most likely would not pick up a bag full in a year.  Even if the bag was half the size that they are.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

I'm amazed at the huge size of ORECK bags and the amount they are filled when I replace.  It is generally agreed that 8 ORECK bags [@ about $12 per pack]  last a year.  For most users this is probably true.   Since you were a dirt bin dumper once, how many trips to the outside trash can with the dirt bin would that make in a year?  Add in the plastic bags to accumulate and contain the clear bin dirt, and how much does that add to the bagless bananza?

Carmine D.