Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Looking back over the past year, one thing conspicuously absent from this forum is a rabid Rainbow enthusiast.  Perhaps it is difficult to justify the outrageous price of these door to door wonders.   To some extent, a Rainbow owner has to believe in the Rainbow sales pitch and doesn't want to be confronted with any negative information about the Rainbow.    I also noticed that overstock.com is no longer selling the refurbished Rainbow SE's with the Wesselwerks small power nozzles.    Given the economy, it's got to be tough selling $2000+ vacuums - even if they can purify one's home. 

We dont have this brand in the UK but it is similar in theory to the Polti italian steamer cylinders that are appearing that have a dry suction part built in to lift dirt from floors and deposit it into a water filled tank. Having had experience of my old Vax canister 3 in 1 machine that dealt with the wet dirt and depositing it into the bin along with the dirty water extracted and cleaning solution, the hardest job of all is wondering where to put all the dirty water without plugging / blocking your drainage pipes? Fair enough if you deposit the dirty water into your garden or down the toilet. Also to my imagination Rainbows do look heavy and it can't be much fun lifting a heavy canister full of wet gunk into whatever disposable vessel you may have at the time.

Hi,

I don't know to what degree its sales have been affected but Rainbow now has more competition in the state-side water-type vac market. Roboclean, Delphin and Hyla are looking to make names for themselves in the American market. Rotho, an expensive all in one device for dry vacuuming and "mopping", also is out seeking to make. Most of these sell door to door, the same as Rainbow.

Considering what's happened with biggies like Hoover and Electrolux, I have to say I am surprised that Rainbow is still in business. I am equally surprised that Filter Queen is still on the market.

I'm not digressing but basically I think younger generations are more inclined to spend on items that actually simplify things. Yes, they want want clean homes and everything bright and shiny -- they just don't want to have to go nuts to get it that way. No-wax flooring, non-stick cookware, fabric softening sheets -- all sorts of stuff that cuts steps and involvement are doing well despite the money that might be saved doing things the old way. Look at the success of products from the Swiffer people.

Nowadays both Mom and Dad have to work if not to succeed in life but at least survive. Who wants to put in a days work and then have to face mops, buckets and dust cloths if they can at all be avoided? Though there is an expense to use 'em-toss 'em type goods it must be worth it as people seem to see such items as necessities.

Not many seem to want to deal with washing up a vacuum after use or the weight water as a filtration medium adds. The HEPA filter and high filtration bags have also more than proven that they can provide excellent filtration without extra weight or overly involved maintenance.

And oops -- there goes the Rainbow mythology right out the window. That may well be a fly in the ointment for Rainbow which for years stretched the truth about its effectiveness at filtering with water alone. (People don't forget.) Rainbow and just about every other water type vac, save for Delphin, use HEPA filters. Lots of Rainbows and other water-type vacs end up on eBay as refurbs or as cast-offs after the romance dwindled with continued used.

I've got a Rainbow in the house and could save money big-time by not purchasing the Miele bags and filters that I scream about in regard to price. Yet I just don't want to be bothered with all that any longer.

Venson

Venson et al:

I have to believe that a long extended economic malaise will ultimately do FQ sales and company in.  Don't know the details yet, too soon, but sales have to have plummeted over recent years.  As a niche seller, if it doesn't hold its own sales wise, it bodes badly for survival.

Carmine D.

The Rainbow is one of my favorite vacuums. I have an SE PE and an E Series. I prefer my  SE PE. I never pick up non wettable items and my home always smells the best after using the Rainbow. I do however wish they would rethink their power nozzle. It doesn't stear very well and doesn't edge clean well. I wish they would use something like the Eureka Express Power Nozzle.

Bud

budmattingly wrote:

Hi budmattingly,

A Eureka power nozzle was what they used when the fitted the first D2s for power nozzles. Then, they got the idea that they could do it better themselves. As the fittings and wands on Rainbow are pretty much standard size you can always opt to use a PN from another brand


Venson

Venson wrote:

I'm not sure what Rainbow is thinking with this power nozzle design.  They are selling a cleaning system at a ridiculously high price with less than a stellar power nozzle.  They improved the air flow/ suction.  They should be putting the best power nozzle on this machine period.  They should be making modifications to raise their dismal scores in the Consumer Reports tests.   

the same goes for Aerus/Lux and their paper bags.   When you sell a premium machine, it should be the absolute best.  HEPA cloth bags are on the premium vacuums.    The door to door machines need to be at least as good as the Miele's sold in the independent stores to justify the high prices. 

Severus wrote:

Here again it is a matter of business's first rule which dictates that you neither spend nor pay anyone any more than you just have to. Aerus can bank on a public trust as it linked to Electrolux at least by association and/or changes so limited that you still thinking you're looking at an ever famous Electrolux. They've popped in a new motor and spiffied up the look of the thing slightly and are prepared to run with that. Unless there are bag breaks, which I see as highly unlikely due to Aerus/Lux's basic design, the larger part of the public will be none the wiser and the guys at Aerus will smile and look the other way -- which they are.

As for Rainbow, if it give up its power nozzle meant to be identifiable specifically as Rainbow's to switch a generic even if better like Wessel Werk, I wonder what would be made of it.

Almost everybody's using the same attachment sets these days. I look at a half-dozen or more high priced machines and what do I see -- same PN and above the floor tools -- and can't figure out why consumers haven't noticed and, it being obvious at least to me that a vacuum is not better than the parts you hit the wood with, begun to think why should they drop a thousand bucks or more when they could have a machine with all the same tools for less.

That said, I like the design of Rainbow's bare floor tool, it's upholstery nozzle with removable brush and the re-designed dusting brush. In their own way, they are unique bit for all this time the big difference about Rainbow is that it has altered the bare floor tool to work with straight wands after forfeiting the curved lower wand it employed for like a hundred years. That kind of progress in itself has probably left the company reeling and it may take a while before it's ready to make another step.

Many of the steps I have seen Rainbow take over the years appeared to be more for the sake of savings. Thew machine itself gone from metal to plastic, cast aluminum tools traded off for plastic because providing the former was too expensive for their financial game plan though I'd advise you not to call the company and ask for the price of new ones. Anyway, to avoid the cost of development, retooling, etc., and concede that someone else's product is better than its own, it may be better to leave the issue alone. The HEPA only got added on because it was a viable pitching point.

The public is still buying Rainbow for the time being and for whatever else it may or might alter I don't think, due to the nature of the machine it will come up with anything that will enthuse more people to buy something that basically no longer fits the current picture. There's no longer great sentiment in as regards perfect housekeepers in this "set it and forget it" age.

Feeling they were wonderful, Granny bought Electrolux, Hoover, Rexair/Rainbow, Air-Way (now gone) and Filter Queen back in the day and their kids resultantly bought a lot of the same brands early on for no better reason than these machines were what Mom had. Nonetheless, times progressed and people's lives and livelihoods expanded as windows of opportunity for mundane tasks like buffing and polishing and appliance rituals shrank. Look at food. How many good, young "scratch cooks" do you know? Anybody got a kid taking home economics lately?

Rainbow is probably better served in attempting to tread water.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Venson,

to me what makes a Rainbow a Rainbow is the canister part, not the power nozzle.   I wonder how many Rainbow customers have turned to Consumer Reports and been shocked by the low ratings for carpet cleaning.   If the CR ratings are to be believed (and IF not - Rainbow should be working with CR to ensure that they are correct), Rainbow needs to improve something to improve the dismal carpet cleaning score.     The obvious choice is the power nozzle.  Whether that means outsourcing or insourcing is up to them.  I'm sure that Rainbow is capable of designing a top notch power nozzle.   If you spend $2200+ dollars on a Rainbow, you really do deserve the best. 

Hi Severus,

I thoroughly agree.  If you spend two grand on a vacuum cleaner you have a right to expect the very best performancewise.  But, that's an area that only a small part of average vacuum consumers have an appreciation of as most will never have an eye to tell.  To the average vacuum buyer and/or user, clean is because they see nothing on top of the rug. Few of us have particle counters or suction meters on hand to monitor the level of virtue there is to machine. We go on the sellers word.

But as for money spent, how much machine do you buy versus how much do you pay to benefit of the sellers profit?  I'm guessing but, as an instance, a new Kirby by now probably sells to distributors and door-to-door vendors for maybe $550 a pop.  The buyer however is asked to pay $1,700 at least.  If that's the case one might wonder if the machine's worth $550 or $1,700 or somewhere in between.  I am sure it's the same with Rainbow -- and other door-to-door sold niche brands with low consumable requirements -- the actual cost of the machine may well turn out to be triple or four times its wholesale price. The phenomenon here is that people have been buying into these names for years and years without making a big deal out of it because they believe that they're "getting something".

Rainbow is a nice idea and has been all along but it has and has had its shortcomings.  Way, way back in the day Rexair had a cloth after-filter under the top lid of the Model B.  As I have only seen few in comparison to the machines I have seen without, I assume that the after-filter was only a very brief part of Rexair history.  Why?  It made it obvious what the machine failed to capture.  Down through the years the pitch was that the contained "rain storm" in the water pan was catching everything but it wasn't.  Apparently not many people bothered to simply look or test things out.  No matter how often you emptied and refilled the water pan of the non-HEPA fitted D2 I had, there was still fine dust to be found past the spider after use for normal cleaning.  Rainbow has now managed to segue to the HEPA filter and come off merely as being modernized and everybody's happy. 

Thus far, enough of the public feels that they're getting something and Rainbow is prepared to sit tight with that for a while.  Electrolux, Kirby and Filter Queen also did the same for long spans of time.

Venson

If Rainbow goes the route of others before who couldn't withstand the economic downturn, it will be a sad day and time. 

According to the latest WSJ news:

U.S. gross domestic product rose at a 2.2% annual rate from July through September, according to the government's third and final reading. It was the second time third-quarter GDP was revised lower. The government initially reported third-quarter GDP growth of 3.5%, then lowered it to 2.8%. In the second quarter, GDP contracted 0.7%. The latest figure was below Wall Street forecasts of 2.7% growth.

BTW, Gross Domestic Product [GDP] is represented/driven 2/3 by American spending.  For those who thought the 2007/2008 economic malaise was a temporary blip, we are now at the end of 2009 and things are worse not better.  Still no light at the end of the tunnel, regardless of what the politicos may say otherwise.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
It's Rainbow's responsibility to adapt to the times.  I would advise Rainbow to (1) fix the power nozzle, (2) be more generous with the carpet cleaner attachment, (3) be more generous with the "sidekick" attachment, (4) a price drop and/or free or low cost financing would be a plus..  The carpet cleaners in particular are a sore point with many consumers.   Requiring them to provide names of people who will accept a Rainbow demo within a short period of time is a nuisance.   There have been a lot of complaints by consumers who say they've provided names but never received the promised carpet cleaner.  Or the salesman doesn't call the people within the time period, so they don't count. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

I was never a fan of Rexair/Rainbow in part since I always favored uprights.  But especially since I knew them when they tauted their canns as especially made for asthma and allergy users.  Didn't mention that after these repiratory sufferers had vacuumed, then they had to deal with the mud clean up rather than the dust.  Rexair conveniently left that part out. 

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Again, I have to agree.  It would be wonderful if Rainbow adapted a gentler frame of mind when it comes to pricing but as none of its other door-to-door or niche brand competitors are reducing their prices it's not likely that Rainbow will.

My last encounter with Rainbow itself was when I wanted to purchase its optional 16-inch bare floor tool.  I contacted a rep and told him what I wanted and also immediately informed him that I was not about to pay him the approximate one hundred bucks it listed for.  We agreed on $65.00 (shipping included and no sales tax as it was to come in from out of state) and I still payed two times what the thing's actually worth.

This happens not with Rainbow alone.  It costs over sixty bucks to buy a replacement floor and rug tool from Aerus. 

Rainbows mini electric nozzle should be included as part of the basic system.  For years while the big kids were puting a dollar value on every screw, nut and bolt, lowly Kenmore has been throwing electric mini nozzles in the attachment sets selling with most of their canisters sold with PNs.  And we're talking cleaners that sell from only $250 to $400.  I think Miele should be doing the same but it just won't.

What's the price on Rainbow's rug cleaner and the comparison to what you'd pay for getting one of the Hoover or Bissell machines specifically made for that purpose on the market?

As for the "tell a friend deals", they're simply useless as Rainbow is an acquired taste and you'll be a long time looking for two more people, forget ten or so, who are even remotely interested.  The tell a friend thing is mostly a ploy to cinch deals with possible buyers by leading to believe that they may have an actual chance to defray the cost of an expensive purchase.

If I wanted a Rainbow today, I'd wait for a good deal to turn up on eBay and also consider swapping out the PN for another.  Simple as that.  Far less money and far better value.  Anyway . . .

Hope Santa's marvelously generous to you and that your new year's a bright one.

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:
Venson,

Merry Christmas to you too.  I hope Santa was most generous to you too.   

To the Rainbow users,

Do you add fragrance to the water?  If so, what do you use?   My mother in law has a 20 year old Rainbow, and I was thinking that some kind of fragrance might make a nice Christmas/birthday/Mother's day gift.  Do you have any recommendations?  Where's the best deals?

I have never been a fan of Rainbow,  remember my house is a Kirby home.  I do, however, have a D2 from 1974 that I still play with a few time a year.

Last year my Niece went to work for Rainbow for a very short time.  Talk about high pressure.   Not only did they pressure her to do everything, including lie to the customer.  She had to stop during different steps of her demonstration to call her supervisor who would then high pressure the customer even more. 

It was very put-offing, especially for a machine that they would not discount in any way shape or form.    Kirby the only other true DTD that I have dealt with are also pushy and high pressure, but they will actually deal off retail. 

Just wrote:
I also dislike the Rainbow sales pitch.  When the SOB came to do the demo, he couldn't give us our "free gifts" until we explained to his boss why we were not buying a  $2200 Rainbow.  Given that our carpeting was clean without the benefit of a Rainbow, I felt no need to buy one.  He also seemed annoyed when I said that no, I would not run the Rainbow 24 hours a day as an air cleaner - if I had one.  Others have pointed out that It is possible to buy brand new discounted Rainbows with all of the bells and whistles on ebay.   

I suspect Rainbow sales are pretty bad right now. 

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

I suspect you are 100 percent correct.  To my knowledge the only d-t-d brand holding their own in the current economy is Aerus.  I believe the sales people and store network to a large part make the Aerus sales difference.

Carmine D.

Just wrote:
Thank you Just!

Those wet/vacs and the way they are pushed is scary. 

I used to think ol’ Warren Buffett was a good guy, until I learned he owned Kirby and/or does nothing to change the practices of these con men.  What does good ol’ Warren make off a sale to a senior who’s been pressured and bamboozled?  The old man loves money just like the young sharks.

Carmine, don’t even try to cover this man’s [wrinkly] butt.

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Apparently, with age your thinking has suffered a turn for the worse.

Buffett does need me to defend him.  By last count the Oracle of Omaha contributed over  $30 BILLION plus to the Gates Foundation who matched the donation.  Gates was recently recognized by the White House for his Foundation and its philanthropy.  Just what this season is all about.  HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Carmine D.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Good for WB.  Take from the poor and give to the rich.

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Screwing folks Mon - Sat, and tithing on it on Sunday is common practice with many.  Gods smarter and far more capable than many think and certainly smarter and far more capable than Buffett and Gates combined.  He’s been in the taking care of people business long before Gates and Buffett made dime one. 

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:
I find myself agreeing with Dustmite.   James Dyson should cut his prices at least in half so that the poor can afford to buy them.   So does James pay his Malaysian workers a living wage? 

Severus wrote:
SpongeBob,

The poor need Dyson's?  I love it.


Dyson Invents Big

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

Excellent point.  I don't see/find Malaysia listed as one of the dyson markets for his vacuum and sundry products.  I suppose the poor Malaysians are good enough [read slave labor] to make them but not buy/own/use them.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Suppose you're wrong.

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster and HARDSELL WRT Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and their gifting away their money fortunes to die broke:

I recommend a very good book for both of you [and even James] to read:  Winners Never Cheat by Jon Huntsman. 

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

HARDSELL:

HAPPY NEW YEAR.  Didn't I recall you buying a new Kirby Sentria for $675 under the tutelage of Warren B.  Would you say you got your money's worth?

Carmine D.

DIB,

 In all the writings you talk about how Dyson was first on bagless vacuums. That everybody copied his idea., How wrong could you be and this little thread is a good place to put this information.In reading a little history about Rainbow and it's history, I read that in 1928 bagless vacum was made using neither bags or  filters. It was called the Newcombe Bagless. It was first a handheld and then an upright (the first Dyson). The upright was eventualy dropped in favor of a canister. when all was said and done Rexair came out. They used the water to stop fine dust from going thru the motor but their claim was " No Loss Of Suction" World's first cleaner to use neither filter or bag.

procare wrote:
Procare,

I enjoy defending my words (when I’m right), only I do not recall saying James Dyson was first with Bagless.  He and his team are no-doubt the first to invent and/or innovate the worlds first consumer friendly vacuum cleaner separator package/system.  I personally hate the word bagless.  Anyways...  below is the Newcombe patent.  Who here can ascertain from this patent if the claims worked and how well?  Funny thing is Hoover UK passed on using this patent to demonstrate prior art as well as other Dyson competitors.  It looks like a hell-of-an-attempt.

Look, you guys are desperate to find error or a chink in the Dyson armor.  If the guy was not first with cyclonic, then he should be deemed brightest and smartest instead. 

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1420665.pdf


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

The point is that Sir James Dyson, your idol, publicly and professionally takes all credit for bagless vacuums now.  You give dyson here this credit when you impugn copy cat brands and models for imitating dyson bagless.  But it's not Sir James invention.  Dyson copied a little known patent/inventor from 1922.  At least to Rexair's credit, it perfected bagless technology for household applications 80 years ago.  All here would agree, except perhaps you and Sir James [after 5174 prototypes], that anyone with a little time, money and inclination can parlay the advances in the vacuum industry over 70 years with Newcombe's 1922 patent to produce a bagless vacuum that works better than Newcombe's 1922 version.  To Sir James Dyson's credit, he built himself a fortune by doing so and a new [really 70 years old] bagless vacuum industry got a renewed and profitable lease on life.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

HAPPY NEW YEAR to you also.  Yep, I bought a Kirby.  Sold it about a month back so I guess you could say I did not think it was worth what I paid.

HARDSELL wrote:

No, I did not say you did. 

I never sold new Kirby vacuums.  But from time to time, a loyal Kirby customer would insist on a new Kirby to buy.  When one did, I always connected the buyer with a local Kirby distributor for a good price.  I stayed out of it and let them do the deal.  I didn't want anything for thre referral, tho it was always offered.  I will say in over 40 plus years, before Buffett was the Kirby owner, I never had a Kirby buyer return to tell me that he/she regretted the buy.  In fact, several came back and bought another and another over the years.  Kirby has excellent name brand recognition in the industry and a loyal niche market of buyers/customers who have been its mainstay sales for generations.  Tho I think in the current economy new Kirby sales would be very difficult regardless of the customer loyalty/sales pitch.

Carmine D. 

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

“Publicly and professionally” ...hey that rhymes.  Good for you.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

PROCARE's post about Newcombe's 1922 bagless vacuum invention/patent rings true.  Sir James Dyson, an inventor extraordinaire according to you, copied a 1922 bagless vacuum patent/invention. 

Then, Sir James in his marketing pitch supposedly tests 5174 bagless prototypes, never once crediting Newcombe's patent, before finally perfecting the bagless upright.  Sir James Dyson takes all the credit.  Even claims all the knock offs are stealing from him.   Slick marketing reinventing and/or reinnovating truth.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Based on your posts here you sold all the vacuums you ever bought including a dyson DC07 except a Rainbow which you still have.  By your selling actions and posts are you saying that all the vauums you ever owned and subsequently sold were not worth the prices you paid except for the Rainbow?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

The interesting thing about Rainbow owners is that they tend to be extremely loyal.   I'm always amazed when I read the overwhelming number of positive reviews by Rainbow owners.   Sure there are those who hate them, but most like the water filtration idea.    I heard an administrative assistant say that she bought one when she was first married - and paid nearly $3000 with interest payments.  It broke down after 7 or so years.   Yet, she still would like another one.  Even though it's a bit of a pain in the butt to use, she felt like she was missing something without it.   I was shocked that with her limited resources, she and her husband would even consider buying a Rainbow.  For whatever reason, there seems to be an emotional attachment to these vacuums. 

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

You’re an idiot, but you’re our idiot.  :)

The Newcombe patent is a salad spinner (for fine dust), and not a ‘cyclonic separator.’


Dyson Invents Big

P.S.  I only spoon fed you (the group) the Newcombe patent because I was bored.  And you did not fail me...  you provided a good laugh. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

I have a dear friend who bought a new Rainbow when he first got married.  He chides that his wife left him after 7 years but the Rainbow is still going strong after 30.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Sir James copied [stole] Kenneth J's patent for the ball facilitator and used it 13 years later on his vacuums calling it a dyson original too.  Seems like a pattern with your fave inventor extraordinaire.

BTW, being called an idiot in your eyes is the highest compliment I can receive from you.  I'm not laughing when I say it.

Carmine D.

DIB,

  Centrifugal force and Cylonic actions work together to seperate dust and dirt. All vacuums use cyclonic action and centrifugal force. The Newcombe and Rexair it's predecessor use that seperator to to get cleaner air  thru it's motor. The main thing that hurt  Rexair before it started using water in the cleaner was the real fine dust like soot would go right back into the air ala Three Stooges and other comedians used in the mid 30's on. I am no Idiot like you that like to call people names. I have been nice to you and you think you are the only one here that knows anything.

                                                                     When I brought out Newcombe it was part of Rainbow (Rexair) history. Your thoughts about it being a salad  spinner is proving you to be the Idiot not Carmine or anyone else on this thread. No one cut down Dyson as an Innovator but showed that there was someone there before him. Root was the inventor on the cyclonic end and Dyson put it to use in vacuum cleaners. An innovation not invention.

CarmineD wrote:

"Then I saw on top of a lumberyard this giant cyclone, and that gave me the idea to develop the cyclones—one of only a few filtration devices that don't have cloggable membranes. Even electrostatic filters can theoretically clog, but they don't even work in this application yet. The cyclone was on top of a factory, 30 ft. high, collecting sawdust all day long and losing suction."

James Dyson from Popular Mechanics interview:  http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4236719.html

Based on his comments, Rainbow actually did everything James wanted in a vacuum.  If James had had a Rainbow, he might have never bothered to go into the vacuum business.

procare wrote: Severus wrote:

HAPPY NEW YEAR PROCARE and SEVERUS:

Dib-ster's monotonous diatribes here over how great dyson art and how tired and weary are all others has become B-O-R-I-N-G. 

As a dyson shill, with a poor cover, Dib-ster typically resorts to name calling [like idiot] and/or using the laugh/joke cards as defenses of last resort when faced with incontrovertible facts/truths.  Dib-ster claims he enjoys defending his words only when he's right.  In reality, if he were right and rarely is that the case, no defense is needed.  Absent facts/truth, no defense is sufficient.  I would have thought with a new year would bring a new alias/cover for Dib-ster.  Even better, a new dyson spokes person.  But, alas, not yet.  Slim-pickins for Sir James.  Perhaps the reason that starting in 2010 dyson no longer sells in 31 global markets but just 5.  Malaysia is not one of them.

Carmine D.

So if i put 1 qt of water in my dyson's bin would i be inventing something?

This would work to keep the fine dust level down and out of the pre motor filter.

Can i have the R@D money now,A stack of hundreds would be fine.

Thanks

MOLE

mole wrote:

HAPPY NEW YEAR MOLE:

As my 5 year old grand daughter would ask:  Is that real money or fake?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

By definition you behave like an idiot.  You also drip with Dyson-envy, and lie big-time.  You rushed out and declared Dyson copied Newcombe’s salad spinner without reading the Newcombe patent and after I spoon fed it to you. 

Do you think I would help out all the lying vacuum dealer con men buy putting up a patent that even resembles the Dyson Dual Cyclone or other Dyson patents?  You’re an idiot (by definition).


Dyson Invents Big

Idiot - Wikipedia:  An idiot, dolt, or dullard is...  someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Whether I am an idiot or not in your estimation is irrelevant to the facts and truth posted on this thread by PROCARE, SEVERUS, and MOLE about past vacuum inventions.  Name calling is a childish diversion the first time used.  Repeating it focuses readers' attention on the name caller, who quickly gets judged as childish.    

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

Before he was knighted Sir James, dyson lacked the little money needed to buy bags for his vacuum.  The price of a Rainbow surely would have been beyond his meager means.   Like Malaysians being good enough to make dysons but too poor to buy/use. 

Carmine D.

DIB,

  Your definition of idiot is not Webster's definition which I believe is the correct one,

                       IDIOT- an ignorant, common person  -one without professional knowledge - loosely- very loosely a very foolish or stupid person

     

CarmineD wrote:
Curiously, Sir James mentions the dog smell of vacuum bags as a reason to go with bagless.   A bagless vac can still pick up the smell of a dog from the oils in the hair.  The Rainbow solves the problem by having water as a prefilter.  Since you're not supposed to wash the cyclone assembly of a Dyson, I don't know how you get around the stinky smell of dog if the oil from the dog hair gets on the cyclone assembly.  At least with some other bagless brands you can wash the assembly ,but not with Dyson. 

   Had a customer just leave with her Dyson. Problem clogged up filter. She followed all the directions. The problem was her husband had problem with the flue of the fireplace. Her husband sucked up the soot with the vacuum. Reason was it wasn't supposed to clog.  Both the filters were replaced as well as the motor was cleaned. So when cleaning things like soot or even flour I don't recommend use of a Dyson.  When picking dry detergent  like Tide, Cheer  or any other dry soap powder - Don't use  a Rainbow or any other vacuum using water as part of it's cleaning system. You'll leave a mound of suds you will not believe.

                                                                                                          Procare

procare wrote:

Dyson has a very good system for filtering dirt out of the air stream when the amount of fine dust being picked up is a small fraction of the air stream.   The cross sectional area at the top of each cone is very small, and it is quite easy to overload the cyclones when picking up a lot of fine dust quickly.   I don't know why anyone would use a $300-$500 Dyson as a shop vac.  That's as bad as using a Rainbow vacuum to clean a litter box. 

Severus wrote: procare wrote:

SEVERUS, PROCARE:

The beauty of any bagged vacuum cleaner regardless of price is that a new inexpensive bag replacement solves the problems.  VOILA the consumer is back to work without missing a beat.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

To many consumers, a vacuum regardless of looks and price is still just a vacuum: Meant to pick up dirt.  Chimney soot, Christmas needles and on and on are all fair game.  Gotta luv them.  Especially if you're in the business.  The next several months will bring in many such vacuum repairs.

Carmine D.

procare wrote:

Hi procare,

Fine substances like soot and plaster dust are no-nos for any vacuum other than a shop vac.  Either will clog up a household vacuum in short order and may also do damage.  There are now speciality vacuums for households with flues and fireplaces to clean.  They even handle hot ash without much problem.

Prior to the models with airpaths that by-pass the motor, I accidentally picked up some powdered laundry detergent with a D2.  The motor started to sputter when the suds were sucked up into it.  I unplugged it and then let it sit for several days until I felt sure it had dried out.

As for pine tree needls, if one of the end fittings on your canister hose is straight you can try using a broom handle to GENTLY break up the blockage.  You can also try an undone wire coat hanger as a "snake".  Be sure that the working end is bent to avoid accidental perforation of your hose and, better yet, try a little duct tape to cover the end of the hanger to avoid snagging any internal wiring, etc., in electrified vacuum hoses.  My best advice, is to first use a broom to collect the major part of fallen pine needles and then use your vacuum to quickly get rid of any residual.  Whooshing up a smal amount of pine needles is not bad but avoid going after the long ones. 

Uprights may be the simpler to deal if their airpaths are short and uncomplicated.ee your user guide.)   Remove the base plate and removable components composing the dirt path and start digging.  Also note that this king of better done outdoors or over lots of newspaper.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

You opened your mouth and said Dyson is a copy of the Newcombe and you’ve provided no proof.

You opened your mouth and said Dyson copied or stole from Kenneth J. and you’ve provided no proof.

You’re amusing and create many exchanges here, but calling my favorite living inventor, a self-made man, a philanthropist and inventor-ambassador a thief was...  idiotic.  You’ve also got a big head for a man who’s contributed little.


Dyson Invents Big

DIB,

            I don't know why you are always picking on us about remarks made on this thread about  historical facts.  The little notation ( the first " Dyson") was made by Tom Gasko , Curator of the Vacuum  Cleaner Mueseum at Tacony Manufacturing. It is out of part of an article on Rexair (Rainbow) history. So before you accuse anyone of no facts ask and it will be given.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

I never made any claim to be an inventor and contribute anything.  I'm not the subject of the thread.  Sir James and dyson's pitch is superior to his products.  Plenty of facts have been provided to support this.  When confronted with these facts you resort to name calling and hide your head in the sand.  A childish response.  Indicative that you have no facts at hand to argue against.

Carmine D. 

Venson wrote:

Venson, SEVERUS:

I recall at least one instance when a user with a Shop Vac and only a foam filter, no paper, cleaned the soot/ashes from a chimney.   A good deal ended up back in the air/room before the user realized something was seriously wrong: No filter over the foam covering.  The room clean up job was worse than the chimney clean up job.

Carmine D.

procare wrote:

Speaking of Tom Gasko, he used to talk about using various bagless vacuums to clean up the greasy charcoal ash from his grill, and if they didn't pass his test, he would take them back to Walmart for a refund.  Perhaps the Dyson user read his comments and assumed that he/she should be able to use a Dyson to clean up fireplace ash.  

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Hey Carmine,

You forget we are from the same Belief (by proximity only), and it’s my job to go after ‘Believing’ liars.  I know you are only one man, but I know the vacuum dealer industry is loaded with many lying and conning men.  I’m hoping the public is reading these exchanges.  You’ve got an ego and I have no idea why.  You’ve contributed little to nothing to society to even earn an ego.

The forum has produce nothing to back your claims of James Dyson being an intellectual property thief or a bully to independent inventors.  The fact is he is just the opposite and this is demonstrable.  So where is your proof?


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Dyson's pitch is superior to dyson products.  The proof is in the products' using. 

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Didn't my vacuum friend Tom G. allow a Kirby salesman to plug a new Sentria into a 220 V in his home to demo and then boast here that it fried the motor?  Wow.  Unbelievable.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

How old are you? Effusive Hero worship and Toady-ness is quite pathetic in an adult

Lucky1 wrote:
I'm old enough to call out con men.  Pathetic? - Wouldn't that be a fitting descriptor to a failed [can't get it done] designer? 

CarmineD wrote:
Hey Carmine,

You’ve presented no demonstrable facts, and only slanderous words.  So it’s settled...  by definition, you’re an idiot.  Although a beloved idiot (by your peers).


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

Carmine has pointed out numerous deficiencies/design flaws in Dyson and other products.  He has also commented on the performance of his Dyson DC07.  He has commented on Dyson's performance in the rigorous Consumer Reports tests.  Are you so obtuse that you've forgotten these?   You mistakenly believe that any criticism of Dyson products is slanderous.   Dysons are decent vacuum cleaners, but they are no better than most vacuums on the market. 

DIB,

    What is a VACUUM SEXIFIER? I saw JAMES DYSON  was one. I never heard of such a thing.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Thank you for the compliment.  When a dyson shill calls me an idiot it's all the prove needed that there are no facts to contradict the claim: Dyson's pitch is superior to his products.  

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

Interestingly, Sir James does not improve on these shortcomings like the gawdawful clutch.  He discontinues the models outright starts all over from scratch.  I would think an inventor extraordinaire could get it right incrementally over time and practice.  Not have to start all over from scratch. 

Carmine D.   

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

So what would you like to see Dyson offer if you were king for a day?

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

You'll appreciate my answer because you gave me the inspiration.  A DC07 All Carpets with a better brush roll than the original version.  Recall that Wal*Mart sold this DC07 model in 2004/5, w/o a clutch, for $319 as an exclusive.  Sir James and dyson, if this model were still around today [rather than discontinued after the advertising/contract falling out with W*M], easily would sell for $150-$199.  Dyson would be competitive in that price range, easily make a profit for itself and its retailers.  In other words, Sir James would clean up at the big box store venues in the current economy. 

Sir James missed the market on robots.  Shame on him.  Especially with 500 engineers on staff.  Didn't even try.  For all intents and purposes, dyson is too late.  Household robotics are dominated by iRobot's Roomba which has a lock on the market since entering in the fall of 2002.  It's pushed out all the existing competitors easily. 

Dyson is non-existent and/or way behind in commercial uprights/canns.  By now he should have been in the market.  Same is true with CVS.  Same with sticks.  His handhelds are priced way too high for the performance and run times. 

Finally, the long awaited and talked about dealer only models.  What ever happened to them?  All show and no go.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

HI CARMINE

I had a dc7...was a gift......i then gifted away. So of all the b-rolls on the market...who would you say had the best one/two  to work on your all carpets dyson.

turtle1

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

I wouldn't be too quick to count Dyson out on the robotic vacuums.   Certainly they won't compete at the low price point.  However, with followers like Dustmite, they could possibly compete at a higher price level.  I'm no expert,  but Dyson seems to be making progress in making tiny but very powerful motors that don't consume a lot of energy.   With the right motors, they could make a robotic vacuum that could actually clean like a full size vacuum.   It might also allow them to make an upright with a low front profile to get under furniture. 

 I consider the long flimsy cleaning hose to be a negative for those of us who have one level homes.    I'd prefer a sturdier hose that stores off the machine with a short Sebo like hose on the machine. 

I agree that a commercial type upright would be a plus - provided it's upgraded to be sturdier and have overload protection, lower profile for cleaning under furniture. 

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Roomba has had a corner on the robotic vacuum here or some time.  It would definitely take a highly efficient deep cleaning robotic vac to beat Roomba out.  Remarkably, Roomba customers have not fussed much about thorougness as long as surface dirt is removed.

Dyson has been doing PR for its DC06 for quite a long time but I have yet to see it on the American market.  It is designed with cyclonics but I don't think that as part of the sales spiel necessarily is impressive to anyone buying a vacuum cleaner that requires a minimum of hands-on involvement. Roomba has gained no kudos for thoroughness or high filtration so far  but I don't think most buyers care as long as it does a decent job of removing surface soil.

Popular Roomba's more similar in style competitors like LG's Roboking and European Electrolux's Trilobite also seem skittish about approaching the American market.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/1282/

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Roomba has had a corner on the robotic vacuum here or some time.  It would definitely take a highly efficient deep cleaning robotic vac to beat Roomba out.  Remarkably, Roomba customers have not fussed much about thorougness as long as surface dirt is removed.

Dyson has been doing PR for its DC06 for quite a long time but I have yet to see it on the American market.  It is designed with cyclonics but I don't think that as part of the sales spiel necessarily is impressive to anyone buying a vacuum cleaner that requires a minimum of hands-on involvement. Roomba has gained no kudos for thoroughness or high filtration so far  but I don't think most buyers care as long as it does a decent job of removing surface soil.

Popular Roomba's more similar in style competitors like LG's Roboking and European Electrolux's Trilobite also seem skittish about approaching the American market.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/1282/

Venson wrote and Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS, VENSON:

The article in the link which is about dyson's robot DC06 is dated May 2, 2004.  Almost 6 years ago.  This is the final statement at the end of the article.

"The DC06 should be available in Australia at the end of the year, and is expected to cost around $6000." 

Dyson is still in the Australian market.  It's still possible it will be available but I suspect the price will go up.  As in all things that are dyson, the product pitch is always superior to the actual performance. 

Carmine D.

retardturtle1 wrote:

Hello turtle1:

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 

HOOVER WT/TEMPO and EUREKA uprights are the best on the market today for brush rolls.  But would require major mods to a dyson DC07 head nozzle.  A very distant second in brush rolls is ORECK.  For a DC07, w/o the clutch and minimal modifications to the nozzle head, the ORECK wooden brush roll and bristle tufts would be an ideal size, shape and weight. 

Carmine D.

procare wrote:
Procare,

You seem fond of inventions that don’t quite ‘cut it’ with the public.  The real world rejects inventions regardless of how much sincerity goes into developing it.  The salad spinner comment was a joke and ‘in your face insult’ to Carmine’s forgoing reading the Newcombe patent I spoon fed him.  He has a long history of shooting off his mouth against anything-Dyson and delivering nothing in terms of research. - The insult was fitting and deserving and long overdue!  I did honor the inventor with a nice compliment too...of course you intentionally left this out.  I honored this forgotten invention by publicly posting it here and by contrast the Three Stooges using it on film as a dust blower gag (for million/s to see) probably sealed its fate (fairly or unfairly).  If it had a downstream filter on it, I do wonder how quickly it would clog and how a clogged filter is better (and a money maker) than the cheaper and lighter weight cloth bagged vacuum.  Based on what you and your buddies say here against Dyson inventions and innovations...  No-doubt if you lived in Newcombe’s day you’d attack his attempts and bag alternative vacuum cleaner invention.


Dyson Invents Big

procare wrote:
Procare,

You enjoy playing the minimizing game...not unlike the umpteen vacuum competing independents and/or the Dyson-envious.  I say your Roots blower claim is interesting, but it’s bogus.  Dyson reps say [square] ‘Root’ comes from math, I agree.

You’ve yet to link or post anything that supports your Root claim.  Typical.


Dyson Invents Big

procare wrote:
Procare,

I can play the minimizing game too...  if someone places a second suction motor on a vacuum cleaner... is this an invention, is this an innovation, or is this an obvious and sequential step?


Dyson Invents Big

procare wrote:
Here's the good news!!!!!  I do not know, nor want to know what the hell you're talking about (I've never heard this term).

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

Your worship of everything dyson and refusal to recognize the obvious facts otherwise regarding the man and his products is indicative of a shill.   Ultimately, self-esteem is measured by integrity not name calling.  Integrity is saying the truth when it is unpopular to do so and the consequences are negative.  Since I've been posting here, I have systematically and constructively criticized most of dyson products with cause.   You and someone here before [now gone] heaped slander and names on me.  Despite such, I continue to be an honest broker here.  Giving constructive advice and criticism on all brands including your fave. 

As I said and will continue to say until you provide evidence to the contrary, when it comes to all things dyson, the pitch is always superior to the products.

Carmine D.

DIB,

  When I asked you why Dyson was called a " Vacuum Sexifier" , it was for my info what it was . He is in England referred to as a noted "Vacuum Sexifier". I have never heard of it also. But being you are everything Dyson I thought you would know. It sure doesn't hurt to know what what someone is called.

                                              Procare

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

I'll offer this in response to your observation.  In "slick" marketing, makers often try to impute social value or human emotions into an otherwise lackluster product.  Why?  To build buzz and spark sales.  Have to have one.  Be the first! "Sexifying" common household products has been around for along time but not called such.  Most relegated the comment to "it's sexy" with regard to appearance rather than performance.  It's a marketing/advertising ploy that makers use to veil a luckluster mediocre product in a light that allows intrigue [read higher prices].  Sound familiar?

Carmine D.

procare wrote:
Procare,

Since a regular poster here is into Google [porno] Chrome and role-playing...  I’d just assume to play it safe.


Dyson Invents Big

Dib-ster posts:

Dib-ster posts:

Dib-ster:

Where you stand depends on where you sit!  "Sexifier"... a product maker who uses advertising with sexy images to charge high prices for lackluster mediocre household products.  Recognize the product, brand name, and spokesperson pictured?  While it sinks to "slick" advertising that may/may not appeal to prurient interests I seriously doubt it is pornography.  Tho, the thought of an overheated vacuum with dirt swirling around in a see thru container may turn some OCD users on.    Know any?  I have to admit Miss IFA 2009 beats the gigantic mites that Sir James once used to pitch his products. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

I forgot I said you had OCD some time ago...  I’m laughing.  You’re probably lots of fun to go shopping with...  no-doubt you loiter around the vacuum cleaner department interviewing shoppers, managers, the floor staff, fiddling with the inventory and making a general nuisance of yourself.  Your in your comfort zone here, but I bet many in your family find your all-consuming vacuum-anything (OCD) a bore and quite embarrassing too.

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

You switched gears again from dyson, its pitches, celebs, and products back to me.  Did I mention that I'm flattered that I personally and professionally consume more of your posts here than anything dyson and his products. 

To appease your worried mind, my friends, family, people I influence and love, and vacuum professionals I know, enjoy me, as I do them.   It's all about self-esteem and integrity.  Doing and saying the truth despite the consequences. 

Perhaps Sir James should try using Hazel as a pitch person rather than Miss IFA 2009. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Since you’re the king of twisting (the truth) and shifting focus (away from the truth)...I’ll take 'switch[ing] gears' as a compliment.


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

If that makes you happy, so be it.  The facts are the facts regardless of whether you are happy or not and regardless of whether you believe them or not.  The fact is when it comes to anything and all  things dyson, the plain and simple truth is that dyson's pitch is superior to its products.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Same as your pitch about Oreck and Hoover.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

Here's my assessment [pitch] based on hands on personal and professional experience: 

• HOOVER WT/TEMPO is the gold standard for rug cleaning and gets first place, starting as low as $70. 
• ORECK XL Classic is a very distant second starting at $199 and gets second place. 
• Dyson's DC07 at $400 plus was all show and no go.  Dyson didn't even get the dismal third place showing.  It never finished. 

That's how they measure up price and performance wise for me.  Of the above 3, dyson does win my acclaim for pitch over product.  Does that count for anything.  I think so.  Why?  HOOVER WT/TEMPO and ORECK XL Classic are still made and sold pervasively.  BUT dyson's DC07 has been discontinued.  Gawdawful clutch and wimpy brush bar couldn't make muster.  Not even a signature dyson model despite all the stories about 5,174 prototypes.  Dyson's pitch [Never clogs, never loses suction] far superior to DC07 product [now dead and gone forever.............along with the infamous dyson pitch].

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hardsell,

Just curious, do you feel like your Rainbow performs as well as the sales pitch?   As I've mentioned previously, I'm always somewhat surprised by how well most Rainbow users like their product.  They don't complain about the high price - they tend to praise the product and how well it works.   

Regardless of price, what vacuum do you think provides the best bang for the buck?  What has the minimum level of quality and features that would you feel that your purchase wasn't a disappointment?

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

What’s your definition of ‘fact’ and ‘fiction?’


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-ster:

My definition is the same as Mr. Webster.  How about you? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
The Dyson does shine at presenting the amount of dirt in the best possible way - uncompressed and fluffed up for maximum effect.   It's similar to the Rainbow in that regard.   With the Oreck and Tempo, you don't get to see the dirt up close and personal.    Before Dyson, how many vacuum owners took pictures/videos of the filth in their rugs and put it on web sites?  Nobody empties out a full Kirby bag and makes a video of it for u-tube.   Dyson owners seem to love to play with the filth that was in their rugs. 

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

Too bad Nick Garcia couldn't sell dyson on the halo UV-C technology.  I understand Sir James had first right of refusal before ORECK bought it.   The combination of dustmites and dirt in see-thru magnified plastic bins could have elevated dyson vacuum sales to a whole new level.   Wonder if he's sorry now that he turned Garcia/halo down on the offer? 

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

I have never been disappointed with the Rainbow's performance.  Like all cannisters it is a PITA to use and store.  I also dislike having to clean it after use.  I have no regrets of buying as I have used it in circumstances that other vacuums can't be used.  I used to use it to vacuum water from my boat's interior after washing it out.  I have had a water heater burst and used it to clean water from the carpet (over concrete of course).  When I wash the tile floors in the bath rooms I can vacuum the residue and have them dry in minutes.  I may start to paint cars with it.  

I think that Kirby has quality = to any vacuum.  I simply never liked to use mine. In the mid 70's I owned an electrolux that I feel has qaulity = to any today. I am sure that the European vacs have great quality, however I refuse to buy a vac then have to pay an extra fortune for the tools.  The best bang for the buck actually depends on the user IMHO.  There is no one for all.  I liked my DC07 as much as any vacuum and dislike the Oreck as much as any.  Carmine feels opposite.  We both have praise for our vacuum of choice although neither likes the other's choice.

To date I have never had a vacuum to fail.  Most were gifted and a few sold as I had the desire to try others.  Excluding the ones I returned all have lasted 5 or more years.  I will pay more for a vacuum that cleans thoroughly even if it does not last as long as a poor performer.

My choice must include strong hose suction (or strong portable included), maneuver easily, deep clean my carpet, can't exhaust from the front and blow debris away when vacuuming hard surfaces, tools included with vac.  I prefer a long cord, minimum of wheel and brush marks left on carpet, brush turn off control, on/off switch located so it is not in the way when using vac.  I never cared for a light prior to the Hoover Platinum as all others were so dim as to be useless.

I probably left something out but this is a start.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

Thanks for answering SEVERUS's question.  Let me clarify a statement that you made and attributed to me:  ORECK is my "lightweight"vacuum of choice, not my vacuum of choice.  For rugs, that would be the HOOVER WT.  My problem with your vacuum of choice [which I owned and/or used in my own two homes] is that dyson's pitch is superior to the product.  Lose the DC07 clutch, which dyson eventually did, and price at $150-$200 and your vacuum of choice would be an ideal bagless upright for all big box store venues.

PS:  I'm always amused and unimpressed when others, especially you, speak for me and/or impute words and meanings to me.  By now one thing you ought to know, even as a friend, is that I can do a much better job speaking for myself  on all matters, especially vacuums, than you can do speaking for me.  Hence the reason I requested that you answer the question SEVERUS posed to you rather than answering for you.

Carmine D.

Just used one of my Rainbows today SE PE, still like it better than my E Series and still think Rexair needs to change the power nozzle design. It takes all of 5 minutes to clean up and if I check my exhaust port, there is never a film of dust. I use the Rainbow as directed and never use it to pick up non wettable items. When I come back in after using the Rainbow, my home always smells really good.

I don't want to get on the Dyson band wagon, but one reason I never even tried a Dyson is no bumper guards on any part of the machine. I am careful when I vacuum, but even so I want to get as close to my baseboards and furniture as possible, without nicking them. I don't think you could do that with a Dyson.

Bud

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine you have no problem speaking for yourself or others.  Problem is you are twist your words to suit the occasion.  Hence, the reason I repeated what you have said so many times.

I almost forgot Carmine.  Your NPD is showing no sign of improvement.

CarmineD wrote:
 Hardsell didn't mention his cost of ownership with the Dyson, but it's not uncommon for Dyson user's to have very low cost of ownership.  IF most Dyson owners don't have to buy additional filters or supplies over a 5 year ownership period, doesn't it seems reasonable for Dyson to charge more money up front?   When people pay over $2000 for some door to door brands, it's hard to fault an inventor for trying to cash in before his patents expire.  Venson has documented the high cost of Miele vacuum tools and supplies.  Greed more than anything else is what drives people to take the risk to start a business.  If Dyson can convince consumers to part with $500 for a vacuum, I'm not going to criticize him for it.  Compared to what government does to us, at least buying a Dyson is voluntary.

HS:

If you repeated what I said, I'd have no reason to post.  Talk about me twisting words?  You must have majored in philosophy in college.  You gave an answer to the SEVERUS question but didn't provide any meaningful information.  The question is: 

Severus wrote:

Depends on the user is your answer?  Then, my friend any vacuum brand and model may be correct answers.  Do you believe that is the case?  If so, why argue/debate here the pros and cons of brands/models.  They're all equally good, despite the price differences.  As long as users' requirements are satisfied reasonably.  Right?    Wrong!

Consumer Reports answers/tries to answer the SEVERUS question for most vacuum buyers.  You always take umbrage with CR.  Impugn it constantly ad infinitum.  Yet, given the chance, you don't provide a meaningful answer/option.     

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS;

In theory, I agree with your premise that Sir James can charge $500 plus for a dyson to recoup R&D costs IF 5 year maintenance costs are minimal.  However that's not the case in real life.  Dysons launched on the market in the USA in April 2002 and thru August 15, 2006 [over 4 years] with a 2 year warranty.   The high repair/costly problem with dyson models is the clutch: $80-$150.  For the most part, these problem prone clutch models [DC07 and DC14] sold with ONLY a 2 year warranty.   They are failing after 2 years and before 5 years and are out of warranty.  These are the dyson models that abound in vacuum stores for repairs and are left unclaimed by customers due to costs and frustrations by customers.  These are also the dyson refurbs sold pervasively everywhere including dyson Web Site to recoup clutch repair costs.  Consumer Reports has not reported on these yet.  The infamous clutch is a a chink in the dyson price theory and in the CR vacuum repair reliability data.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

I guess my point is that market forces will determine the number of vacuums sold at a given price point. I can't find the link, but David Oreck gave a speech at a business school, and he predicted the downward spiral of competitors who dropped price and the ensuing pressures to cut costs.  

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, you harped on Hoover for years.  They fell on their a$$.  In desperation you chose Oreck in another attempt to find something that could best Dyson.  You even compared the two in your reviews on this site.  You have established that you use the Oreck regularly in any conversation that mentioned Oreck.  In fact you have stated that it is necessary to use it almost daily to keep carpet clean.  I can read without a major in philosophy.  I responded to Severus and he hasn't complained.  If not for your NPD you would likely sit quietly.

I never said they were equally good.  Hell, some folks prefer spam to steak.  Don't forget that not all can afford higher quality so what they can afford is best for them.  There is no definitive best or worst to my knowledge.  Perhaps you can list them for us.  I will say that Oreck falls to the bottom of my list.  How's that for starting another pissing match?

Notice how CR rates products.  They can tie in performance. Yet one can be purchased in their color of preference and they give the extra points to that one.  Go Clown Reports.

Severus wrote:

My complaints against Dyson are Company related more so than product related but that said, several expenses I have seen with owning a dyson besides Belt/Clutch is buyers believe their Dyson to be Maintenance Free resulting in clogged HEPA's that need to be replaced $22-$30, new Washable filter that has been ruined because of lack of maintenance $20, Frequent Cleaning $50-$90 and worst the cost to ship the vacuum for warranty Service because they can't get it serviced by the store they bought it from. In Miele's benefit most of the repairs are on older machines 5,10+ years old. Usually past the life span of most other vacuums.

Lucky1 wrote:
If you believe Consumer Reports survey on reliability, Dyson does fairly well.  I don't have any way of knowing the percentage of Dyson owners with clutch failures.  However, the newer Dysons don't seem to have the clutches.   It would be interesting to see what the typical 5 year cost of a Dyson versus other vacuums really is.

Certainly as a repair person you only see the problem machines.  I can't say that I have much sympathy for those who abuse their vacuums (i.e. fail to maintain filters).    One of the moderators (MikeW) used to harp about taking good care of your vacuum, if you want it to take care of you.  Certainly a customers lack of maintenance can be a profit center for independents, so that's not such a bad thing either.

I have no problem with Miele charging a fortune for their supplies.  If you buy a Miele, you know up front that you will pay through the nose for certain things.  It goes along with the prestige of owning a Miele. 

   I find it kind of funny that Dyson claims to have developed the first "tank vac" . A so called Dyson cyclonic 3 in 1. Sucks water- dust. They said tho the 3 in 1s were very popular ( Rainbow  and clones) James wanted to go workon on uprights and canisters. The "tank vac" looked like a Rainbow. So much for originality.

procare wrote:
Tom Gasko said that Dyson would be served well by hiring a vacuum historian.  More evidence that he was right... 

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

There you go again speaking for me and taking my words out of context.  

As a simple and easy lightweight upright for use on floors and rugs, ORECK users are more likely to use daily whether for thorough rug/floor cleaning or for high traffic areas and quick pick-ups.  Not so with pulling out a full size vacuum with tools on board every day to vacuum.  That's the beauty of an ORECK for its users.  At $150-$199 for the upright only that's alot of bang for the buck. 

Before you shoot yourself in the foot, at least take it out of your mouth first.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

I agree to a degree.  When product prices, like vacuums, and their sales venues, like big box stores, are similar, discerning customers/buyers look for other reasons:  Ease of use, performance, longevity, maintenace costs to mention the most likely.  When you price your product at 2, 3, 4, and more than the mainstream products, you have to have legitimate justifications to do so, else risk not selling in the same amounts as the competition.

I recall David's speech.  ORECK recently [last two years and after David made this speech] started unbundling the upright for solo sales and offering ORECKS in big box stores.  The solo sales have been a good marketing strategy for ORECK to maintain sales in a economy that has suffered a consumer spending tsunami.  Whether the sales in big box stores is effective for its business model remains to be seen.

Carmine D.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

As I mentioned, dyson clutches are a chink in the Consumer Reports reliability data.  CR has not caught up yet with the repair problem.  Belt replacements on the clutch models is a chink too.  Typically in its repair data collection, CR doesn't address belt replacements as a repair cost.  CR says it is a low cost item and user repair.  Not so with the dyson clutch models and their belt replacements.  We don't see the CR customer data collection survey.  But we know CR rates dysons highly.  We also know that CR does not collect/report belt replacements as a repair matter.  I opine that the belt replacement costs on dysons clutch models are not collected and reported in the customer surveys.  At least not yet.  When they are, if ever, dysons' reliabilty rates will fall precipitously.  Dyson and its admirers will say these models have been discontinued so it's a non-issue in the future.  That's dodging the repair bullet IMHO.

Carmine D.

How strange that CR rate Dyson high for reliability. For many years Dyson was below par to average on the UK market.

vacmanuk wrote:

Vacmanuk:  The change by Which for dysons came with the 5 year warranty in 2006.  Up to then, dysons received 8 consecutive years of the worse in its class for repairs for both uprights and canisters. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

You are correct about Consumer Report's methodology.  However, if I were a Dyson owner and I had a clutch failure that cost me $100, I would report it as a serious problem requiring repair.  I would also go to every online store web site and report on the failure.    I know of a youtube video showing how to replace a clutch.  Certainly there are clutch failures, and every clutch will eventually fail.  What I don't know is the failure distribution and what the risk factors are for early failure.  Will be interesting to watch the Consumer Reports reliability scores.  However, given that the new models don't use clutches, and CR reports one score per company per vacuum type (canister/upright), the CR scores may not be sensitive enough to pick up on the problem.

CR rates would also not reflect early failures - e.g. the first 30 days in which a vacuum can be returned/replaced at most big box stores. 

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

The fly in the ointment is timing and changes.  Under 2 year warranty, dyson makes good.  No repair cost for the faulty clutch.  Nothing to report.  After warranty but before 5 years, if not the 5 year warranty coverage, the matter still may not be in the CR surveys and reporting data base for problematic repairs.  By the time these are widely reported and tracked, dyson dodged the bullet on the gig.  Says it has 5 year warranties starting in August 2006 and the models are discontinued anyway.

My dyson DC07 pink with gawdawful floating head and clutch would have been missed by CR surveys for the reason you mentioned and I highlighted.  After several workarounds within a few days of purchase, the dyson help line told me to return it to the retailer for a credit.  Saying emphatically that unless I wanted to vacuum my rugs in the tool mode/barefloor mode, a dyson will not work on my carpets.  Why?  Floating head and clutch.  Both now are discontinued.  I suspect in large part to the refurbs from return of these models.  It will be interesting to see, as you said, how and when these refurbs with clutch problems get into the CR data base. 

Carmine D.

Hi SEVERUS:

I'm not sure refurbs even get counted in the Consumer Reports survey data.  If not, and just new vacuum purchases, the clutch and belt issues, will as you said, be harder to collect, track and report from the customer surveys.  Dyson dodges the bullet.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

It's been awhile since I did an annual survey, but I don't think Consumer Reports distinguishes between new and refurbished vacuums.  Refurbs are supposed to be repaired to like new condition, so I suspect they are included.   Consumer Reports data has severe limitations because they are self-report, but it has a pretty good sample size.    It's not in the best interests of manufacturers to self-report the true data, so the CR is about the best information available - for better or worse.  

Whether Dyson extended their warranties due to problems or to gain a competetive edge - I have no idea.  I'm not sure how Dyson compares with Miele/Sebo/Lindhaus and the other European vacuums on warranty.    On the other vacuum forum, there have been complaints about the hoses on Miele S7's, so even the high end products aren't totally free of problems. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

Thanks for the insight on Consumer Reports and refurbs.  It's a murky area from my perspective.  If CR does not know the source/origin of the refurbs and their integrity, it's difficult for CR to assign proper blame for product repairs.  Are the repairs product/maker related and/or are the repairs the fault of shoddy rebuilds by the refurbers?  Difficult to say with certitude.  I would have my doubts and most likely the brand makers would too.

WRT MIELE's S7 line, it was rushed to market and has been available for about a year now.  Hose problems, as we learned from Melanie [Catlady] and know in general, are covered under the warranty with no out of pocket costs to the MIELE buyers.  If in fact hose problems are the only issue that has surfaced for the S7 models, considering how quickly it was produced/marketed, I'd say hats off to MIELE for a job done very well.  I also expect that the design/operation defects in the hose will be corrected quickly by MIELE in future production.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Does Dyson do their own refurbs?  Given the relatively high cost of even refurbished Dysons, I suspect their owners would report on them.   CR asks when you bought the item (in years), and whether you've had a problem excluding things considered routine maintenance. 

For a while you could get Rainbow refurbs on overstock.com.  I'm not sure how one would count these given that they had a nonstandard power nozzle (i.e. Wesselwerks) on the refurbs.     Each respondent has to decide how to answer the question.       These refurbs were also Rainbow SE's, which is at least a 10 year old model. 

I'll have to watch for my next survey and take note of what they say. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

Yes and No.  Anyone besides and/or including dyson and its authorized dyson dealers can sell previously owned dysons.  The sellers can call them refurbs [for refurbished], demoes, displays, rebuilts, slightly used, etc.   They can sell them "as is" with/without a warranty depending on the sales price through any means possible.  Consumer Reports' surveys would have to collect detailed information about the facts and circumstances of the purchases to have credible data/means to distinguish real product related problems from re-sellers' related problems [shoddy workmanship].  I don't expect or believe that CR has the resources and inclination to do this. 

It is far simpler and easier for CR to collect and report only on vacuums that are sold new through recognized retailers.  Hence, the reason CR could and should actively query independent vacuum stores for input and feedback on vacuum reliability data and repairs rather than only consumers. 

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:
CR has in the past used vacuum consultants, which would likely be independents.   A consultant could certainly point out design weaknesses.   The problem with data from independents is that they cannot  estimate the proportion of vacuums needing repairs.  They may be able to estimate the numerator of the ratio of interest, but they have no basis for the denominator.  Moreover, more expensive vacuums like Dysons/Orecks may go to the store for repair, while the cheaper vacuums end up in the trash heap.  Independents also have their biases too.  An independent might be tempted to knock the vacs sold at big box stores in favor of independent brands. 

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS: 

As always thanks for the insight.  WRT the statement I highlighted, I'd say:  Not all independents [or retired independents who consulted to the industry] . 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Bias isn't limited to vacuum sellers.  Those who buy an expensive  machine - whether a Kirby/Rainbow/Miele/Dyson/Sebo/Oreck want to believe that the product they bought is the best.  So when CR reports that the performance of their monster vac is similar to a cheaper brand, they get upset.  It's normal human reaction.  

If I were selling the Supervac 5000 and had the opportunity to get it a good rating at CR, I would do what it takes to help my bottom line. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

Good points.  Never pushed one brand/model in particular in business.  Always carried all different makes and models, new and used.  If it was a good product for the price, we carried/sold it and stood behind them.  Even had some not so good new vacuums: Westinghouse.  We stood behind the good ones and the not so good ones and we made sure our customers were satisfied with the quality of the repalcement parts and service.  

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Perhaps you should send Consumer Reports a resume.  You might be able to straighten them out. 

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

Thank you for the compliment.  I'm assuming you refer solely to vacuums.  Years ago, yes I was more inclined.  But not anymore, too old.  CR has its job to do and they do it with/despite their shortcomings.  I'm content to leave it there at that. 

WRT vehicles, excuse the diversion all, CR missed toyota's faux paux by decreasing design to dealer time from the industry standard of 5 years to 2.  I mentioned this here when toyota first announced the change and later as the recalls for toyota started to mount.  Huge mistake by toyota and CR missed the significance with respect to the future problems. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

CR does provide some good advice for what to do in the event that your car experiences sudden acceleration problems. 

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/consumer&id=7234106
"While Consumer Reports says the risk of sudden acceleration is low, it's important to know what to do. Apply the brakes firmly and put the car in neutral without taking your foot off the brake. The engine will rev, but you'll be able to bring the car to a stop and turn it off."

Severus wrote:
Just hope that the engine doesn't blow when put in neutral at highway speeds.  No power steering or power brakes.

HARDSELL wrote:

As long as the engine is running - at least until it blows up, you should have power steering and power brakes.  CR makes a point of saying not to turn off the engine, since you would lose those things.  CR tests showed that the brakes alone might not be enough to stop a car accelerating out of control. 

So how would your advice differ? 

HARDSELL wrote:

Yes, if you turn off the engine.  SEVERUS and CR are correct.  Putting the defective car in neutral gives the driver/vehicle steerability.  In concert with the brakes and turning [even with engine in neutral] drivers can at least make it to a safe haven w/o collision.  CR if I recall correctly recounts one Lexus driver who actually drove his Lexus, after experiencing the acceleration surge, to the toyota dealer using the technique.  The dealer rep tried to blame the floor mat, until the Lexus driver showed the dealer's rep that the mat was in the trunk!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine/Severus,

There have been reports of these cars exceeding 100 miles per hour prior to crashing.  That means the accelerator is not hung at idle speed.  Leave your car in park and hold the accelerator to the floor to see how long it takes the engine to blow. 

Earlier I was simply giving a possibile catastrophe that could happen.  I would certainly hope that the braking power is sufficient to stall a car at 70 plus MPH before the engine blows.

If you were fortunate to be on a straight stretch of highway odds are in your favor.  If you hold steady pressure on the brake it will still function if the engine is dead and power steering is not absolutely necessary if no curves.  Pumping the brakes without the engine running could result in no brakes. 

HARDSELL wrote:

I have a thought: run don't walk away from a toyota dealership until the company gets its act together.  So far, it appears that spin and shuffle is more important than the sanctity of human life.  By last count, a dozen dead/seriously injured from the vehicles.  Fines levied to date=$zero dollars.  HOOVER WT, one person suffered minored burns not requiring hospital stay.  Fines levied: 3/4 Million $.  What's wrong with that picture?

Carmine D.

Latest on this matter. 

News Alert
from The Wall Street Journal
----------------------------
Sponsored by NASDAQ OMX
----------------------------


Toyota suspended sales of eight models recalled to fix potential problems with sticky accelerator pedals.

The company issued the 2.3-million-vehicle recall last week, adding to another recall of 4.2 million Toyota- and Lexus-branded vehicles, to reduce the risk of the pedals' getting trapped by floor mats. About 1.7 million vehicles are subject to both recalls.

Due to the sales suspension, Toyota is expected to stop producing the vehicles next week.

http://online.wsj.com/home-page?mod=djemalertNEWS

If toyota management is honest with themselves and others they'll admit the change from design to dealer showroom from the industry standard of 5 years to 2 is the culprit, in whole or part.  To my knowledge suspended sales is an unprecedented move by a major car maker.  No doubt a desperation act to save the rep and life of the company.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Stopped at a Toyota dealer today to look at a used car for my daughter.  All 2007 and newer Toyotas were being moved to the back lot and the salesmen sent home.   I was told that the fix is a mod to the accelerator pedal.  Toyota is giving priority to customer vehicles before dealer vehicles.  Manager said the shop will be very busy for a while.

Toyota took action unlike Hoover who kept quiet until government interventiion.  Could be the reason for no fine.

HARDSELL wrote:
You may be right.  But it may be that the US government is so heavily in debt to the Japanese that they do not want to risk offending them. 

Of course it won't stop the lawyers from having a field day...

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

We have some friends [professionals in the med field in Tulsa OK] in their late 40's with two kids early teen age years.  They bought a new 2010 toyota corolla shortly after the Christmas holidays.  They knew nothing of the recalls until my Wife shared the news with them.  Yesterday, after the WSJ announcement, she returned to the dealership with the new corolla.  Less than a month old.  She was the first customer and the dealership was deserted.  [Good time to go].  She was distraught as you can imagine.  The toyota dealership took the new corolla back and gave her a new Prius hybrid, temporarily until they can determine the problem and correct and return.  Can't do this for all customers.  She lucked out.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

Agree.  Toyota is shuttering plants.  Laying off dealer personnel.  Not good for the toyota workers and car buyers.  Especially now and the current economic conditions.  Is there another gov't bail out [taxpayer] on the horizon.

Carmine D. 

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

News reports coming out after the production suspensions have first hand admissions by Ray LaHood the Secretary of Transportation that he/White House staff put pressure on toyota management to take decisive actions.  Hence, the announcement of the production suspensions 5 days after the latest round of more recalls.  Time for toyota officials to mull over their plan of actions.  This is a nightmare for the car company with repercussions throughout Europe too.   To their credit toyota officials are saying now that they stretched the company too thin and sacrificed quality control in the process.  Maybe this admission will help IF the company and dealers can get their act together with customers.  The toyota help line is out of date and the dealer personnel are telling customers all number of made up excuses.  Competitors like GM in particular are sensing that the timing is right to profit themselves from the toyota debacle.  If toyota recovers from this major fiasco, and it may not, it will be one for the history lesson business books. 

Carmine D.

I dont know if this is applicable but I just found this on the net tonight regarding a household appliance news search on Google and affects all who own Filterqueen machines.

www.appliance.net

http://www.appliance.net/2009/recall-hmi-industries-floor-cleaners-due-to-burn-hazard-1188

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi vacmanuk,

This is the first I'm hearing of this.  I wish the article had been more specific as it is a little difficult to determine if the problem is in the hose wiring or within the cleaner itself.  Filter Queens have always run hot due to the material used for dampening sound (at one time cotton batting) at the top of the machine being mainly responsible for FQ's famed quiet.  If I am correct, I would also think that higher power motors used to keep the machine competitive would also up the factor.  That I assume was the reason for the introduction of the plastic grillwork on top of this all metal machine a good number of years ago.

Nonetheless, the older models lasted and served quite well.  My best guess is that the kids in charge now are looking to save money and are cutting their own throats by cutting corners.

As for the hose, etc., the new attachment set-up is totally different from anything FQ has done before.  The PN as I understand it is an improvement over past ideas which made FQ no wonder on carpeting.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

I believe prior to your tenue here this FQ issue was posted.  Frankly I completely forgot about it when the HOOVER WT switch and Electrolus Pronto issues surfaced but Vacmanuk's posting jogged my memory.  Interesting too that HOOVER had about 100 plus of these defects reported prior to recall while FQ reports 44 thru May 2009.  Considering the mass sales of the HOOVER WT's one would expect many more vice the FQ.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Not too bad as the article says 44,000 of this model were put out between 2004 and 2006.  Statistically thinking, the number is quite low if the number of reports/actual incident is correct.  Nonetheless, the article is not very informative as far as offering a clear description of what overheated and where overheating occurred.  I've replied to that effect.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi,

Following is a link to FQ's website and a PDF regarding the issue.  I would note that it was not conspicuous nor easy to find as I had to do a search for "recall" at the FQ site.  The problem reported is stated thus, "The recalled cleaners’ wiring can overheat, causing electrical arcing and melting."

http://www.filterqueen.com/pdf/HMI_Press_Release_042909.pdf

Venson

Thanks Venson.

Carmine D.

It has been FOREVER since I have been on this forum. I moved and got a new computer and I guess I just forgot to bookmark it. I still have my Rainbow 2 speed that I have had since 2006. I still use it on and off. I did want to share something.......U know the hepa exhaust on my Rainbow is still brand spanking new looking.....I still am confused as to if the fine dust/dirt goes past the water and onto the hepa, then shouldn't mine be really gross by now. Still white and smells new.

I still think the vacuum repair stores that open up Rainbows and see mud and dirt on the inside are seeing Rainbows that folks would use and not change the water....and letting it turn to mud while they keep right on vacuuming..Thus, of course you're going to see a muddy inside of a machine and a muddy hepa....The key has to be changing the water often......The hepa five years later on mine speaks for itself.........

I used my Rainbow a lot the first two years......I would use it more if it weren't for the crappy PN that chokes off the airflow. I still use it at least once a month, but not everyday The PN is well built and attractive but something in the way that it's designed just doesn't perform as well IMO

At any rate.......I will be the first to say these are overpriced and somewhat of a pain to use......I only get it out when I do heavy duty deep cleaning up on high areas and places I can't get with the Kenmore can since I have the 14 foot non-electric hose.....As for the PN, I'm currently looking for one that is designed better but I'm not sure which one's will fit........But I'm sorry, if these things are used properly, they filter EXTREMELY well.......

I messaged Venson

But if anyone knows which PN's will fit the e2 with stainless wand and electric hose without any modifications, please let me know.


Thanks

Welcome back and glad you still like your Rainbow, except for the PN, a typical complaint by many Rainbow users/owners. 

Carmine D.

My family suffered through a 2.5 hour "no obligation to buy" Rainbow demonstration as a result of my wife signing up to "win" a prize.  Of course everyone wins the opportunity for a token prize.  Note - it's not really a prize when you have to do something to earn it.  Our "prize" was a Rainmate - essentially a small humidifier comparable to the $15 ones at Walmart.  For the low price of $20, we can buy some aromatherapy chemicals.   I wasn't particularly impressed with the Rainbow, and the nearly $2600 price tag plus $350 if you want to buy the aqua-mate (carpet cleaner - alternatively you can sell out your friends if they agree to suffer through demos and get a "free one.") 

I would agree with the posters who say that the power nozzle is poorly designed.  It felt clunky to use.   Forcing the consumer to hold a trigger switch to avoid having to include a safety reset switch is a design flaw.  Having the belt in the middle of the nozzle with a 1 inch or so gap in cleaning coverage seems like a major design flaw.  I wonder if that's the biggest reason for Rainbow's poor performance in carpet cleaning in CR testing. 

I was absolutely amazed at the attempts at deception and outright lies in the demonstration.   Perhaps the most blatant example is how they rebox the Rainbow after the demo so they can pretend that it is brand new for the next demo.  I happened to take the cover off the power nozzle to look at the belt protector, and saw remnants of red and brown carpeting - not from my house.)  

To beat it all, the SOB thought we could be bribed to give him names of our friends/relatives who might want to suffer through demos.   I like my friends.   Friends don't sign up friends for Rainbow demos (at least not without prior approval and warning).  

The smart tyrant writes his own story to ensure that it is favorable.  The lazy will repeat lines from the book without fact checking. 

Severus wrote:

Yes.

That Rainmate thingy is nothing but an air freshener. It doesn't clean the air. I mean, it's a cool little unit but only worth ten dollars or so.

Dumb question.

Can the E series Rainbow's be ran without the hepa filter? When I had the hepa off the other day it warned not to run without it. Wouldn't running an E series without the hepa basically be like using a pre-e series Rainbow? I was thinking about just leaving the hepa off because it's not really doing anything. Perhaps it would create more suction? I don't know.

I'm also thinking about getting the Eureka Express PN for the Rainbow. But I also wondered what anyone thought of these PN's and would they fit the Rainbow e series?



http://cgi.ebay.com/Central-Vacuum-Electric-Power-head-Nozzle-Vac-NEW-/160535449028?pt=US_Vacuum&hash=item2560a88dc4

mark40511 wrote:

Same same with the P/N.  Rainbow E series price for P/N is $279.  Eureka P/N $70.  And .....the fact that the Eureka P/N has an all metal agitator with beater bars and replaceable brush strips; the Rainbow brush roll is wood.  Extrapolate the same mark-up and product worthiness to the rest of the Rainbow vacuum and attachments too  IMHO.  As I said, after Rainbow was forced to come clean on its product overstatements and claims, it never kept pace with the rest of vacuum industry for product performance and price. 

Most of the Rainbow owners I know store the vacuum away in the closet and use another one as a daily vacuum.  Pulling out the Rainbow for sentimental reasons whenever they have pangs of guilt for spending so much $ to get so little bang.  Most Rainbows are kept in storage like this for years and years without any regular and/or even infrequent use.  They'll last a lifetime with that little use which is a product plus if there were some/any collectible value for them.  I haven't seen it yet in my liftime.  But there always hope.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

the unscrupulous Rainbow salesperson would say that we enjoy living in a sea of filth without a Rainbow to clean our homes.   They actually put the Rainbow back in the plastic bags and box so that the next customer thinks it's brand new.   When I mentioned that I had read that the Miele was the only vacuum that was certified as an entire unit, he implied that I must be mistaken.  I pity the poor Rainbow salespersons because they seem to really believe the BS in their sales pitches.   They truly believe that if you vacuum with a Rainbow after any other vacuum and it picks up even a single spec of dirt that it proves the Rainbow is better.  they also believe that the Rainbow will get all of the dirt out of the rug - which is truly fantasy.   If he hadn't already overstayed his welcome, I would have considered showing him that my vacuum could get dirt that his missed. 

Severus wrote:

Hello Severus:

You and I have a friend who was and proudly claims having been a Rainbow salesman.  The Rexair/Rainbow 'sales schtick' has not changed in over 50 years.  Nor the personality of the sales crew.  They have the temperament of a thief and the skin of a rhino.  Nothing penetrates them.

We have a poster here whose niece tried her hand at selling Rainbows.  Wonder how she fared? 

Carmine D.

I was offered the Stae sales manager  position for  a distributor and was sent home with 39 page Demo Paper I was to learn . The Demo was not to be deveiated from. So if you had a questionm , I would we would answer it shortly. Everything I saw in the spiel was Half truths so they could call you an out and out liar. I don't think the Demo is that way now , aaat least I hope not but the half truths are still there.

I didn't take the job because the product didn't prove it's worthiness and I am glad I didn't.

                                                                                                                                 Procare

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

I have to opine that Rainbow will go the same way as Air Way.  Just a metter of time.

Carmine D.

I have never even heard of this:

Rexair CSD?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5PLO8R4ziI

I have two Rainbow D4 SE s. I have always felt the E series was a step backward. The D4 motors have three ball bearings.  I have cleaned a lot of houses with those Rainbows Not a lazy person's machine for sure. The new Hyla is a MUCH better unit. The "geyser " separator swirls the air through the water multiple times. It uses a 4 quart bucket (an open , easy to empty bucket with a handle that serves as to lock the motor down.) No filter except the water. MUCH better P/N (wessel work) much better mini p/,. turbo floor and upholstery tools available, electric floor polisher attachment, extra long stair hoses available. More powerful suction, too. If you want water filtration, Hyla is the way to go.