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. 

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.