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. 

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.