Dyson engineering ineptitude and complacency

[Absolute Rainbow]

Correct but on a regular Dyson with a pre-motor filter, accidentally going over the fill line a few times isn't a huge ordeal as you have the pre-motor filter to save you. On the cinetic system there's nothing there, so it can be quite disastrous over time. There's also nothing you can do if you vacuumed up particules smaller than the cinetic system could filter out, max fill line or not.

So basically, Cinetic is a failure not because the eponymous science technology didn't work, but in large part because the models has no fall back?

If true, then I knew it! @Vacuum Facts concluded that the cordless' variable speeds not being fast enough at low power - due to necessarily advanced motors being held back by lithium batteries - is the ultimate reason why Cinetic is discontinued. So it all boils down to the importance of pre-motor filter and the existing technological limitations.

 

[cheesewonton]

Meanwhile I just cleaned our master bedroom carpet with a nice bagged Metrovac Evolution canister vacuum, all the dust went in the bag, no leaks and the carpets are clean. And being all metal there are no brittle plastics to worry about breaking.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

So close to greatness

I own the V6 Absolute, and aside from the clogging shroud that leads to fairly frequent messy cleaning, it's the best cordless product I've ever used. Still love it and use it often!

Their bagless tech has seen great advances in effectiveness, but has also regressed in the ways the first poster described. Mainly, their upright vacuums pulling small amounts of dust through the motor after each time you empty the bin. Why?! This has been going on for almost 5 years now!

Dyson sits on the best filtration systems in the world. What bothers me is that their Cinetic series are the only Dyson vacuums currently using their patented, superior, level-3 root cyclone technology. Throw a pre-filter under the bin or motor-inlet of the Cinetic upright, and you would have a vac you could offer a legit brushbar (like a Quadraflex, instead of this one row nonsense), and extremely low filter-maintenance. Instead, their flagship model is engineered to work within filtration restrictions. I was so hyped about the Cinetic upright, but personally witnessed the same problems laszlopanaflex described, and sold it.

Uh oh... At least the Kinetic science technology worked, as @Vacuum Facts proved.

 

[cheesewonton]

Uh oh... At least the Kinetic science technology worked, as @Vacuum Facts proved.

I'm remembering the smoke test Vacuum Wars conducts. The Dyson tested, can't off the top of my head remember which one, had smoke pouring out of every seam and joint. But when they tested a used Hoover Windtunnel Powerdrive and a modern Hoover Hushtone Plus no smoke came out anywhere. Likewise the particle tests came up with zero particles for the two Hoovers. Hard to argue with their test procedure, it is straightforward and consistent across the vacuums they test.

 

[royalfan103]

*screaming in horror*

@cheesewonton

 

[vac14012]

I'd be curious to see how a DC24/25 fares on one of those tests. They were much better designed than the later DC40 style ball models imo.

In retrospect kind of an ugly looking machine but I think they were overall better than the later models in terms of performance.

 

[cheesewonton]

ai patI'd be curious to see how a DC24/25 fares on one of those tests. They were much better designed than the later DC40 style ball models imo.

In retrospect kind of an ugly looking machine but I think they were overall better than the later models in terms of performance.

Ugh. I have seen service videos of these and they are just all wrong. The motor is buried in there under layers, like one of those Russian nested dolls, there are a lot of fragile plastic parts and it requires three different sized Torx bits to disassemble. Not a good design and no excuse for using different size Torx screws. What kind of engineer signs off on that kind of idiocy? The air path is ridiculous and the nozzle and rotating brush just plain cheap. Lousy agitation and a plastic brush roll that warps and melts when it gets hot from prolonged use. There is nothing to recommend but somehow cheap shiny neon colored plastic has become trendy. There are so many vacuums out there that are better. I just don't see the attraction much less why people pay what they do convinced it's a quality product. But most of the people buying them have never seen much less used a great vacuum. They just believed the marketing hype. Same with Shark.

I was laying on a bed in an outpatient surgical center getting needles poked into me, vitals taken and stuff prepping me for sedation for an injection in my spine. There was this infomercial playing ( they play a radio station in the surgical center ) for Shark. They were bragging about this tech they claimed they invented most of which has been around for a few decades on various Hoover, Panasonic and Kenmore vacuums. Things like dirt sensors. Shark didn't invent that stuff but their infomercial sure claimed they did. There were other things I can't remember now but I think about how gullible consumers who have no experience with other brands hear this stuff and eat it up. It's all either exaggerations or outright lies.

 

[vac14012]

Tbf the DC15 was worse, the original Ball. That was a failure. The DC25 was weirdly extremely popular, I remember them still selling them via QVC as late as like 2015-16. I think people just like them cause they feel "fun" to use, and whizz around etc. But I can't necessarily comment on their cleaning performance. I know they have weaker cyclones so the filters get dirty faster.

It's too bad the really older models are so brittle now, the filter performance was excellent on those imo. Like the DC07 and earlier. The filters practically never got dirty unless it was a really big job.

 

[cheesewonton]

Tbf the DC15 was worse, the original Ball. That was a failure. The DC25 was weirdly extremely popular, I remember them still selling them via QVC as late as like 2015-16. I think people just like them cause they feel "fun" to use, and whizz around etc. But I can't necessarily comment on their cleaning performance. I know they have weaker cyclones so the filters get dirty faster.

It's too bad the really older models are so brittle now, the filter performance was excellent on those imo. Like the DC07 and earlier. The filters practically never got dirty unless it was a really big job.

You focus on the filters but the plastic brush rolls warp and melt from hard use. They also have miserable agitation. This is why I strongly prefer vacuums with sturdy wooden brush rolls or steel rollers with replaceable brush strips.

 

[panasonicvac]

I'd be curious to see how a DC24/25 fares on one of those tests. They were much better designed than the later DC40 style ball models imo.

In retrospect kind of an ugly looking machine but I think they were overall better than the later models in terms of performance.

Based on this review video from a long time ago, I assume it'd pass the fog test. And I agree, the more I keep on seeing newer Dysons, the more I have respect for the older models. In fact, I would've had no problem buying the smaller DC24 if the price was right. Would've been the perfect replacement for our old KZ Frontier trailer we used to have if I still went for bagless. Call me weird but I actually like the DC15 more over the DC25 or any other ball upright despite it's flaws. But I think their best ball model would be the DC21 which in my opinion was the best Dyson ever, I would've liked the DC22 more if it had the same power nozzle as the DC21.