turbo500
Well-known member
Let me know your thought anyway.
Well, I'm not trying to point score or anything or brand-bash. I've always said, if you want bagless, then get a Dyson. They're the only brand that do it well, really. But bagless just isn't for me.
Dyson created a problem for people that never existed. Prior to Dyson coming on the scene, was anybody really all that bothered about changing their vacuum bag? We just did it and got on with it. Infact, disposable paper bags were added to vacuums to make them easier and more hygienic to empty. Prior to this, vacuums all had cloth, shake out bags where the user would have to stand the cleaner over the bin and shake all the dust out of the cloth bag.
The success of Dyson, in the early years anyway, was purely down to latching onto the market gap for bagless. Seeing the adverts planted a tiny seed of doubt in the consumers mind and everytime they vacuumed, it grew. This made the whole "no loss of suction" thing a lot bigger than it actually was, because although bagged vacuums do lose some suction, it's not enough to stop it picking up well. And if you remember, Dyson adverts were EVERYWHERE in the late 90's. This is in a similar way to how Vax carpet washers were all over the place in the late 80's/early 90's. The ad campaign did just the same thing and started off a craze of carpet washing, that prior to Vax hitting the market, nobody had really thought or cared about. It was a gimmick and people quickly realized it was a pain in the ass to do lol.
It's also especially important to note that the DC01 was not actually very good. 90 air watts on the hose, a mediocre brushroll at best and not the best build quality, yet it came with (at the time) a whopping £200 price tag and quickly outsold every other cleaner, despite the fact that vacuums on the market at the time retailing at half that were better cleaners. Why? Because he promoted the hell out of his product.
The clear bin was completely added on purpose. It is very deceiving as it makes the user think there's heaps of dust coming out of the carpet. Well of course it may look like there's lots, it's been spun around in a cyclone and whipped up. But if you vacuum a full Dyson bin up into a bagged cleaner, you'll find there's very little actually there.
My other big objection to Dyson is the price. I mean, the current DC41 is retailing at £400 but it's such a flimsy, poorly constructed heap of cheap plastic. I don't think the price tag reflects the quality of the machine you get.
So that's my Dyson 2 penneth. Bit of a rant. Go pop an ansprin, you'll feel better
. I know there are lots of Dyson fans here and I'm not brand bashing. I love that everyone here has differing opinions and what works well for some, might not for others (eg. Sebo auto height adjustment as a prime example). But I honestly believe that when James Dyson starts spouting off saying that his product caught on purely because it was good? RUBBISH. The DC01 and DC02 were terrible performers and any other cleaner on the market at the time would have out-cleaned it.
As for your comment about unbranded value vacs, once upon a time, one could've spent any amount on a vacuum and it would have done a relatively good job. The cheap cleaners of the 80's and 90's were Goblin Commander's, Lasers and Rios, but these weren't poor performers. In those days, you'd have paid more for a better built machine rather than higher performing, although of course the design of the actual cleaner does play a big part also. The difference between a cheap bagged upright and an expensive bagged upright is far less than the difference between top and bottom end bagless.
By the way, I hope you don't mind, but I sent you a friend request on Facebook
.
Well, I'm not trying to point score or anything or brand-bash. I've always said, if you want bagless, then get a Dyson. They're the only brand that do it well, really. But bagless just isn't for me.
Dyson created a problem for people that never existed. Prior to Dyson coming on the scene, was anybody really all that bothered about changing their vacuum bag? We just did it and got on with it. Infact, disposable paper bags were added to vacuums to make them easier and more hygienic to empty. Prior to this, vacuums all had cloth, shake out bags where the user would have to stand the cleaner over the bin and shake all the dust out of the cloth bag.
The success of Dyson, in the early years anyway, was purely down to latching onto the market gap for bagless. Seeing the adverts planted a tiny seed of doubt in the consumers mind and everytime they vacuumed, it grew. This made the whole "no loss of suction" thing a lot bigger than it actually was, because although bagged vacuums do lose some suction, it's not enough to stop it picking up well. And if you remember, Dyson adverts were EVERYWHERE in the late 90's. This is in a similar way to how Vax carpet washers were all over the place in the late 80's/early 90's. The ad campaign did just the same thing and started off a craze of carpet washing, that prior to Vax hitting the market, nobody had really thought or cared about. It was a gimmick and people quickly realized it was a pain in the ass to do lol.
It's also especially important to note that the DC01 was not actually very good. 90 air watts on the hose, a mediocre brushroll at best and not the best build quality, yet it came with (at the time) a whopping £200 price tag and quickly outsold every other cleaner, despite the fact that vacuums on the market at the time retailing at half that were better cleaners. Why? Because he promoted the hell out of his product.
The clear bin was completely added on purpose. It is very deceiving as it makes the user think there's heaps of dust coming out of the carpet. Well of course it may look like there's lots, it's been spun around in a cyclone and whipped up. But if you vacuum a full Dyson bin up into a bagged cleaner, you'll find there's very little actually there.
My other big objection to Dyson is the price. I mean, the current DC41 is retailing at £400 but it's such a flimsy, poorly constructed heap of cheap plastic. I don't think the price tag reflects the quality of the machine you get.
So that's my Dyson 2 penneth. Bit of a rant. Go pop an ansprin, you'll feel better
. I know there are lots of Dyson fans here and I'm not brand bashing. I love that everyone here has differing opinions and what works well for some, might not for others (eg. Sebo auto height adjustment as a prime example). But I honestly believe that when James Dyson starts spouting off saying that his product caught on purely because it was good? RUBBISH. The DC01 and DC02 were terrible performers and any other cleaner on the market at the time would have out-cleaned it. As for your comment about unbranded value vacs, once upon a time, one could've spent any amount on a vacuum and it would have done a relatively good job. The cheap cleaners of the 80's and 90's were Goblin Commander's, Lasers and Rios, but these weren't poor performers. In those days, you'd have paid more for a better built machine rather than higher performing, although of course the design of the actual cleaner does play a big part also. The difference between a cheap bagged upright and an expensive bagged upright is far less than the difference between top and bottom end bagless.
By the way, I hope you don't mind, but I sent you a friend request on Facebook
.
