vintagerepairer
Well-known member
deal with Dyson criticism - something that James Dyson never
So that's my belly laugh taken care of for the evening. Thank you Turbo500.
I am indifferent to Dyson - both the "brand" and the "Sir James". Like a lot of products, it is able to do what it says it says it will do. Whether or not what it does is needed is entirely subjective. Personally, I quite liked the idea of a bagless no-loss-of-suction cleaner, even if my shop did rely heavily on the sales of dustbags. What I did not like about the Dyson cleaners was the appalling build quality and the fact that many of the tried & tested 'good' parts of your Hoover and Electrolux and all the rest of them was tossed aside to make way for a completely new (and in my opinion lousy) way of doing things.
Take the tool kits, for example. Not withstanding the likes of Hoover and Philips, practically all other cleaners utilised a straight-forward push-fit tool kit, be it 32mm, 35mm, or whatever else it was. Dyson had a go at that on his uprights and DC02 cylinders. It was a success. So what do they do? They change it on the DC05 and parts start to break. In addition, "Dyson" branded accessories like the floor tool and telescopic tubes were to cost the consumer a small fortune when they broke, and quickly did they see that the savings made on bags was to be spent on replacement parts. I struggle with this, as Sir James has always stated the need to buy aftermarket parts for any product was bad form, which is why in this case he sites it as one reason why he built a bagless cleaner, yet he soon wanted a slice of aftermarket-sales sector, it would seem. He didn't sell bags of course; he sold expensive parts, and not just accessories, but essential parts critical to the continued use of his cleaners.
I remember one lady coming to my shop with a DC05 cleaner which had broken extension tubes (she'd taped them up) and also a broken floor tool (rendering the cleaner now useless). She asked for the price of the parts and almost fainted when I told her. I said there is a plan B, and told her the cost of buying a set of generic 32mm push-fit tubes, wand, and floor tool. As I said to her, the existing small tools will still fit, she gets a quality tool kit for a lot less, and as I didn't tell her, I actually made more money on the % mark-up of generic parts as I would have done Dyson genuine. Given the cost of the cleaner when new, and given the relatively short life the genuine parts had offered, the woman was somewhat keen to seek the generic tools option I presented her with.
There is one point which I would like to attempt to clarify, however, and that is the issue of the 100% suction. In defense of the Dyson cleaner, it simply has to be remembered that comparing the cyclones and filters of a Dyson with that of A.N.Other is to compare apples with eggs. The filter in a Dyson is nothing more than a pre-motor filter in a bagged cleaner and is there to prevent the fine dust escaping from the machine. As the cyclone tank represents the dustbag, in this instance the Dyson cleaner will never lose suction as a result of the cyclones doing the job of the bag, and this "open ended" system is what the claims refer to.
Other bagless cleaners do of course rely on a filter to "close" the end of the dust container, thus the filter is really what plays the part of the dustbag, not the cyclone tank itself. So you see, suction lost on a Dyson through eventual clogging of the pre-motor filter would not constitute a loss of suction as a result of using a bagless dust collection method.
Having said all of the above, I think Dyson are a little unaware of the concept of irony; having marketed their cleaner as being such that suction is never lost, when calling their helpline one of the first things the recorded message tells you is what to do if you cleaner is not sucking correctly. Blockages occur and filters clog; of course I know this, but their choice of words is, to my ears, something of a contradiction.
So that's my belly laugh taken care of for the evening. Thank you Turbo500.
I am indifferent to Dyson - both the "brand" and the "Sir James". Like a lot of products, it is able to do what it says it says it will do. Whether or not what it does is needed is entirely subjective. Personally, I quite liked the idea of a bagless no-loss-of-suction cleaner, even if my shop did rely heavily on the sales of dustbags. What I did not like about the Dyson cleaners was the appalling build quality and the fact that many of the tried & tested 'good' parts of your Hoover and Electrolux and all the rest of them was tossed aside to make way for a completely new (and in my opinion lousy) way of doing things.
Take the tool kits, for example. Not withstanding the likes of Hoover and Philips, practically all other cleaners utilised a straight-forward push-fit tool kit, be it 32mm, 35mm, or whatever else it was. Dyson had a go at that on his uprights and DC02 cylinders. It was a success. So what do they do? They change it on the DC05 and parts start to break. In addition, "Dyson" branded accessories like the floor tool and telescopic tubes were to cost the consumer a small fortune when they broke, and quickly did they see that the savings made on bags was to be spent on replacement parts. I struggle with this, as Sir James has always stated the need to buy aftermarket parts for any product was bad form, which is why in this case he sites it as one reason why he built a bagless cleaner, yet he soon wanted a slice of aftermarket-sales sector, it would seem. He didn't sell bags of course; he sold expensive parts, and not just accessories, but essential parts critical to the continued use of his cleaners.
I remember one lady coming to my shop with a DC05 cleaner which had broken extension tubes (she'd taped them up) and also a broken floor tool (rendering the cleaner now useless). She asked for the price of the parts and almost fainted when I told her. I said there is a plan B, and told her the cost of buying a set of generic 32mm push-fit tubes, wand, and floor tool. As I said to her, the existing small tools will still fit, she gets a quality tool kit for a lot less, and as I didn't tell her, I actually made more money on the % mark-up of generic parts as I would have done Dyson genuine. Given the cost of the cleaner when new, and given the relatively short life the genuine parts had offered, the woman was somewhat keen to seek the generic tools option I presented her with.
There is one point which I would like to attempt to clarify, however, and that is the issue of the 100% suction. In defense of the Dyson cleaner, it simply has to be remembered that comparing the cyclones and filters of a Dyson with that of A.N.Other is to compare apples with eggs. The filter in a Dyson is nothing more than a pre-motor filter in a bagged cleaner and is there to prevent the fine dust escaping from the machine. As the cyclone tank represents the dustbag, in this instance the Dyson cleaner will never lose suction as a result of the cyclones doing the job of the bag, and this "open ended" system is what the claims refer to.
Other bagless cleaners do of course rely on a filter to "close" the end of the dust container, thus the filter is really what plays the part of the dustbag, not the cyclone tank itself. So you see, suction lost on a Dyson through eventual clogging of the pre-motor filter would not constitute a loss of suction as a result of using a bagless dust collection method.
Having said all of the above, I think Dyson are a little unaware of the concept of irony; having marketed their cleaner as being such that suction is never lost, when calling their helpline one of the first things the recorded message tells you is what to do if you cleaner is not sucking correctly. Blockages occur and filters clog; of course I know this, but their choice of words is, to my ears, something of a contradiction.
I've just been attached to Dyson ever since I was little. Again, I struggle with life.
