Dyson Cinetic Launched in Canada

[piano_god]

After approximately one-year in the UK and Australia, Dyson is now launching the Cinetic with two variants in Canada.

DC78 Turbinehead at $699.99 


 


DC78 Turbinehead Animal for $799.99.


 


As usual the only difference between the two of them are the tools that are included.


 


<hr />
 
With its launch, Dyson now states that all cyclonic vacuums before it lost suction and this is the first that will not even though it utilizes a user inaccessible post-motor HEPA filter. While Dyson says it's tested with "10 years’ worth of test dust", just like all the Dyson's before it, it's not to be used on “larger types and quantities of dust or debris” and “…not use(d) on rubble, ash or plaster”. 


 


I could swear those are the materials that are responsible for clogging a vacuum bag, but I digress...
 
With the launch, Dyson appears to have paid people to blog about it. At the link below, one blogger goes into detail about the bins full of dust, nine-thousand hours of testing and $250,000 of "aggressive" dust used to test it, but negates to mention that it's not to be used for "quantities" of dust. They even go as far as calling it "filterless"...

[this post was last edited: 8/19/2014-01:16]

http://blogs.canoe.ca/canoetech/pro...ic-dc78-54-cyclone-filterless-bagless-vacuum/

 

[dysonman1]

The Rainbow model D never lost suction, and had no filter to clog. It also couldn't be used on plaster dust or ashes. Hmmm. And the Rainbow cleans better than the Dyson.

 

[dys0nb0y]

 

[henrydreyfuss]

It looks like the hose is possibly more pliable..

but still too short!

The tools are what kill it for me on Dyson canisters. I've owned several where I thought the canister unit itself was great (DC39), then hooked up the attachments, and it was a total mess. Bulky wobbly wands (that leak dust when telescoped), uncomfortable hand grips, and short stiff hoses make the whole experience much more unpleasant than it should be. Paired with noisy turbine tools that are hard to push, and don't clean as well as a $400+ vacuum should.

They're aggressively updating their canister vacuums, but they still continue to use the same horrible hoses and wands. I don't get it.

 

[super-sweeper]

And there's Dyson, making bagged vacuums look like fools again! 

 

[blakaeg]

If its true what Dyson claim. It means that EVERY other Dyson loses suction apart from their simply amazing Dyson Cinetic cyclone.

Because other Dysons use filters. So maybe we've been lied to for all these years about no loss of suction that Dyson claimed to have until Cinetic arrived. We can be so gullible.

 

[dys0nb0y]

It doesn't say dyson machines no suction he said machines that have efficient cyclones meaning cyclones that don't separate the dirt and get clogged up

 

[singingrainbow]

But dyson does say that the cinetic is the ONLY vacuum that doesn't loose suction.

So I guess all those machines from 1993 on wards don't count?

Scott

 

[marks_here]

I guess the vacuflo central vacuum loses suction also, it's cyclonic, along with all the rainbow's, Hyla's, Thermomax ...etc.. It's bad when words come back to haunt ya!!

 

[Gr8DaneDad]

For the same money I can buy a half dozen vintage Kirby and Electrolux machines, each of which will do a better job, last longer and are easily serviceable.  Or one of each, a lifetime supply of bags, belts and maintenance and a few hundred left over.... hmmm


 

 

[man114]

Ok...

So like the Rainbow it isn't for ash and plaster dust, the cost increases immensely and it is probably made in Malaysia. So if I'm not vacuuming ash and plaster dust I can buy a USA made machine with a better powerhead design that out cleans it and will probably last 20 years or more.

I don't mind Dyson for the most part, but if I'm going to buy an expensive canister vac I can't see this as my choice. I always think of Dyson as a high end discount store brand.

Anyone care to try it against the 11 amp Fantom Domestic/Thunder? I bet the Fantom outdoes it on carpets, and I still don't think any cyclonic vac filters better in the cyclone assembly than the 11 amp Fantom.

I don't see anything revolutionary here, but it sure has a lotta cyclones.

 

[blakaeg]

dysonb0y,

If you look & listen properly! Dyson say that all other machines with filters clog. Dysons with filters do clog, all the Dysons I've had the filters clog. That is the reason why Dysons with filters need their filters washing to maintain them, doesn't take rocket science!

If you don't wash them, then the performance will deteriorate and possibly damage the motor.

 

[parwaz786]

Indeed I agree that the filters do need washing, my DC14 filter gets hair on it after a few uses and really dusty, and it is a root cyclonic full size machine.

The cinetic may have some things that need improving, and they will then blame their cinetic vacuum in like 10 years or so for something like "an air driven turbine" with suction leaking out of the side filter which means it wont concentrate suction into the floor head, but that's just an example, and something I don't like about their product.

In the adverts, Dyson say that there's "no loss of suction" but then in the manual the owner finds out there is a filter which needs to be washed every month

 

[parwaz786]

Dyson have also lied about inventing the world's first bagless vacuum, no they never invented it, just put the technology of an industrial dust extractor into a vacuum cleaner. The bagless vacuum was the Rainbow first, then later on the Hitachi in what I believe to be the 1980's.

"The DC04 has a clutch and the belts on the DC04 should never need replacing"- Yeah right, they stretch out in a few years time and then need to be replaced!

"DC04- No other cleaner picks up more" And like, you heard of a Kirby?

#Dysonlies

 

[dys0nb0y]

First if a Rainbow was no loss suction they would say it In consumer Reports and Riccar and simplicity came in last for reliability Dyson came in third saying I fantom Cyclone technology filters out better is saying a DC01 Has better cyclone technology it's just silly .blakaeg Will have a look for the video to see if it does say that and yes dyson Will eventually need their filters washing and clog up but Dyson has the best Cyclone technology as it only lets through fine and we don't need to clean an often as I know you've got a Dyson but that's old technology and I have a DC 41 for over a year that was used daily and I never wash the filter it got a little bit dusty but stayed spotless and I had DC39 for 7 months and I never watch the filter and it stayed spotless have had many many bagless machines and the cyclone let's through hair and dust and carpet fibre immediately and I have to constantly watch the filter. And parwaz786 and the air driven turbine The best turbine ever all others slow down and and this one speeds up when it contact the floor and it doesn't Leals out side it has a opening where the air has to come from to drives the turbine you have that design so it speeds up and doesn't slow down Dyson did invent the worlds first bagless vacuum cleaner in the sawmill that wasn't a vacuum cleaner and hitachi never invented the worlds first bagless vacuum cleaner Now for the DC04 you got the five year guarantee back then so if that clutch broke they would have to replace it Have had loads of people having A dc04 and never had to replace the clutch and the dyson are 8 to 9 to 10 years and yes Dyson did have the claim no other cleaner picks up more and yes Kirby would clean better but Kirby wasn't very popular back and it was tested against machines you could go to Currys and, in Argos to get not machines that were hard to get hold of back then . I'm sorry if there's any misspellings it's hard to do it on a phone PSarwaz786 don't let them take you to the dark Side

 

[dys0nb0y]

Just look at the video and he says most other vacuum cleaners lose suction

 

[blakaeg]

dysonb0y,

It seems you will always defend Dyson. That's fine.

I have seen those videos numerous times and again, Dysons with filters do clog, no matter what you say. Cinetic ones may be more efficient but since 1993 Dyson have been claiming that their machines do not lose suction and NOW they say that only Cinetic Cyclones don't lose suction.

As Parwaz correctly points out, Dyson say no loss of suction but in the user manual it highlights the important factor that the user needs to wash their filter, so these will unfortunately affect the machine and mine have been. The DC03 Dual Cyclone machine was a model that I found rarely clogged its Pre Motor Filter.

FYI, I had a DC03 and DC04 Brushcontrol and the belts on those machines did stretch over time and the machines were less effective. I could see in the DC03 lens that the brush would struggle to start spinning on thick pile carpet. The Ratchet Noise facility on both machines stopped working after the belts stretched out so these machines would require a new clutch. So when the brushbar got obstructed there was no longer a warning. I never bothered to replace these as they failed outside of the 2 year warranty that Dyson provided on those machines when I purchased them back in 1999 and 2002.

Whowever gets the Cinetic machine, I wish them many years use and I am intrigued to see the machines in 5 years time. Dyson should now put the Cinetic cyclone in their uprights.

 

[dys0nb0y]

Always defend Dyson because I love them I know they are not perfect but to me they are great and I personally don't like the old ones that much but I do like the DC04I and forgot you only get a two year guarantee with old Dyson but like I said Dyson has come a Long way in the cyclone technology on the radio root Cyclone is just amazing compare to what it used to be the cyclone technology that have got in DC 41 in DC 39 is The best Cyclone technology with a filter the filter only gets fine dust and barely lets for anything only a bit of dust Nothing like Like your dc 24

 

[dys0nb0y]

PS I forgot to say all Dysons will eventually need their filter cleaning

 

[sebo_fan]

It is most bizarre when people on here fight against the Dyson mantra and those who are for it.

The "no loss of suction" merely reiterates the multi cyclonic design of prolonging suction, often in early Dysons being able to go well past the "max fill" mark and still expect the vacuum to pick up dust and dirt.


 


It does not refer to cleaning filters, or having a filter on board. Filters are there to filter after all. They are not put in place to catch all the dust that the vacuum cleaner picks up. The only aspect that changes is with the design of the cyclones and how variable dust is put through the shrouds before it lands at the bottom of the bins.


 


The design element that brands have put in place in reality mean that some filter do indeed do more than filter and catch lots of viewable dust. But that's because some brands persist in making single cyclones as opposed to many. 


 


I've said it before and I'll say it again - I like the prolonged loss of suction power in a Dyson vacuum - however I do not like the plastic designs and I am not in favour of Dyson over the healthier proposition of dust in a bag. Bags may clog but they're a heck of a lot easier and far more hygienic.

 

[dys0nb0y]

It is is a picture of a vax with Multi cyclonic and here is a picture filter and cyclones and before it's all been cleaned out two weeks before and this is all the stuff it gets in two weeks

 

[dys0nb0y]

2

 

[dys0nb0y]

Here's a picture of seven months old dc39 that I never clean the filter it was used every day

 

[dys0nb0y]

And also bags are pretty expensive in time if y use the bag machine in my house I would have to replace the bag every three days

 

[sebo_fan]

I highly doubt you would have to replace a bag every three days but it depends on the brand, model and dust bag capacity. On the basis that your Dyson DC39 has a 2 litre dust capacity, most dust bags on larger vacs have capacities of 4.5 litre, 5 litres and 7 litres or more if you have a Numatic.


 


 

 

[blakaeg]

dysonb0y,

Please can you make a claim against a proper Vax multi cyclonic next time. That is a very poor comparison you make there. The Mach Air machine for example is a proper cyclone cleaner and the filtration ability of the cyclones are excellent. Two of my friends have them and they rarely need to touch the Pre a Motor filter.

As with what Sebo_Fan says, it is very unlikely that one will change their bag every 3 days LOL. You 're not making much sense there fella!

Sebo_Fan,

My friend noticed some loss of suction with the Felix she has since the change over to the Ultra Bags. The dust sticks to the sides due to the static nature of the 'Electrete' material. She's not that keen and reckons the paper was better, but she simply pushes the dirt down the hole with a wooden spoon and the bag indicator clears again. The bag lasts ages in the Felix as the dirt seems to get pushed downwards inside the bag. She's never had to replace the filter in the 3 years she's had the machine, so the Ultra Bag must be doing its job.

 

[dys0nb0y]

It Is a proper Multi cyclonic It says it on the Vax And it's not a poor comparison I was showing a terrible multi cyclonic and a great Multi cyclonic you obviously didn't get it And the vax Mach air has great Multi cyclonic it does a great job but not perfect it still lets through some hair and clumps of dust but probably the second-best cyclone technology and is the Vac air 3 A good enough comparison I know someone who's got one of them and I'll be going round there in a few days I have already had to completely strip it as it would clogged to heck it done properly have to do it again and I'll take some pictures

 

[super-sweeper]

Rainbow in the 1930s, Filter-Queen in the 1940s, You're telling me Dyson was the first bagless vacuum in 1993? Oh please, Even Fantom was around under their commercial name, "Vectron", by 1984! Who on earth cares about a wimpy turbine-head, i wonder why you need one on bare floors, Guess Dyson couldn't get the dirt without it. Powered Nozzles are the way to go, I'd love to see Dyson dig into a rug and remove dirt like none other. Time and time again i state that Dysons are lies, A lie you're unfortunately trapped in, dysonboy. Dyson can cram as many cyclones as they want into their vacuum, I've proven time and time again that Fantom is the more efficient cleaner. the amount of sand and fine particles the Dyson leaves behind is shocking, especially when people are forking out $700 to be a show-off to the neighbors. even with a broken cyclone, the Fantom had no problem with cleaning and filtering sand. 


 


Parwaz, You're finally getting it, Dyson isn't what it says it is! 

 

[dys0nb0y]

Dyson was the first to make the first cyclonic vacuum cleaner fantom and vectron were only allowed to make these machines as Dyson allowed them to do it The fast cyclonic machine was the cyclone that was only available in England and I was only 500 ever made can promise you one thing Dysons turbine head is not Wimpy at all it's the best turbine head ever made a powerhead with good bristles and fast motor will probably clean better but not all of them well clean better and turbine hired has a button to turn off the brush to go on hard floors and in England we don't have Powerheads on our machines and the turbine head is probably the best one The turbine head is like a powerhead that without a motor you haven't proven that fantom cleans better you have no evidence at all and the cyclone technology and that is just the same as the old English Dysons in fact all the stuff you say about Dyson has no proof at tall and parwaz don't listen to them they are trying to turn into the dark side PS a Dyson DC 65 with clean 10 times better than the Fantom and here is a video of a Dyson DC 28 cleaning better then a Fantom