Dyson Dual Cyclone machines

[sebo_fan]

The thing is, we can be subjective now that Dysons are taken for granted as being fairly expensive to buy now, even when the first DC01 came out, it too was expensive as it was new and novel.

My parents bought a brand new DC01 a year later after launching in the UK (compared to my uncle who bought a Sebo as he was manager of a care home and had already used the commercial upright) they liked using the DC01 even though it was bulkier and heavier than their Oreck XL. At that point in my life I adored Hoover products, but I did like the DC01's novel central hose handle idea compared to the curved up hose on my Turbopower uprights. I also found it faster to clean carpets with the DC01's larger wheels and auto adjusting head, even if it didn't clean deep enough, it seemed to be able to extract more dust even after the use of my numerous Hoovers - but back then I was taken in by the clear dust bin concept and didn't realise that the same test with a Dyson used first before a conventional bagged vacuum could still produce excess dust, it just made it easier to see the dust being collected in the Dyson. I didn't like the emptying procedure - the DC04 was far easier to empty thanks to its bottom release door.

What I miss about the DC01 is its motor noise. I didn't ever find it that noisy certainly compared to Hoover products "back in the day," and yes whilst it couldn't get under low furniture, the Dyson just seemed to be quicker than using some of the classic traditional bagged vacuums. We eventually replaced the DC01 with a DC03 that didn't last long because of leaking dust and Dyson ended up giving us a brand new DC04 at a reduced cost as a goodwill gesture. The DC04 seems to be the model I ended up liking the best even though I find it noisier than the DC01.

Whilst Dyson moved production to Asia for cheaper production, it certainly didn't lower the cost prices!

 

[madabouthoovers]

sebo_fan, the DC04 didnt have a bottom drop bin, it was only introduced on the DC07. The DC04 had the same type of bin as the DC01, in that the top half had to be removed, and then cear bin tipped upside down to empty it. The clear bin also retained the lower part of the central cone which could be pulled out for cleaning.

 

[sebo_fan]

Oh well, it was so long ago! Ty for the reminder - but then again, didn't the DC04 have proper smaller cleaning tools that you didn't need the daft adapter that came with the DC01? I think Dyson had improved things by then.

 

[sanitaire]

lots of my friends give them too me and don't know aobut the washable filter......lucky there motor hasn't burned up yet...

 

[madabouthoovers]

Sebo_fan, yes indeed on the DC04, it had the same tool set that was on the later DC07 models, that attached directly to the hose or the end of the wand handle. The DC01 tools were a bit of a failure really, as they attached to the base of the cleaner and always got lost or kept falling off - my parents had the DC01 for many years and said that was the main problem, so they ended up keeping the tools in the their cleaning box. The tools were also smaller than those on the DC04, and indeed, did need the adaptor. The Henry also has this adaptor as its tools wont attach directly to the end of the hose without the adapter.

Sanitaire - yes, its an all too common problem with the filters in ANY bagless cleaner, not just the Dysons. People think all they need to do is tip out the bin and thats all the maintenance they need to do. So many bagless cleaners end up on Ebay as spares or repairs simply for loss of suction due to clogged filters. It amazes me - dont people ever read the instructions they get when they buy a bagless cleaner? or is it that they are just too idle to clean the filters when they should? Why spend all that money on a bagless cleaner to avoid the costs of buyin bags, then before its even a year old and the filters are clogged, sell it off for next to nothing? Surely these people would be better buying a bagged machine, at least when emptying the bag, they would restore lost suction again and not need to sell the cleaner and buy another new bagless one again - thus spending much more money in the long run.

 

[vintagerepairer]

tools

The original tools on the upright Dyson cleaners were made by a 3rd party and were the same as those used on a good deal of vacuum cleaners. The earlier Hoover Turbopower and Turbomaster cleaners had the same, as an example. When Dyson went on to produce their own tools, they initially made a small crevice tool, small dusting brush, and sharp cornered small tool. As you will all know, the DC02 was of course designed to accommodate these tools in the on-board caddy, so they could not be changed, but the Absolute and De Stijl uprights always had the large crevice tool and dusting brush as used on the DC04 range. Towards the end of the 1990's, the basic yellow & grey DC01 came with an identical kit to the 04, even down to the oval shaped swivel small tool.

It was not the tools on the DC01 which commanded the need for an adaptor, it was the shape of the hose cuff. If the user was to attach the tools to the wand, the adaptor was not used, but again you all know this. The need for an adaptor on a Henry is slightly different as it is designed to fit the metal wand which is double ended with a male section on each end. Numatic like to give the user the choice of which way the wand is used, and a jolly good idea it is too as the variouis configurations are useful for low level and high level cleaning.

The fault with the DC04 mains lead is a perfect example of Dyson not paying attention to history. Back in the early 1970's Electrolux had the exact same problem with the mains lead on their new 500 series cleaners. The mains lead left the cleaner on a straight grommet which allowed too much flexibility as to the direction of which the lead could be pulled, and in addition offered little cushioning to sharp tugs. The result was torn leads which would often short-circuit. The answer came in the form of a right-angled flex sleeve which offered a whole lot less flexibility when it came to moving the lead about, but also had much absorption of any strain. Fast forward 20 years and Dyson bought out their new upright cleaner which had the same problem as the Electrolux 500. Dyson even carried this fault on into the DC04 as has been mentioned, and of course decided that a right-angled flex sleeve was required. That, gentlemen, is the "research and design" which Dyson claims adds cost to his cleaners. I hate to be flippant, but I could have shown him this problem and the necessary solution, for a lot less money than it must have cost them.

 

[madabouthoovers]

On the later DC04's I believe the cable outlet grommet was changed to a right angled rubber boot, but that it was angled upwards instead of backwards like on the DC07 and onwards. As the DC04 I have is the earlier limited edition model with the earlier hood graphics and "dual cyclone" logo, it had a straight grommet fitted, and obviously when I bought it, it was a non worker. I tested the continuity of the cable from the switch to the plug and found that the neutral wire was broken internally. I swapped the cable for another spare cable off a DC07, and the cleaner worked again.
I had exactly the same problem with a Kirby G7 I bought, with broken internal wires at the joint to the handle, causing the cleaner to switch on and off when using it. I remedied it by cutting out the bad section and fitting a push connector rather than paying over 20 quid for a new cable.

That adaptor on the Henry is only used when fitting the tools directly to the hose cuff, as it has a slash cut angled end. The tools fit straight onto the metal wand or top metal bend, without the adaptor.

I remember also discussing the fact that the clutchless models of upright on the DC04 and DC07 were very prone to shredding their solepates, more so than the clutched models which had small wheels in the soleplate, and tended to fare better.
I think much of the problem came from using the clutchless models on hard floors, which they were not designed to be used on, and this caused big chunks of the soleplate to be removed from the back side of the brushbar recess. The front side of the soleplate recess rarely got pitted or damaged.

 

[vintagerepairer]

sole plates

Therein lies another aspect of the Dyson cleaners which bears no resemblance to any other cleaner made in past. The sole plates were far, far too thin. Look at any other make of cleaner and the sole plate is chunky and often rounded inwards. Dyson sole plates just seem like a sheet of thin plastic with a hole cut out. Even on carpets they can easily be shredded when threads get caught and ripped through the plate. If it wasn't for the fact that James Dyson has been banging on about appliances and devices in life being made so that the manufacturer could then sell consumables at a cost and how he thinks this is morally wrong, I would stake my life that the sole plate was designed the way it was so that it would fail quickly and they would make money selling a new part.

As for the flex on the DC04, indeed it was a right angled sleeve which pointed upwards. As this was a complete afterthought on an established cleaner, there was no way the cord could exit backwards, due to the existing design of the cleaner. Interesting Madabouthoovers that you mention it being different from the DC07; yes, it was of course, but the DC03 had been on sale for a good deal longer than the DC04, and that too had a backward facing right-angled flex sleeve. It is a wonder that the DC04 did not have the same. The biggest problem with straight flex sleeves on upright cleaners is the constant yanking of the flex. On the original Electrolux 500 it was the constant pulling by the user which caused the issue. On the Dyson DC04, as well as the pulling, the fact that the flex left the cleaner 2/3 of the way down the machine meant it was very, very easy to step on the lead when pushing the cleaner around, which put lots more stress on the flex. The very shape of a soft right-angled sleeve is such that it will absorb that kind of stress to a far greater extent than a straight sleeve ever could. I have seen mains lead failure on DC04 cleaners with a right-angled sleeve, but it is a much rarer sight than on straight-sleeved versions.

 

[madabouthoovers]

I thought about the fact it was threads and hair build up on the round brushroll of the clutchless models that were hitting against the edge of the soleplate every time the brushroll revolved that could be making the characteristic comb teeth looking damage to the soleplate. On the clutchless models, the brushroll is a solid cylinder shape traditional type and it is this type that seems to shred the soleplate more than the clutched type which has a helical brushroll instead.
I couldnt understand though why it only affected the rear part of the recess in the soleplate and hardly ever the front side of the recess, as surely any threads of carpet etc wrapped round the brushbar would hit the front of the recess as well as the back with each revolution of the brushroll.
If you also noticed that the clutched model had different soleplate recesses, and side whiskers on the front corners of the cleaner head, and these soleplates seemed much more robust than the non clutched model's soleplate which didnt have the same type of side whiskers, or cutouts in the soleplate by these side whiskers.

Also, due to the fact that the non clutched models had no soleplate wheels, they were more prone to friction wear on carpets and also made the cleaner slightly harder to push about. These soleplates also had no air bleed passages to the side whiskers, so creating a much stronger suction force to the carpet, giving them a slightly better performace on carpet, but at the expense of also making them harder to push along.
Later DC07's also had additional air bleed passages at the rear of the brushroll recess, to prevent them sticking to the floor. Even later, on the DC14's there was yet another air bleed passage on the front of the brushroll housing that was supposed to act as a large debris channel collector hole, and this made the DC14 very easy to move across carpets.

 

[dysondestijl]

soleplate........

hi all!
i agree about the soleplate thing. i once had a DC04 that had shredded its back part of the soleplate!! but some of them are pretty noisy. non-genuine replacement brushroll's sometimes tend to be noisy too.
and back to the noise of the dc01- the YDK motors always made a nice noise. my ancient DC01 (firs picture) has that motor but i never use it as the commutator is pretty black. and it has no switch. sounds similar to the DC02.
thanks for all your comments anyway!
thedysonman