must see this about dyson IT IS NOT GOOD
- Thread starter citroenbx
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
suctionselector
Well-known member
Actually
If you bothered to check up on dates it's from 2002, when production was shifted to Malaysia, not 1997.
If you bothered to check up on dates it's from 2002, when production was shifted to Malaysia, not 1997.
turbo500
Well-known member
You're 12 years too late for that bit of breaking news, Citreon.
blakaeg
Well-known member
Citroenbx. I'm a C4 coupe driver 
) anyway back to topic, I remember this back in 2002. It was sad but its almost as if Malmesbury manufacturing days never happened ;( I never believed Dyson when they said about planning permission. It was due to manufacturing costs. Why pay more when can be done cheaper abroad I suppose.
At least Numatic kept their base in the UK.
) anyway back to topic, I remember this back in 2002. It was sad but its almost as if Malmesbury manufacturing days never happened ;( I never believed Dyson when they said about planning permission. It was due to manufacturing costs. Why pay more when can be done cheaper abroad I suppose. At least Numatic kept their base in the UK.
suctionselector
Well-known member
What I don't understand is...
I don't understand why there's no news footage of the closure of the Cambuslang Hoover factory, which closed in 2005, which had been open for 30 odd years. I'm sure there was a mention on the news somewhere, but that was a big blow to the Scottish labourforce.
But true, at least Numatic kept their factory in the UK, as far as I'm aware, the Henry is one of the top three best sellers in the UK! Good on you Numatic!
I don't understand why there's no news footage of the closure of the Cambuslang Hoover factory, which closed in 2005, which had been open for 30 odd years. I'm sure there was a mention on the news somewhere, but that was a big blow to the Scottish labourforce.
But true, at least Numatic kept their factory in the UK, as far as I'm aware, the Henry is one of the top three best sellers in the UK! Good on you Numatic!
hi-loswitch98
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,123
Yeah, Numatic is one of the three against Vax & Dyson. But as you say good on Numatic, they are the #1 best seller of Cylinder cleaner on amazon.
oreck_xl
Well-known member
The machine is made in Malaysia, yet the outrageous price leads one to believe they are still manufactured in the U.K. More recently we're seeing the same thing happen with Oreck which was recently acquired by TTI. The advent of this started when Oreck acquired the Chinese-made ill-fated Halo.
- Hershel
- Hershel
blakaeg
Well-known member
Suctior,
It's probably because of Dysons popularity, plus James Dyson kept on about supporting the British workforce & manufacturing in the UK etc etc and then goes & shuts down the factory.
Before this news became public, Dyson was already producing some DC03 & DC05's in Malaysia. They then just transferred everything there. The quality of the build on latest Dysons is questionable like on the DC50 etc only because of the plastic construction & design, not because it's Malaysian made as Malaysia makes some really good quality products, as demonstrated by the likes of Panasonic etc. The DC14 and DC15 were very well made machines compared to what is available today in my opinion. But plastic wands, light thin pliable plastic with big balls seems to the way we are going with Dyson today.
It's probably because of Dysons popularity, plus James Dyson kept on about supporting the British workforce & manufacturing in the UK etc etc and then goes & shuts down the factory.
Before this news became public, Dyson was already producing some DC03 & DC05's in Malaysia. They then just transferred everything there. The quality of the build on latest Dysons is questionable like on the DC50 etc only because of the plastic construction & design, not because it's Malaysian made as Malaysia makes some really good quality products, as demonstrated by the likes of Panasonic etc. The DC14 and DC15 were very well made machines compared to what is available today in my opinion. But plastic wands, light thin pliable plastic with big balls seems to the way we are going with Dyson today.
daknx1994
Well-known member
Oreck_XL
Most Oreck's are still manufactured in the USA though. Also all of Oreck's remanufactured units are done in Cookesville, Tennessee. So I would happily support a company still manufacturing here. Plus there are good things on the horizon for the Oreck manufacturing plant.
Most Oreck's are still manufactured in the USA though. Also all of Oreck's remanufactured units are done in Cookesville, Tennessee. So I would happily support a company still manufacturing here. Plus there are good things on the horizon for the Oreck manufacturing plant.
seamusuk
Well-known member
ARROGANT TWAT,,,,,
At this point it cost Dyson £24 to make a DC04 in the UK............
Not enough profit obviously....
Seamus
At this point it cost Dyson £24 to make a DC04 in the UK............
Not enough profit obviously....
Seamus
suctionselector
Well-known member
So hang on
It cost £24 to make a DC04, and then he sells it for £240ish, 10x its price to make? Surely with that profit he could have kept work in the UK. That's greedy.
It cost £24 to make a DC04, and then he sells it for £240ish, 10x its price to make? Surely with that profit he could have kept work in the UK. That's greedy.
hi-loswitch98
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,123
And THIS is why hardly any of us like Modern Dysons.
vintagerepairer
Well-known member
"It cost £24 to make a DC04, and then he sells it for £240ish, 10x its price to make? Surely with that profit he could have kept work in the UK. That's greedy.
"
Well no, and not that I am defending James Dyson, but as a businessman I have to point out a few bare basics here.
Dyson is a manufacturer, not a retailer. This means they sell their goods to wholesalers, suppliers, and retailers. They do not make a cleaner for £24 and sell it on to the public directly for a profit ten-times that of the cost, they sell to the "middle men" for a price which the like of you and I will never get to know about.
Also, the figure of £24 has been suggested as the "cost" to build the cleaner, but there is no mention of whether or not this includes a % of the overheads required in order to make that happen. Everything from transportation of the end products to the cost of cleaning the staff lavatories in the Dyson washrooms has to be factored into the overheads and a percentage of that added to the "cost" of making the cleaner, as indeed it would for any manufacturer making any kind of product.
As before, I do not exist to defend James Dyson, but I do think that unless a level of understanding is applied to a situation, there is a danger of whipping up a frenzy of one-sided, ill-informed hysteria, and us all turning into Daily Mail readers.
"
Well no, and not that I am defending James Dyson, but as a businessman I have to point out a few bare basics here.
Dyson is a manufacturer, not a retailer. This means they sell their goods to wholesalers, suppliers, and retailers. They do not make a cleaner for £24 and sell it on to the public directly for a profit ten-times that of the cost, they sell to the "middle men" for a price which the like of you and I will never get to know about.
Also, the figure of £24 has been suggested as the "cost" to build the cleaner, but there is no mention of whether or not this includes a % of the overheads required in order to make that happen. Everything from transportation of the end products to the cost of cleaning the staff lavatories in the Dyson washrooms has to be factored into the overheads and a percentage of that added to the "cost" of making the cleaner, as indeed it would for any manufacturer making any kind of product.
As before, I do not exist to defend James Dyson, but I do think that unless a level of understanding is applied to a situation, there is a danger of whipping up a frenzy of one-sided, ill-informed hysteria, and us all turning into Daily Mail readers.
They also told us at HOOVER
That in reality, it took minutes to build a Convertible, and, they had gotten the cost down to about $12.00-$15.00 to make. THEN, you have to add in for insurance, the buildings, ads, manpower, etc. Obviously. Still, HOOVER, THEN, didn't have strong-arm Walmart breathing down their backs. I now have ther 1st and LAST Convertible. There is a VERY CLEAR difference.
That in reality, it took minutes to build a Convertible, and, they had gotten the cost down to about $12.00-$15.00 to make. THEN, you have to add in for insurance, the buildings, ads, manpower, etc. Obviously. Still, HOOVER, THEN, didn't have strong-arm Walmart breathing down their backs. I now have ther 1st and LAST Convertible. There is a VERY CLEAR difference.
DesertTortoise
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,189
Being the Kenmore nut job that I am I spend a lot of time prowling Sears Parts Direct looking for treasure, parts for old vacuums that are still in stock for some reason or the other, maybe because it was an oddball that never sold or the part is now molded in gray plastic instead of ivory and still in production for modern vacs (you would be surprised the age and heritage of some parts that are still in production three or four decades). Sometimes the same part has different part numbers on different model vacs so while the parts listing for your model vac might say the part is NLA, the same part with a different number, same form fit and function, will still be available for another model vac.
Anyhoo, something I have noticed is that the parts count on vacuums has been reduced from the 140s for my 1971 Vintage Kenmore 2.7 canister vac, the infamous Avocado Bomber, to the 80s for my first gen 5055 bagged machines such as the one featured over in the Vintage section yesterday and Whispertone (Whimpertone!)series vacs, all the way down to about 35-ish for a modern Progressive canister. Some of that is because Sears now shows the parts for the cord reel in a separate diagram, but that is only ten or twelve more parts (but you can now disassemble their cord reels and replace worn out parts, this folks is real progress). You get the idea. Fewer parts means fewer assembly steps and a much more streamlined logistics train to support the assembly line.
But Vintagerepairer has a valid point. I'm a cost estimator by trade and in general we calculate overhead, "G&A" for general and administrative expense, taxes etc. at around 150% of wages, meaning it is another sum added to wages equal to about 150% of wage cost (include benefit costs in wage calcs, many do not). Then you do a similar calculation for materials. They also have their own overhead, G&A, taxes, etc. Finally you sum those costs and calculate profit and fees (many contracts are performance based, meaning if the contractor comes in under budget or ahead of schedule they can collect extra money called fees, and if they are behind the are sometimes penalized for it contracturally).
That just gets the product out the plant door. Now the shippers, warehouse/logistics company (often the same in this age of "integrated logistics services") all have to pay their own overhead costs, G&A, taxes and the like and make a profit doing so. Same thing with a different cost structure for internet sales.
If that part of the retail chain didn't exist, customers would have to go to the factory door to buy your product. Guess how many you would sell that way? Not many, even if your plant was located in the middle of the US or the middle of Ol' Blighty. Customers also factor in their transportation and time costs into a transaction.
So saying so and so can manufacture a product for x number of pounds is usually highly misleading.
Anyhoo, something I have noticed is that the parts count on vacuums has been reduced from the 140s for my 1971 Vintage Kenmore 2.7 canister vac, the infamous Avocado Bomber, to the 80s for my first gen 5055 bagged machines such as the one featured over in the Vintage section yesterday and Whispertone (Whimpertone!)series vacs, all the way down to about 35-ish for a modern Progressive canister. Some of that is because Sears now shows the parts for the cord reel in a separate diagram, but that is only ten or twelve more parts (but you can now disassemble their cord reels and replace worn out parts, this folks is real progress). You get the idea. Fewer parts means fewer assembly steps and a much more streamlined logistics train to support the assembly line.
But Vintagerepairer has a valid point. I'm a cost estimator by trade and in general we calculate overhead, "G&A" for general and administrative expense, taxes etc. at around 150% of wages, meaning it is another sum added to wages equal to about 150% of wage cost (include benefit costs in wage calcs, many do not). Then you do a similar calculation for materials. They also have their own overhead, G&A, taxes, etc. Finally you sum those costs and calculate profit and fees (many contracts are performance based, meaning if the contractor comes in under budget or ahead of schedule they can collect extra money called fees, and if they are behind the are sometimes penalized for it contracturally).
That just gets the product out the plant door. Now the shippers, warehouse/logistics company (often the same in this age of "integrated logistics services") all have to pay their own overhead costs, G&A, taxes and the like and make a profit doing so. Same thing with a different cost structure for internet sales.
If that part of the retail chain didn't exist, customers would have to go to the factory door to buy your product. Guess how many you would sell that way? Not many, even if your plant was located in the middle of the US or the middle of Ol' Blighty. Customers also factor in their transportation and time costs into a transaction.
So saying so and so can manufacture a product for x number of pounds is usually highly misleading.
