I know the point is accepting the process of failure, but it reminds me of Edison vs Tesla. Tesla supposedly said "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor."
I think the point about accepting failure here probably gives an incorrect impression.
He had the fundamental idea correct, and the many prototypes (I'm sceptical on the 5000 figure) were working on improving the design, not trying to make it work
the stuff we expect a vacuum to pick up is not homogenous, but rather consists of a huge variety of materials and particle sizes. He found that one set of parameters would work well for certain particles, but not so well on others. Most of the prototypes consisted of tweaking dimensions and recording the resulting effectiveness.
> it took 5,127 prototypes and 15 years to get it right
This works out to 341 prototypes a year. I understand this is based on a true story and it's probably a good vacuum cleaner, but - c'mon, give me a little break here.
(edit)
Worth adding - I was buying a vacuum for myself not long ago and looked at Dyson. Their marketing materials are full of exaggerations, inaccuracies and half-truths. One of their central claims is that their vacuums "do not loose suction". A reasonable question here is what happens when a dust canister fills up? Does it keep sucking dust and ejecting it back into the air? They also claim it is the only cyclonic vacuum (followed by some fine print), and this is simply not true.
All in all, it is really well marketed, but otherwise severly overpriced vacuum of an average manufacturing quality (can't lift certain portable models by their carrying handle, because some seal opens up and, ironically, they loose suction) and it was designed by an interesting person. That's about it.
yeah, not sure about that number either. From memory he spent about 3 years working everyday in his shed perfecting the design. Prototypes were made from cardboard or metal and he kept details records
This is the guy who invented the Sea Truck (which I have vague memories that it was involved in some battle in the middle east), the ballbarrow (a simplitic/obvious invention that no one had come up with previously) and a few other things.
The idea for the vacuum came from the fume extractor which in turn was inspired by a large commercial extraction unit between his (James') home and work.
to adress some of your points (I own a 5 year old Dyson):
- don't lose suction only applies until the canister is full, then well... it's full and needs emptying. Based on my experience, this claim holds true.
- they fineprint after "only cyclonic vacuum" probably says "with no filter" or something. Our's has a hepa filter, but that only needs a wash every few years. Most other cyclonic vacuums I've seen have a filter that requires cleaning.
- build quality on ours is great. Thing is tough as nails and looks like it'll still be going strong in 10 years time
All vacuum cleaners I've owned became completely useless after one or two sessions of cleaning. We now have a Dyson and I don't notice a difference in suction with an empty canister or a 90% full one and don't need to empty it for weeks, it's great.
I would be curious to know if anyone here has had a good experience with Dyson. The marketing woo, high price, and the flimsy, plasticky look of their vacuums has always turned me off.
I happened to need a new vacuum a few months ago, and I asked a professional cleaner friend for her advice (don't laugh - it's a very lucrative business here in Sydney). She said, basically, Nilfisk or Miele, whichever's on sale.
I asked about Dyson since I'd also been at least somewhat impressed by their marketing materials. The response was that while their performance is reasonable in a light use context, they are not at all durable and their use is unheard of in a commercial environment. They also have no commercial products, which is a red flag because while a company's marketing might be able to bamboozle consumers, the professionals are far less impressed with glossy brochures and only concerned with consistent performance, reliability and TCO. Nilfisk and Miele have commercial products.
That was pretty much "case closed" for my decision making process and I bought a Nilfisk. YMMV.
Yeah. I've always taken the same view. Dyson's are not used by comercial cleaners _anywhere_. A big brand for pro cleaners is Henry. You can buy for a £100. The suction is immense, they're super durable, you can get the head into the smallest/lowest spaces and they don't really seem to lose suction that i've noticed, even when the bag is jammed full.
The tested Dyson made last place (from 12 contestants) with mostly average results. It's the most expensive and least effective machine they tested. The biggest disadvantage is the sound level: it was so noisy that it was downgraded.
The grading system in Germany is quite complicated. We have one were 1 = "very good" (this is the classic system of Schulnoten which is used quite often) and one were 0 = "the worst". For more details have a look at Wikipedia:
Nothing but praise for my Dyson. It's a brilliant machine. The negative comments here just don't chime with my experience. How about a comment from the competition?
Hoover's Vice President for Europe, Mike Rutter, said on UK national TV: "I do regret that Hoover as a company did not take the product technology off Dyson; it would have lain on the shelf and not been used".
It was ok, but it wasn't worth the price. Consumer Report suggested something else when I looked....pretty much stating the $400 or so premium (3x the price!) wasn't close to worth it. I agree.
Honestly, if your canister vacuum is losing suction when it starts to fill out, save yourself $400 and empty it out..you'll need to do that anyways.
Every time someone pulls out that tired Edison quote I'm reminded of a response Nikola Tesla gave when he heard it:
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
While not giving up after the first time your idea doesn't work is vital, it's equally important to avoid work when a little theory and math will save you the trouble.
I suspect the "5,127 prototypes" figure covers the entire development cycle to date, including 35 models and a highly successful business -- not 5,127 prototypes in his garden shed before the DC01 went on sale! (That'd be some shed ...)
Lest we forget, these days Dyson has a research, design and development centre with 350 engineers working for him:
I have a house with 36 stairs and landings, most of them carpeted. Much of the rest is wood floor, so I needed a canister vacuum which was light yet high quality, and could handle a variety of attachments with aplomb. Being HEPA would be a benefit.
I came to the realization that Dyson's canisters vacuums are terrible machines. They are (except the microscopic capacity DC26) amazingly heavy -- 20 pounds, have poorly constructed plasticy parts, are poorly maneuverable, are very leaky (this is what passes for HEPA?) and are noisy. Did I mention that the usable ones are unbelievably heavy? Does Dyson not understand what canister vacuums are used for?
I thought: this took 5,127 prototypes to produce?
I eventually bought what I think is generally regarded as the best vacuum in this category: a Miele. (In my case, a Neptune with additional Parquet attachment). Exceptionally quiet, only 11 pounds, entirely sealed with high quality filtration, durable, very powerful, and maneuverable. A very well thought out, obviously German machine. The difference between the two is very much like a BMW versus a Pontiac Sunbird. The BMW is obviously a more refined machine, but the Sunbird is the flashiest thing you'll find at Best Buy.
The best answer is not a better vacuum you lug around. Rather, install a whole-house vacuum. It will cost as much as a few decent vacuums, but will also last as long as a few of them. More importantly, it will eject all the air (laden with all manner of things you'd prefer not to breathe) outside.
Well, a whole-house vacuum's not an option here. But as it turns out I installed a whole-house vacuum for my parents while helping to build their house. And we basically never used it, for two reasons. First, we didn't find its cleaning capabilities as good as a standard vacuum. And second, one should not underestimate the inconvenience and weight of long hoses.
I have a Dyson - and after some years I think it's only a hype product. I couldn't realize for a long time I've fallen for a 90% marketing, 10% product thing. My next vacuum will not be a Dyson.
My mom's Royal has been working for 20+ years without losing suction, although it's heavy as shit because it's all metal. She bought it when she worked at a sewing and vacuum place.
My friend got a used kirby for $350 that kicks any dyson's ass all over the place.
> My friend got a used kirby for $350 that kicks any dyson's ass all over the place.
As long as you never have to carry it up or down stairs. Or need to replace the bag. Or use cleaning attachments. Or disassemble to remove something stuck in the works.
Granted, Kirbys are built like tanks, but I'll choose my Dyson DC14 any day.
I've always thought Dyson make terrible _products_. The innards of a Dyson vacuum cleaner are no doubt ingenious, but the early models all weighed a ton and were incredibly difficult to lug around the house and actually clean stuff.
Same with the AirBlade. Clever idea, but it doesn't dry your hands, and the blast of air knocks your hands into the sides, negating all the claims of better hygiene.
I'm sure the Dyson process involves tons of prototypes, but I don't for a second believe they actually spend much time looking at people _using_ the damn things.
I agree that they work really well, the problem is they are disgusting looking after a year or so. They collect water in the bottom, the paint chips, and the yellow piece of rubber often have mildew. The XLERATOR dryers are just a quick, and all the water is blown on the floor which makes more sense.
er, yeah, this was late 70's. Don't think using flow modelling software was a viable proposition (this is one guy, living off savings, working in his shed)
