We suck? No, James Dyson. It is you who suck – Bosch and Siemens Bosch and Siemens are taking legal steps "in Great Britain" against Dyson over what it terms the "false allegations" made by the British manufacturer that the German companies had cheated in vacuum-cleaner energy efficiency tests in "behaviour ... akin to that seen in the Volkswagen scandal". BSH Hausgeräte, the German parent …
"Surely to gain any meaningful conclusion you need to perform the same identical test with all the models concerned."
I don't think so. Dyson (the man) said that Bosch (the company) made that particular Bosch (the vacuum) and it uses a lot more power than it is rated at. Bosch (the company) said it doesn't. This can be tested without checking whether a Dyson (the vacuum) also does.
Maybe not as much as you might think.
Remember, The American Tobacco Institute for years did not lie that they passed certain tests with regard to tar levels in cigarettes. The lie was that the bits that caused differentiation in the tests would also cause differentiation when used by actual smokers. The reduced tar levels were primarily attributable to little holes in the paper on the filter which functioned properly in tests, but which smokers cover with their lips when smoking.
@Roland6 - Apparantly not.
The only published "data" other than weight, price and whether it's bagless is a 'star' rating for each of
* Carpet/floorboards/laminate - Refers to how well the vacuum cleaner picks up and retains dust from these surfaces
* Allergen retention - Refers to how well the filter retains small particles of dust and pet allergens
* Pet hair - Refers to how quickly the vacuum cleaner collects pet hair
* Noise - The more stars the quieter the vacuum cleaner is
* Ease of use - Refers to how easy the vacuum cleaner is to use on stairs, manoeuvre on carpet and wooden floors, empty or change bags and store away
* Brand Reliability
They don't even list the manufacturers published power data.
I suspect that tests are standardized and somewhat more rigorous than just "vacuum something".
That said, there is an obvious incentive for manufacturers to fiddle the numbers to get a better rating and either the test regime needs to change to stop them doing it, and/or trading standards should audit manufacturers by taking production models and independently testing them.
Any significant discrepancy should trigger a further test and if that fails, a full refund / recall at the manufacturer's expense to change their rating information.
"I suspect that tests are standardized and somewhat more rigorous than just "vacuum something"."
Indeed, they are actually less rigorous than "vacuum something". As Regs passim have mentioned, the test is specifically to vacuum something already clean. These vacuums have a special 'don't suck much if you are vacuuming something clean' mode, which means that their average power draw over cleaning a non-clean floor will be substantially higher than their rating. You might think the mode is a good energy-saving idea, and it is, but you then cannot reasonably say it uses energy at that lower rating when it only does that if you are cleaning something that is already clean.
>This is easy to check: buy one, plug it in, vacuum something, check power draw.
Not quite that simple: Bosch happily say that the power draw of their machine increases as its bag fills up. However, the Energy-Rating tests don't test that thoroughly, so are misleading. The issue is with the tests, not with Bosch.
Dyson has probably has the best facilities for testing vacuum cleaners - his competitors' products as well as his own prototypes - so I suspect he is correct about the Bosch product.
However, there is a difference to saying that energy-rating tests are flawed, and saying that your competitor is deceiving people.
The comparison was with VW.
VW cars also passed the tests so the situation is actually quite similar. Just replace the following [COMPANY X] with the respective company name and you will see that the following statement could apply to either situation (if' this allegation is correct).
"[COMPANY X] designed a product which used technology to pass official tests/standards designed to calculate its environmental impact. However its actual performance in 'normal' use was/is much higher."
Bosch does however differ in that you can 'use' the product (if you have little or no dust and keep the bag empty) whilst it is stated that the VW cars would struggle to pass in any real world situation. It all depends if having little dust is a real world situation for most users and how much more power it actually uses if it is an exact match or similar.
If it is all ok then Dyson will be clear to implement their own chip which changes the consumption during tests (sorry based on dust levels) which may defeat the entire point of the tests but will be the same for all but I imagine at this point the goal posts will mysteriously move again.
As the point of the EU regs is to reduce the amount of power that these things use in a sort of half-arsed effort to green things up a bit, then in the spirit of the regs, the cleaner should max power at the EU limit.
Should all be fairly moot anyway, as the cleaners in question are all being superseded by next gen devices where people have applied clean sheet ideas.
The robot vacuums are tested comparatively by magazines and in test standards by dumping a known weight of dirt into a test area and checking to see how much of it gets picked up during a cleaning cycle. That ought to be a standard test, regardless of suction power. Suck as much as you like provided you get all the dust up.
Let me fix that for you:
Buy one, plug it in, run it under the conditions stipulated by the EU testing which dictate the claims that the manufacturer is permitted to make.
The fact that the conditions under the mandated test do not reflect real-world use is not Bosch's fault. For that you need to look to the EU suits.
He has basicly gone from long quiet rants about how his concept is more aesthetically pleasing from an engenering point of view to just yelling at the competition.
My problem with his asthetic argument was even if the filters on his compeditors do clog, the price difference is so great you could probably replace the filter with new ones dozens to hundreds of times before the price would balance.
Well, finally we have a lab for measuring differential craptasmal intensity, and power draw for cleaning it up, across some western EU members. Courts aren't usually this fun, and for once the argument won't be at all for the hearing.
If you like that, how about wet-dry vacs for use on Mars. Quite inexpensive as those things go if you buy locally.
Yeah, it was by listening to a Dysonophile like you I was persuaded to buy the one I have.
Piece of expensive junk. No loss of suction, but use it in a real house to clean anything other than spilled cat litter and you'll see it lose the ability to pick up dirt soon enough. The add showing someone "cleaning" pet hair off a chair has me in stitches every time. They never show the bit where you have to strip down the beater to unclog the roller. And how about trying to empty the cylinder once hair is in the thing? Christ, I wish the bloody thing used bags. I used to be able to empty the old cleaner without getting filthy.
Making everything out of plastic is another "good" decision too. Just cost me $50 to replace a part that should have been made of steel or aluminum. But it looked good. On paper.
I've never understood this sentiment and yet it's common amonst Dyson owners. Why would you replace something that fails prematurely with another? Vacuum cleaners shouldn't die every few years (cracked hoses seem to be common on Dysons). My grandmother's Electrolux outlived her, is older than I am (i.e. more than 40 years) and you can still get spare parts.
Objectively on Dyson upright DC cleaners.
In upright mode they are bloody brilliant on domestic carpet and quite good on hard floors.
Using the hose and wand attachments it is shite, the hose is awkward and the cleaner falls over too easily. The bagless and filterless idea is a godsend.
Customer service is first class. Robustness and durability on the two that I have owned has been good.
Would I buy another? Actually no, I'm interested in one of the cordless ones now available.
Fascinating 'debate'.
I've got a few Dyson cleaners. The main complaint? They are heavy but great. Never had one break, bar a power switch issue on a DC01 that was easily fixed.
However the battery powered one is excellent. The only change I'd make would be a two step trigger, as the suction on the first level (before it kicks into 'high gear') is more than enough, & it would save on battery.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
