Deconstructed Dyson DC65

While I agree a circuit board shouldn't be necessary for a task as simple as cleaning a carpet, Dyson aren't the only ones guilty of it. Even the well-respected brands, who many feel can do no wrong, are using them. Filter Queen has one under the dome, which initially came as a surprise to me given how simple in construction it is (so simple in fact, I feel they have a lot of nerve charging that much money for what is basically little more than a bucket with a motor on top). Kirby has one too, for the headlamp of all things, and if that isn't needlessly complex when a basic bulb would achieve exactly the same result, I don't know what is. Virtually every vacuum with variable power control uses a circuit board now, likewise any model that uses a cogged belt and has stall protection.

So in that respect, Dyson isn't doing anything unusual. My beef with them lies in the photo at the very top of this thread. WAY too many parts, most of which are fiddly little pieces of plastic. Not good for something that will be rammed into furniture and walls for most of its life. Older models were far simpler in their construction with significantly fewer parts, but since the ball models debuted they have taken things to the opposite extreme. Other companies merely "design" and "make" vacuums, but that simply will not do for Dyson. They have to "engineer" theirs and cram it full of "technology", because that's what most of their marketing spiel is centred on.

All this is key to breaking the �400 price ceiling, and heading towards �500 in the not too distant future. And, of course, dissuading third party repairers from servicing and refurbishing their cleaners. The original DC01 first appeared some 20 years ago and even now there are a fair number still in regular use, because keeping them running was the bread and butter of many an independent vac shop for a long time. Dyson learned a lesson there, and are not about to allow a repeat performance.


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Post# 278637 4/29/2014 at 11:14 (3,648 days old) by stricklybojack (Southern California)
Checkrate/Likes 1 Gizmodo likes writing about Dyson's for some reason. Posted for the fans of out there in Vacuum land. CLICK HERE TO GO TO stricklybojack's LINK

Post# 278638 , Reply# 1 4/29/2014 at 13:10 (3,648 days old) by oliveoiltinfoil (England, UK)
Checkrate/Likes Needlessly complicated are Dysons, for not that great of machine, although the DC65 is rumoured to be the best they have ever built, not too sure as you cant get them in the UK.

Post# 278639 , Reply# 2 4/29/2014 at 13:12 (3,648 days old) by beko1987 (Stokenchurch, United Kingdom)
Checkrate/Likes When their a tenner because their dead I'll get one and try to recreate that picture!

Post# 278640 , Reply# 3 4/29/2014 at 13:13 (3,648 days old) by beko1987 (Stokenchurch, United Kingdom)
Checkrate/Likes Ah just seen the but about not available in the uk

Post# 278654 , Reply# 4 4/29/2014 at 15:02 (3,648 days old) by parwaz786 ( )
Checkrate/Likes But you can try it on a DC41 Sam! :P

Post# 278674 , Reply# 5 4/29/2014 at 18:11 (3,648 days old) by hi-loswitch98 ()
Checkrate/Likes 1 Well someones gonna have a nice time putting all of that back together.

Post# 278682 , Reply# 6 4/29/2014 at 18:49 (3,648 days old) by super-sweeper (KSSRC Refurbishment Center)
Checkrate/Likes 1 *what a complex, overpriced,* 4,942 screw plastivac, you could replace the carbon brushes in a HOOVER Convertible in just 4 screws! Do we really need all these circuit boards and screws to clean a rug? No! 4,942 screws later, the HOOVER is leaving the Dyson in it's dust (The Dyson, not the Hoover's). If only modern people would rather have cleaner carpets than showing off their newest plastic status-symbol to neighbors! -end typical Hoover vs Dyson rant

Post# 278719 , Reply# 7 4/30/2014 at 02:05 (3,648 days old) by parwaz786 ( )
Checkrate/Likes A Dyson DC01 has a total of 15 screws. a DC02 has 4. A DC07 Non clutched has 11. That DC65 seems to have 35+!!!!!!!!!

Post# 278724 , Reply# 8 4/30/2014 at 03:32 (3,648 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)
Checkrate/Likes Deconstructed? How to invalidate your warranty!

Post# 278739 , Reply# 10 4/30/2014 at 11:05 (3,647 days old) by gottahaveahoove (Pittston, Pennsylvania, 18640)
Checkrate/Likes 2 *Not bashing here........................but...........* Mr. Dick Pike (retired HOOVER exec) told me that when "Elite" cam out, HOOVER couldn't make them fast enough. ONE major reason the were popular was because there were so many FEWER parts than our beloved Convertible. I was told that Convertible was never SUPPOSED to phase out, it just happened.Bbecause of the fewer parts, the Elite was so much faster and less expensive to build.

Post# 278771 , Reply# 11 4/30/2014 at 16:45 (3,647 days old) by madaboutsebo (Midlands, UK)
Checkrate/Likes Just a few parts then! Becoming far to over engineered for what it needs to be. More to go wrong! I thought Sir James Dyson liked 'less is more' philosophy, certainly not on the DC65!

Post# 278774 , Reply# 12 4/30/2014 at 17:34 (3,647 days old) by spiraclean (UK)
Checkrate/Likes Exactly. James Dyson did say in his autobiography (a mildly interesting read for what it is, provided you are given a copy for free and keep a sceptical mind in places) that he eschewed gadgets such as height adjustment knobs and so on because they made the cleaner more complicated, and provided more opportunity for parts to fail. Fast forward twenty years, and JD has stuck to his word and not fitted a height adjustment knob to his cleaner. Thing is, I'm really not sure a flimsy plastic soleplate, rubber concertina bellows and a brush roller driven by a notoriously unreliable little motor is that much of an improvement over the old-fashioned way of doing things. A stepped cam to change the position of the wheels, and a rubber belt between the motor shaft and brush, would achieve exactly the same thing Dyson is aiming for. Wouldn't make for a very exciting TV ad though, nor would it be good gadget blog fodder.

Post# 278732 , Reply# 9 4/30/2014 at 08:58 (3,647 days old) by spiraclean (UK)
Checkrate/Likes While I agree a circuit board shouldn't be necessary for a task as simple as cleaning a carpet, Dyson aren't the only ones guilty of it. Even the well-respected brands, who many feel can do no wrong, are using them. Filter Queen has one under the dome, which initially came as a surprise to me given how simple in construction it is (so simple in fact, I feel they have a lot of nerve charging that much money for what is basically little more than a bucket with a motor on top). Kirby has one too, for the headlamp of all things, and if that isn't needlessly complex when a basic bulb would achieve exactly the same result, I don't know what is. Virtually every vacuum with variable power control uses a circuit board now, likewise any model that uses a cogged belt and has stall protection. So in that respect, Dyson isn't doing anything unusual. My beef with them lies in the photo at the very top of this thread. WAY too many parts, most of which are fiddly little pieces of plastic. Not good for something that will be rammed into furniture and walls for most of its life. Older models were far simpler in their construction with significantly fewer parts, but since the ball models debuted they have taken things to the opposite extreme. Other companies merely "design" and "make" vacuums, but that simply will not do for Dyson. They have to "engineer" theirs and cram it full of "technology", because that's what most of their marketing spiel is centred on. All this is key to breaking the �400 price ceiling, and heading towards �500 in the not too distant future. And, of course, dissuading third party repairers from servicing and refurbishing their cleaners. The original DC01 first appeared some 20 years ago and even now there are a fair number still in regular use, because keeping them running was the bread and butter of many an independent vac shop for a long time. Dyson learned a lesson there, and are not about to allow a repeat performance.