|
Thread Number: 43520
/ Tag: Recent Vacuum Cleaners from past 20 years
Shark Vacuum Fascination |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 454458 7/5/2022 at 19:05 (653 days old) by wstonehockertv (North Carolina) | ||
|
What appears to be the fascination behind Shark vacuums? | ||
| Post# 454463 , Reply# 1 7/5/2022 at 20:15 (653 days old) by panasonicvac (Northern Utah) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 454464 , Reply# 2 7/5/2022 at 21:49 (653 days old) by huskyvacs (Gnaw Bone, Indiana) | ||
You mean with the general public or among collectors?
I don't mind them. Some of them look cool, some work really well. They are always trying new ideas - for better or for worse. If you can get them for less than $50 you got a great deal. The downsides is they work for about 3 months before the suction plummets for no reason at all, and they cost way too much, and you have to source parts from China to fix them because the company can't be bothered to provide parts. | ||
| Post# 454469 , Reply# 3 7/5/2022 at 22:27 (653 days old) by fan-of-fans (USA) | ||
I've used one or two at work to clean my desk and in the corners and such. I thought it was a pretty good machine, it was definitely one of the better uprights at above floor cleaning, and this was without even taking the canister off the base. Noise level and controls seemed fine, it was pretty quiet.
The main drawback in my opinion was the incredibly narrow floor nozzle. It just seemed it would take far too long to vacuum a large area. And of course being a bagless vacuum, messy to empty. I did not clean the filters so can't comment on that. I did recently see a Shark Rotator in the trash and picked it up to play around with. Mainly because I've always wanted one to mess with, but wasn't interested in actually buying one. And it's rare to see Sharks here in the trash, so I figured why not, it's free, if it doesn't work, I can throw it out. | ||
| Post# 454498 , Reply# 4 7/6/2022 at 15:39 (652 days old) by dysonman1 (the county) | ||
The constant stream of people bringing in a Shark to be repaired says a lot about their popularity with consumers. Their plastic brush bristles wear off quickly and their motors are running in dirt. The hepa filter is always clogged with dust and the motors scream because the bearings are dry. They want me to 'fix it'. Give me a sledgehammer and I will. The lack of repair parts means I can only fix about half of what comes in - compare that to the fact I can fix all the Kirbys that come in, 50% ability to repair is horrible.
I only sell repairable vacuums, but I never see them for repair. I had to turn away three Sharks today because their repair involved parts we simply cannot get. | ||
| Post# 454507 , Reply# 5 7/6/2022 at 17:51 (652 days old) by wstonehockertv (North Carolina) | ||
|
Considering that the Euro-Pro era Sharks were also problematic, I'm not surprised to know that the newer ones are still problematic. | ||
| Post# 454524 , Reply# 7 7/7/2022 at 01:03 (652 days old) by MadMan (Chicago, IL, USA) | ||
I have two Sharks, and like them quite a bit. Down to ergonomics, I would say. Just good design and ease of use. Not that I'm saying all Sharks are like this, I detest the Rotator. Big chunky thing, for no reason. And I know little of newer stick-vac type models.
Granted, I didn't pay a dime for either one. Both trash picks. I've trash picked a couple of Hoovers, Bissels, and the like, and I don't like them. If I ever find another Shark... I'm sure it would put a smile on my face. How about that? | ||
| Post# 454622 , Reply# 10 7/9/2022 at 22:18 (649 days old) by MadMan (Chicago, IL, USA) | ||
|
luxlife - That's everything nowadays, isn't it? I mean, aside from Kirby that hangs on to a product model for 20+ years... Bissel, Hoover, Dyson, etc. all pretty much do the same thing. Look how shiny this new model is! New bells and whistles! It's like cell phones. They change the shape and look and even the software of the new model... but realistically, the hardware underneath is the same. They haven't *actually* advanced the technology, but they changed their product just enough to call it "new" and to be incompatible with any parts from the previous model.
And let's be fair here. A product like a vacuum cleaner is now a disposable appliance. Whether that is because of planned obsolescence, or consumer abuse, doesn't really matter here. If the average person buys a new vacuum every year or two, they don't want to buy the exact same model. They want the "new and improved" model. The vacuum companies know this. | ||
| Post# 454638 , Reply# 11 7/10/2022 at 08:06 (649 days old) by wstonehockertv (North Carolina) | ||
|
You know madman, you might have a good point. | ||
| Post# 454686 , Reply# 13 7/11/2022 at 03:07 (648 days old) by MadMan (Chicago, IL, USA) | ||
|
| ||
Post# 454691 , Reply# 14 7/11/2022 at 06:39 (648 days old) by luxlife  (Under a Pecan Tree) |
||
|
This post has been removed by the member who posted it. | ||
| Post# 454943 , Reply# 15 7/17/2022 at 14:02 (642 days old) by FanOfVacuums2 (Williamsburg, VA) | ||
People like them because they sell nice looking products with features that are appealing to customers. Putting all personal opinion aside, features such as powered lift-away mode, the DuoClean heads, quick draw wands, anti-wrap technology, sealed systems, bagless bins, odor reduction, and so forth are all attractive features that Shark vacuum cleaners have among other features. I may be alone here on Vacuumland, but a lot of their more expensive vacuum cleaners are not awful to use and have features that I personally find to be useful, some of which are unique to Sharks. Not all of them are that nice to use, but some of them are not horrible.
With that said, they do get a reputation in the service industry because they have a few select problems; examples being the hoses ripping, the microswitches failing, the brush rolls failing (mainly the DuoClean ones), the cyclones being poor, and so forth. I agree with MadMan, though. These are not necessarily things that they need to fix, because a good chunk of their customer base keeps their vacuum cleaner purchases on a rotation anyway. Why dump money into revising the current designs and upping the build quality when that money can go to designing and releasing a slightly different and well-marketed new model that people will jump on buying? Plus, their reputation among the average consumer is fantastic, so they have that brand recognition and are a trusted name. Some people also seem to have a fascination with hating Shark. They are not good vacuum cleaners for the "buy it for life" crowd, but I do not think they are trying to appeal to people who want to keep their vacuum cleaner for decades. Some people exaggerate the lifespan of a Shark and say that they normally last six months to a year, but a more realistic lifespan that I have found is usually two years to five or six years, although I have seen people make them last longer. The main thing that kills them is definitely the hoses, though. Like anything, it usually comes down to if they want to fix it or buy a new one, and customers often opt for the new one. I have noticed that certain Shark models tend to be tougher than others, too. Some of the more mid-range models they sell without the fancy heads, but with longer hoses tend to outlast the more basic ones and more complex ones, in my experience at least. Those are just my thoughts. | ||
| Post# 454950 , Reply# 17 7/17/2022 at 17:57 (641 days old) by Hoover300 (Kentucky) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 454951 , Reply# 18 7/17/2022 at 18:08 (641 days old) by wstonehockertv (North Carolina) | ||
|
I feel their commercials do not please anybody. For them to say that Dyson was the first cyclonic machine, they're wrong. | ||
| Post# 454973 , Reply# 19 7/18/2022 at 12:56 (641 days old) by huskyvacs (Gnaw Bone, Indiana) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 455010 , Reply# 20 7/19/2022 at 19:47 (639 days old) by MadMan (Chicago, IL, USA) | ||
|
| ||
| Forum Index: | 
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
