You highlight the key problem. That they simply didn't know how washing machines were traditionally made. Sometimes that's a good thing.....it allows you to disrupt a market by thinking outside of the box....but it can also be a bad thing that causes you to make mistakes by not understanding fundamentals. There are certain products and industries where not knowing how something has traditionally been made can be disastrous. Also, I think the main reason (from a practical standpoint ) was that the Dyson washing machine was just too damn expensive given the amount of repairs they constantly needed. It doesn't matter how good a product is if it's too expensive and isn't reliable in terms of not breaking down. Being innovative isn't by itself enough to make a product successful. People also need to be able to afford said product and know they don't have to worry about it not working. A 66% failure rate is simply not acceptable. And in order to produce a washing machine that won't break down so much you need to understand the fundamentals and how they are traditionally made. The same would apply to cars. Complex machines with many working parts cannot simply be designed and made from the ground up without a strong understanding of how it's done. That's a large part of why Dyson failed to develop their EV. They tried to do it from the ground up by themselves without a deep knowledge of how cars have been made (and the reasons why). They should have rather partnered with a car company.
My friend had a Dyson washing machine literally took 4 years to pay off back then I was only like 17/18 it’s replaced a 90s hotpoint first edition machine. Witch cost around £300 £330 in the mid 90s my dad had the same one too. Like you said was brilliant (when it worked) washed so well was so weird but cool watching it never seen a machine like it then or since… But she had to get extended warranty out on it after only two years! Because the drum would get stuck lots of different error codes and leaks and other problems every 5 to 6 months the guy would come out and fix it like you said (she knew him well in the end) 😂🙈 After 5 and half years she threw it out as the gear box broke ⚙️ and got replaced with a newer hotpoint first edition washing machine witch lasted 8 years before the drum went and only had a new seal and pump in all that time with 3 kids. You could see she was a bit annoyed by the whole thing as when it worked it was brilliant and I couldn’t agree more white socks would come out so clean not even my 2020 lg direct drive can get them that clean in just under a hour and a half on 60c cotton wash and it’s a very good machine so was the one I had before the lg intello washer 7kg witch come out around the same time as my mates Dyson back 20 years ago and lasted 7 years…. I had compensation for my arm when I was 18 and paid £420 for it was my first brand new machine I had ever bought for myself so I considered that high price back then. I told her I liked it but was to expensive and I couldn’t get credit as I was just starting out on my own with my first flat. Just goes to show sometimes the more expensive ultra modern things ain’t always the better option….
The bad thing is that their washing machines used materials that were not suitable for long-term contact with the washing water and moisture. Aluminum, which the spider is made of, is attacked by alkaline media, such as washing water. In addition, the aluminum parts were in contact with the stainless steel drums. In damp and wet conditions this creates a galvanic element. Electrical and chemical corrosion therefore prevailed. My humble opinion as a chemical technician.
We might as well go back to the days of wringer washers. Can use the same water to wash several loads (as long as clothes aren’t heavily soiled), and wash times are usually 3 to 5 minutes with the aggressive agitation they have.
Incorrect. the biggest problem with washing machines these days is Americans thinking that an astmatic old lazy-spinning trash-loader that makes 70 gallons of murky laundry soup is an effective way to clean clothes. More concentrated detergent just cleans better, that's the honest truth. The problem is, only one type of machine can effectively agitate clothes in a concentrated detergent solution without excessive water - and Americans are convinced that they suck, even though no *actually developed* country on the planet has any issue with them at all. 😂
Dysons genius was/is repackaging not invention . He managed to repackage the cyclone filter idea into a vacuum cleaner and then make it look like something that landed from outer space . Performance is ok but not the best and has some poor design details.
I wouldnt say that Dyson are a cautious company if they spend that much on the electric car. Many people also lost their jobs due to them deciding not to go ahead with it. Their vacuum cleaners are not known to be robust, though the cordless V15 is quite a nice machine. No loss of suction wasn't true either as tho filters clog. They get hughe government grants for having design engineers here in the UK, if it wasn't for the grant, that would be moved to Asia as well. Not too pleased they outsourced their Contact Centre to South Africa from the UK.
James Dyson and his company are amazing marketing tools for the British government showing off the sheer might and superiority of British engineering! (Said in a sarcastic colonial British accent) hence the grants and having Boris’s direct number on speed dial! I also totally agree they could have kept the manufacturing in the UK. But bottom line, they do make amazing products.
@@BehindDesigns also for french and Swiss customers the support is in Tunisia. Had 42 different custom reps for a simple refund (they couldn’t deliver my product and then took 5 months to repay me 879EUR… v15 extra)
Dyson is anyway much overpriced and not longer lasting as other brands! i never will buy a Dyson product. this ridiculous looking (toy)washing machine is the proof that dyson is not beter. They should leave it to the manufactures who know something about washing machines for many years !!
I've known about the Dyson washing machine for some time but never really seen a video with much information or really even acknowledging it, so thanks for making this!
An interesting video and an awful lot of negativity in the comments. Let me try and add some balance. We bought a CR01 when it first came out and it lasted until August 2019 when we replaced it with a top of the range Sasmsung Ecobuble after the Dyson drum decided to split! I’m sitting here waiting for the engineer to arrive in the morning to repair (hopefully) a 4 year-old Samsung in which part of the wiring loom has melted!! We had problems with the Dyson but not like any listed here. The biggest problem for us was the plastic used to make the soap dispenser tray and the door handle was really brittle and we had the tray replaced twice and the handle 3 times - I was reminded of this when I was looking for the Samsung receipt in the utility room and found a copy of the instructions for replacing the Dyson door handle - it wasn’t easy to replace as it required juggling with a spring and two catches at the same time. I don’t consider a lifespan of 18 years and a total maintenance cost of something less than £50 a bad investment. Would we buy on again - of course. Would we buy the £950 Samsung again - I guess we’ll know after the Samsung engineer gives us the good/bad news.
I would much rather have a Miele than a Dyson any time. Dyson are extremely expensive and for what they are now (With regarding build quality and longevity) I feel like there not worth the money in my humble opinion. The products are inferior to what they used to be and are not well made now.
It was a failure because it also tore up the laundry. Granted, this happened when people loaded the machine to max capacity (not necessarily overloaded) and your clothes came out stripped to ribbons. The surviving machines these days have severe corrosion on the drum's spider... Leading to an "explosively" fun time for the household.
You are spot on. I still have my machine.. And yes the engineer came came and stopped the contra rotation.. I was not happy as that was the main reason I bought it.. I wud love to be compensated for it.. Wonder if I can
@@BehindDesigns Just last night cos the door wud not click shut I have not been able to wash clothes.. I have had to turn into a washing machine engineer since having this...
Apparently, it is, or was possible to re-enable contra-rotation on many machine, since it was mostly done with just a firmware update. They only replaced the gearing system with a fixed drive if it was broken. The programmers neglected to enable the copy protection bit on several versions of the firmware, so someone was able to dump firmware from both board versions off still fully working machines, and used to offer a flashing service for a fee.
That Dyson didn't/ aren't/won't bring prototypes of radically different technologies to potential future customers to give the new product a good kicking around is a wonderful way to learn lessons without blowing the company wad and reputation. That's pretty basic stuff in product development. I get and admire the company for starting with a clean sheet of paper when they tackle a perceived need, but in trying to be completly encumbered with the original technology, they dismiss what made the old design useful for whatever amount of time. The only problem I have with the technology of my clothes washer, is it taking an hour to get the job done. Not wasteful water--there is a very small used in Energy Star appliances--nor electricity. I've never understood people's obsession with cleaner clothes. If they are so concerned, they might try using smaller loads and the auto-water setting on the appliance with high-efficiency detergent. Taking a little more time and pre-washing using undiluted detergent that one would work into stains and perspiration rings is a trick we have all forgotten, but it does a marvelous job. Elon Musk, a man I thoroughly loathe, but a hell of a smart guy sets an example that I hope the Dyson Company takes note of. He came up with the hardest thing about the most important part of his automobile. He found as many uses as he could for it. It would be a key cost reducer and give his company the nimbleness that it was going to need to jump in this crazy industry he was diving into with full force and to keep the momentum up with astounding new products dropping like cluster bombs. Dyson is not interested in being a market leader, but having important bits, like a motor perhaps*, or whatever the tech could be hung on another product to realize the goals that Dyson might have. *I'm part of the marketing team, and haven't a clue what the "important bits" to anything, other than if they are shiny and whirl. I can always make those qualities the center of everything without troubling the individual with the annoying physics). I'm the Hazel the Housekeeper in my world, so I look at appliances the same way a mechanic looks at a tool. I'm pretty sure my machine is another iteration of the HE (high efficiency) machines first designed in the 1990s somewhere. And They were modifications in an older design from around the mid-1960s. And so on. There was nothing wrong with any of these designs other than modifying as nessisary for market or government changes. It is, bless its head, a Electromechanical Device. If we could snitch Star Trek's Transporter for a joy ride and haul my Whirlpool back to 1940, the mechanic back then would be able to look at it and figure out the tech pretty quick. Will my fancy-pants stripped down Whirlpool do a better or worse job than handmaid cleaning my clothes by hand? I dunno. I've never considered it before. Have you? 😁🙄😆
The main obstacle back then was price, people were not nearly as tech savvy as today, and the dyson vacuum in the early 2000s was still a niche product only few had. Now everyone knows how good dyson products *can* be. If they made the washing machine work, they could charge today basically any price, and use that money to bankroll their car project. They’re really missing a trick. Candy solved the machine expense problem by doing a subscription, you basically rent the washing machine and get sent detergents specifically for it in the wash pass program. Dyson could do something like that it gets over the hurdle of cost of goods, and produces constantly recurring revenue which is consistent which they can use as leverage for finance for car development and production
I feel like they shouldn’t have given up considering that the contra rotation system was actually successful. They probably just needed to try to improvise the way every other washing machine is made. They also just needed to figure out a way to make the washer less complex or if that would be impossible, then just charge more.
I read a lot of people saying that however, I had one growing up and didn’t experience it ever ripping or destroying clothes, so didn’t include that in the video. Maybe the one I had was a unicorn!
I think the failure lies in styling the machine as a typical front loader. Top loader with sideways drums would have solved the leak problems and reduced complexity. Perhaps working with ASKO at the time would have resulted in a changed perception of the best washing machine.
Top loaders in of themselves wash better than front loaders, given that you have the space to have one. An old top loader can agitate back and forth and pull the clothes into the center spiral while doing so.
@@BrianGon89 the key word is old there. And what if you can't find one of those or just want something more modern. Unless you had one with good wash action a front loader will always be better and by that i means a no frills basic one will still beat out any top loader
I always thought that the contra roting drums would wear out the clothes & almost certainly the machine needed an overload cut out in case of overloading whereas a traditional front loader doesn't (if overloaded the clothes go around as a solid mass and motor load is reduced). So I didnt' consider buying one for long.
I remember seeing them in the stores, they stuck out like a sore thumb because of their odd styling and colour schemes, and would usually be positioned on its own near the entrance. I also remember thinking that they would look out of place in most kitchens, and plasticky, also that they looked a bit oversize, although I gather that they were the normal width and maybe just stuck out a bit. Presumably, Dyson must have been paying the stores to have a prime spot to display them in. Having them on their own, well away from the lines of washing machines struck me as rather odd at the time, but I guess their prime market was existing loyal Dyson vacuum fans, not regular shoppers out to buy a new washer. I think they would have been better off doing what Hotpoint did in the 80's to make their X2000 Microtronic stand out from all the regular machines with mechanical timers, and put it on a plinth in the middle of the line of other machines. The very expensive price was enough to put me off, you could even buy a premium quality Miele for less, but I also wasn't impressed by all the plastic, particularly plastic doors and plastic hinges, didn't like the style or colour scheme, and I'd seen the contra-rotation concept demonstrated on TV, possibly Tomorrow's World, and wondered if it might catch and damage clothes, and didn't think the added complication was worth it when my regular machine did a really decent job. I also thought it an oversight not to have a matching style tumble dryer, even a 100% conventional one made for them out of house. It was an interesting concept, the pirouetting washing was a cute party trick, but should have not progressed past a prototype, or at least not without coming up with a significant redesign to make it simpler, cheaper and more reliable.
I used to sell these. Can't remember ever having to replace one, but we only ever managed to shift a few. At that time you could buy a competent, low-end washing machine for under £130, so the price was just too much for most buyers. The thing weighed double (or more) the weight of a normal washer (and don't forget that it was common for a washing machine to be full of concrete ballast in 2001) and had a little pulley on the bottom that caused wheels to be lowered from its underside - just so you could drag it out from under a countertop. The biggest complaint we used to get though was the colour, though I believe that they toned the appearance back a little in later years.
This is an incredible video with stunning visuals! I genuinely thought you had downloaded Dysons assets. Then I saw the bit with the leaks on the floor and realised you had made them all yourself. Wow!
Cheers! Yeah all hand built assets! One viewer messaged me and asked for the washing machine model for a game he was making! Make sure you keep tuned in for my next video I’ve taken the rendering to a whole new level!
The vortex system isn't complex compared to the washing machine. It is based on manipulation of the inherent physical properties as opposed to mechanical manipulation of a contraflow system.
Thanks for the comment, I’m still trying to work out the YT algorithm but hopefully if I keep concentrating on making the best videos possible the views will come!
The word is PER-FORMING. Not “preforming” it’s “performing”. And the dyson car is a ridiculous idea like the Google or apple car. No one wants a dyson branded car how embarrassing. Huge ick actually. Companies need to stay in their lane.
This video is full of speculation that has no corresponding convincing evidence. It also ignores that they produced the CR02 in multiple variants, which is at odds with the clickbait title. I've seen no reason to believe the product line was discontinued for any reason other than profitability, preventing ever improving versions like with every one of their other product lines. The claims quantifying alleged reliability are not evidenced and no detail of the nature of machine failures is presented or contrasted with other machines on the market at the time. A simple fact-check from peer-reviewed studies published in 2019 reveals 1 in 3 washing machines on the market typically fail from multiple failure modes (electronics, shock absorbers and bearings, doors, carbon brushes and pumps). So, while there was some accurate history presented, which was interesting, I found this video somewhat misleading overall that paints a distorted and speculative view.
Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate you dissecting the video in such a thorough way. However if I might put forward my rebuttal to some of your comments. I grew up in a household with a CR01 washing machine. You say speculation but this is effectively eye witness testimony! Something that I should have probably referenced in the video, I witnessed the machine fail over and over and we indeed did have our engineer on speed dial… this is also echoed in every article and blog post you find relating to the CR line of Dyson products. You mention a paper that says 1 in 3 machines fail - well 2 out of 3 Dyson machines failed, and that’s one brand not all washing machines on the market so it’s not a comparable number and just goes to highlight how unreliable their machines were! Whatever way you look at it, Dyson stopped production due to profitability. Dyson say they made it too complicated and charged too little hence no profit. I’m saying it was too complicated and therefore massively un-reliable hence no profit… their competitors also confirmed this (not that a competitor is a reliable source of information, and could just have been them twisting the knife) I’m also not sure you watched the whole video as you would have seen that James dyson himself remarked that the washing machine venture was a “educative failure” The entire dyson washing machine line including the CR02 was cancelled 4 years after the original one was launched and the CR02 had such minor upgrades it was hardly worthy of its own number it was more like the CR01.5. In an attempt to keep the video under 30 mins I omitted the inclusion of the CR02 on purpose, as explaining how that fitted into the product line and what the differences were was in my opinion unnecessary. And a click bait title? As someone who actively, to the detriment of their channel avoids clickbait in all forms I don’t think that qualifies… But keep up the good work RUclips needs people like you keeping content creators honest! Even the small ones like me!
@@BehindDesigns Thanks for the response. A few thoughts in the interest of a conversation. >> “You say speculation but this is effectively eye witness testimony!” I don’t doubt your observations. However, the video at no point talked about your specific machine; it made sweeping generalisations and made specific factual claims about all the machines, which were not supported by any convincing evidence. I only intended to point this out and explain why I found it misleading and unconvincing. >> “You mention a paper that says 1 in 3 machines fail - well 2 out of 3 Dyson machines failed” In my original comment, I said I didn’t believe these quoted figures. They were not supported by any convincing evidence, or any detail of the level found in basic-fact checking on machine reliability. The video claimed this was simply asserted by a competitor. Vague subjective testimony by a no doubt threatened competitor on a factual matter is deeply unconvincing. Again, I’m just explaining why I was unconvinced and found it misleading. >> “Whatever way you look at it, Dyson stopped production due to profitability.” Precisely-because there’s evidence for this. But in the video, you started to imply there were other reasons. This was speculative, unsupported, and came across as half-truthy infotainment which had the effect of being misleading. Again, just expressing my thoughts. >> “Dyson say they made it too complicated and charged too little hence no profit. I’m saying it was too complicated and therefore massively un-reliable hence no profit” The first statement is true; the second is speculation that I didn’t believe. There is no evidence the mechanical failures of their first machine were a result of the ‘complexity’. Again, no data is available looking statistically at the sources of failure-which can be numerous, even today with simpler machines, as a simple fact-check can reveal. >> “their competitors also confirmed this (not that a competitor is a reliable source of information, and could just have been them twisting the knife)” Their competitors did not confirm this. They simply made statements without evidence and so I don’t believe it, for the reasons you suggest. >> “I’m also not sure you watched the whole video as you would have seen that James dyson himself remarked that the washing machine venture was a “educative failure”” If you watch other interviews, he values failure as a means to learn (i.e., basic common sense). Such a comment from him simply means they learned a lot, as they do with all their product evolutions, and says absolutely nothing about reasons why they discontinued the line beyond what they’ve already said. >> “The entire dyson washing machine line including the CR02 was cancelled 4 years after the original one was launched…” Four years on the market is not as short as you imply. Regardless, this simply means it was determined by this time that it was never going to be profitable. The 4-year market lifetime says nothing much, especially as they were under guarantee for 20 years and thus contractually supported for those two decades. >>”…the CR02 had such minor upgrades it was hardly worthy of its own number it was more like the CR01.5.” I’m not sure I believe this statement. There is no evidence presented of what was different at a deeper technical and design level to justify the claim it was a minor upgrade. There could have been many changes under the hood, as is often the case with future versions, that improved reliability. They’d accumulated a lot of data by that point. >> “In an attempt to keep the video under 30 mins I omitted the inclusion of the CR02 on purpose, as explaining how that fitted into the product line and what the differences were was in my opinion unnecessary. ” What’s special about 30 minutes? Plenty of equivalent videos far longer than that out there. I felt the omission of the CR02 helped generate a storyline that had misleading elements and fuelled unevidenced speculation. Overall, I’ve no doubt version 1 of any new product line is bound to be considerably weaker than future iterations; this is clear for all complex products and all manufacturers. To imply in the video there were reasons other than profitability for discontinuation, were simply not supported, and purely speculative. Again, this is simply the reasoning for my original comment. Some of the historically factually accurate parts of the video (that can be fact-checked) were, in fact, quite interesting. Their approach and technology was brilliant. If it was profitable, I’ve no doubt they would have continued evolving and improving the product line, just as with every other. You don’t see equivalent videos about their very first cyclonic vacuum cleaner (or other products) and all their issues-mostly because they’re still in production. It being stopped doesn’t mean there was anything wrong or negative about what they were doing at a technological level. Essentially, credit where it's due and critical claims require evidence (statistically significant and objective).
Excellent video about a topic I'd genuinely never heard about before. Please continue uploading; I've seen many channels just like yours grow and you definitely have what it takes.
It didn't have two clutches or two belts. It had one belt that ran around a planet-hub gearbox that was servo controlled. If you'd like to see two Dyson CR01 washing machines running at the same time, check them out here: ruclips.net/video/jc2BlcVpZYo/видео.html
Actually one belt, two motors, the two brushed (universal) motors both drive the same belt and drum pulley, how crazy is that! I may well be wrong, but I would hazard a guess that the two motors may have been powered in series during the washing cycle, so each receiving around 120 volts, and in parallel ( 240V) for increased speed for the spin. The contra-rotation motion was produced by planetary gears mounted on a steel clutch plate with yet another motor to drive the clutch plate in and out, which all look a bit thin and insubstantial, and also used plastic for some components, judging by the pictures on the web. I would assume that the inner drums contra-rotation motion had to be synchronised by gears, rather than having a simpler system with one motor driving each, in order to make both rotate at the same speed so that the laundry would pirouette properly. There's a video showing some of the workings here: ruclips.net/video/WeVQ09BP2fY/видео.html
What's the best brand for washing machines, and what's the best model, nice to know people's opinions, I will reveal my favourite brand and model after you do, thankyou. Great video thankyou.
I would have loved to see a Dyson car that literally ran on air propulsion with batteries to help get the momentum, and power the internals but that would be absolutely wild
As seen in automotive applications, more parts will always lead to more failed parts. Technology to overcome problems will get prices too high and will only slow down failures, they researched that for sure
Another reason for its failure is the aluminium zinc die cast spider and the fact that stuff would get stuck between the two drums so that was quite a failure unfortunately
I did read some reports of that and originally had it in the script. However I had one of these machines and didn’t experience it so decided to leave it out.
Yeah sure! E-mail me and I’ll send it over. Let me know what format you want it in. I built it for what I needed so there isn’t much behind the surface! If I get a bit of time I plan to put all my models from the videos on turbo squid.
Washing machines are already complex machines. That's why they're really expensive. Even so, they are still compromised to keep the price as low as possible, everything from the excessive use of plastic, to the high school project level design of the suspension system. Even though it's a simple method of washing. A motor spinning a basket full of water in both directions, there's still a lot of parts that go into a washing machine that makes it as complex and expensive as it is. I don't think there's much room for innovation for a home machine since it's already complex and expensive. I mean, think about car washes. All of that equipment; hoses, pumps, brushes, conveyors, blowers, a hell of a lot of computers. Who knows how that would be watered down to make an affordable car washing machine to buy. It'd probably be a small robot that tries to climb every angle of the car for like 3 hours if it can even clean it, and still cost like $4k. All for what? The "convenience" of not having to take all that time driving to the car wash even though it would take like 20 minutes of your time tops as opposed to half your day? The "eco-friendliness" of not relying on a big ugly resource wasting factory, even though manufacturing all those individual machines for people would require, not only a lot more resources, but also emit more greenhouse gases, not to mention all the e waste. All of this to say, I think we got it all wrong. It's probably better to rely on machines for our daily needs though a service, instead of buying each our own, because cost can be a major barrier for innovation.
You highlight the key problem. That they simply didn't know how washing machines were traditionally made. Sometimes that's a good thing.....it allows you to disrupt a market by thinking outside of the box....but it can also be a bad thing that causes you to make mistakes by not understanding fundamentals. There are certain products and industries where not knowing how something has traditionally been made can be disastrous.
Also, I think the main reason (from a practical standpoint ) was that the Dyson washing machine was just too damn expensive given the amount of repairs they constantly needed. It doesn't matter how good a product is if it's too expensive and isn't reliable in terms of not breaking down. Being innovative isn't by itself enough to make a product successful. People also need to be able to afford said product and know they don't have to worry about it not working. A 66% failure rate is simply not acceptable.
And in order to produce a washing machine that won't break down so much you need to understand the fundamentals and how they are traditionally made. The same would apply to cars. Complex machines with many working parts cannot simply be designed and made from the ground up without a strong understanding of how it's done. That's a large part of why Dyson failed to develop their EV. They tried to do it from the ground up by themselves without a deep knowledge of how cars have been made (and the reasons why). They should have rather partnered with a car company.
Your voice is like watching butter melt. Subbed!
Sub for more butter!
My friend had a Dyson washing machine literally took 4 years to pay off back then I was only like 17/18 it’s replaced a 90s hotpoint first edition machine. Witch cost around £300 £330 in the mid 90s my dad had the same one too.
Like you said was brilliant (when it worked) washed so well was so weird but cool watching it never seen a machine like it then or since…
But she had to get extended warranty out on it after only two years! Because the drum would get stuck lots of different error codes and leaks and other problems every 5 to 6 months the guy would come out and fix it like you said (she knew him well in the end) 😂🙈
After 5 and half years she threw it out as the gear box broke ⚙️ and got replaced with a newer hotpoint first edition washing machine witch lasted 8 years before the drum went and only had a new seal and pump in all that time with 3 kids.
You could see she was a bit annoyed by the whole thing as when it worked it was brilliant and I couldn’t agree more white socks would come out so clean not even my 2020 lg direct drive can get them that clean in just under a hour and a half on 60c cotton wash and it’s a very good machine so was the one I had before the lg intello washer 7kg witch come out around the same time as my mates Dyson back 20 years ago and lasted 7 years…. I had compensation for my arm when I was 18 and paid £420 for it was my first brand new machine I had ever bought for myself so I considered that high price back then. I told her I liked it but was to expensive and I couldn’t get credit as I was just starting out on my own with my first flat.
Just goes to show sometimes the more expensive ultra modern things ain’t always the better option….
Thanks for the comment! Glad you liked the video. Sounds like a familiar experience with the Dyson!
I found a mistake with 2 belts there is actually only 1 belt O_o
it looks more like an appliance technicians nightmare than anything else
The bad thing is that their washing machines used materials that were not suitable for long-term contact with the washing water and moisture. Aluminum, which the spider is made of, is attacked by alkaline media, such as washing water. In addition, the aluminum parts were in contact with the stainless steel drums. In damp and wet conditions this creates a galvanic element. Electrical and chemical corrosion therefore prevailed. My humble opinion as a chemical technician.
One of the few front-load washers I actually liked and they were never sold here in the US...
I'm standing by Henry for the best vacuum cleaner
He will never lose his crown!
Biggest problem with washing machines these days...government restrictions and engineering
We might as well go back to the days of wringer washers. Can use the same water to wash several loads (as long as clothes aren’t heavily soiled), and wash times are usually 3 to 5 minutes with the aggressive agitation they have.
Incorrect. the biggest problem with washing machines these days is Americans thinking that an astmatic old lazy-spinning trash-loader that makes 70 gallons of murky laundry soup is an effective way to clean clothes. More concentrated detergent just cleans better, that's the honest truth. The problem is, only one type of machine can effectively agitate clothes in a concentrated detergent solution without excessive water - and Americans are convinced that they suck, even though no *actually developed* country on the planet has any issue with them at all. 😂
Dysons genius was/is repackaging not invention . He managed to repackage the cyclone filter idea into a vacuum cleaner and then make it look like something that landed from outer space . Performance is ok but not the best and has some poor design details.
Yeah definitely a case of innovation rather than invention.
What was the cyclone filter used for before?
@@johndoe-vc1we used in industrial cleaning but home vac manufacturers avoided the design as there was a lucrative market in replacement vacuum bags.
It only had one drive belt!
Let's hope Dyson is getting close to 5,000 protypes! I would love to own version 5,001
I wouldnt say that Dyson are a cautious company if they spend that much on the electric car. Many people also lost their jobs due to them deciding not to go ahead with it. Their vacuum cleaners are not known to be robust, though the cordless V15 is quite a nice machine. No loss of suction wasn't true either as tho filters clog. They get hughe government grants for having design engineers here in the UK, if it wasn't for the grant, that would be moved to Asia as well. Not too pleased they outsourced their Contact Centre to South Africa from the UK.
James Dyson and his company are amazing marketing tools for the British government showing off the sheer might and superiority of British engineering! (Said in a sarcastic colonial British accent) hence the grants and having Boris’s direct number on speed dial! I also totally agree they could have kept the manufacturing in the UK. But bottom line, they do make amazing products.
@@BehindDesigns also for french and Swiss customers the support is in Tunisia. Had 42 different custom reps for a simple refund (they couldn’t deliver my product and then took 5 months to repay me 879EUR… v15 extra)
When the chinese do it and take all the factories again you complain, why dont you support your own?
Another top-notch video. Really love this content and how you present it. Keep up the good work
Much appreciated!
Dyson is anyway much overpriced and not longer lasting as other brands! i never will buy a Dyson product. this ridiculous looking (toy)washing machine is the proof that dyson is not beter. They should leave it to the manufactures who know something about washing machines for many years !!
I've known about the Dyson washing machine for some time but never really seen a video with much information or really even acknowledging it, so thanks for making this!
I was thinking the same thing
An interesting video and an awful lot of negativity in the comments. Let me try and add some balance. We bought a CR01 when it first came out and it lasted until August 2019 when we replaced it with a top of the range Sasmsung Ecobuble after the Dyson drum decided to split! I’m sitting here waiting for the engineer to arrive in the morning to repair (hopefully) a 4 year-old Samsung in which part of the wiring loom has melted!! We had problems with the Dyson but not like any listed here. The biggest problem for us was the plastic used to make the soap dispenser tray and the door handle was really brittle and we had the tray replaced twice and the handle 3 times - I was reminded of this when I was looking for the Samsung receipt in the utility room and found a copy of the instructions for replacing the Dyson door handle - it wasn’t easy to replace as it required juggling with a spring and two catches at the same time. I don’t consider a lifespan of 18 years and a total maintenance cost of something less than £50 a bad investment. Would we buy on again - of course. Would we buy the £950 Samsung again - I guess we’ll know after the Samsung engineer gives us the good/bad news.
They look very nice. I wish I could buy one.
I would much rather have a Miele than a Dyson any time.
Dyson are extremely expensive and for what they are now (With regarding build quality and longevity) I feel like there not worth the money in my humble opinion.
The products are inferior to what they used to be and are not well made now.
It was a failure because it also tore up the laundry. Granted, this happened when people loaded the machine to max capacity (not necessarily overloaded) and your clothes came out stripped to ribbons.
The surviving machines these days have severe corrosion on the drum's spider... Leading to an "explosively" fun time for the household.
you'd think they'd have caught that in testing. If they did enough
Couldn’t agree more
Bollocks, we’ve three in the family and never had a torn item. Nothing washes like them and they’re so fast.
@@r25limousine Cute anecdote but it doesn't change the fact.
@@lieferal4984 your word is fact, mine is anecdotal. You must have a god complex
You are spot on. I still have my machine.. And yes the engineer came came and stopped the contra rotation.. I was not happy as that was the main reason I bought it.. I wud love to be compensated for it.. Wonder if I can
Same, I don’t think it would stand today with social media and the Twittersphere.
@@BehindDesigns
Just last night cos the door wud not click shut I have not been able to wash clothes.. I have had to turn into a washing machine engineer since having this...
This sounds like how they deliberately brick older phones. could you not just opt to not have them change it though?
Apparently, it is, or was possible to re-enable contra-rotation on many machine, since it was mostly done with just a firmware update. They only replaced the gearing system with a fixed drive if it was broken. The programmers neglected to enable the copy protection bit on several versions of the firmware, so someone was able to dump firmware from both board versions off still fully working machines, and used to offer a flashing service for a fee.
That Dyson didn't/ aren't/won't bring prototypes of radically different technologies to potential future customers to give the new product a good kicking around is a wonderful way to learn lessons without blowing the company wad and reputation. That's pretty basic stuff in product development. I get and admire the company for starting with a clean sheet of paper when they tackle a perceived need, but in trying to be completly encumbered with the original technology, they dismiss what made the old design useful for whatever amount of time.
The only problem I have with the technology of my clothes washer, is it taking an hour to get the job done. Not wasteful water--there is a very small used in Energy Star appliances--nor electricity. I've never understood people's obsession with cleaner clothes. If they are so concerned, they might try using smaller loads and the auto-water setting on the appliance with high-efficiency detergent. Taking a little more time and pre-washing using undiluted detergent that one would work into stains and perspiration rings is a trick we have all forgotten, but it does a marvelous job.
Elon Musk, a man I thoroughly loathe, but a hell of a smart guy sets an example that I hope the Dyson Company takes note of. He came up with the hardest thing about the most important part of his automobile. He found as many uses as he could for it. It would be a key cost reducer and give his company the nimbleness that it was going to need to jump in this crazy industry he was diving into with full force and to keep the momentum up with astounding new products dropping like cluster bombs. Dyson is not interested in being a market leader, but having important bits, like a motor perhaps*, or whatever the tech could be hung on another product to realize the goals that Dyson might have.
*I'm part of the marketing team, and haven't a clue what the "important bits" to anything, other than if they are shiny and whirl. I can always make those qualities the center of everything without troubling the individual with the annoying physics).
I'm the Hazel the Housekeeper in my world, so I look at appliances the same way a mechanic looks at a tool. I'm pretty sure my machine is another iteration of the HE (high efficiency) machines first designed in the 1990s somewhere. And They were modifications in an older design from around the mid-1960s. And so on. There was nothing wrong with any of these designs other than modifying as nessisary for market or government changes. It is, bless its head, a Electromechanical Device. If we could snitch Star Trek's Transporter for a joy ride and haul my Whirlpool back to 1940, the mechanic back then would be able to look at it and figure out the tech pretty quick.
Will my fancy-pants stripped down Whirlpool do a better or worse job than handmaid cleaning my clothes by hand?
I dunno.
I've never considered it before. Have you?
😁🙄😆
The main obstacle back then was price, people were not nearly as tech savvy as today, and the dyson vacuum in the early 2000s was still a niche product only few had. Now everyone knows how good dyson products *can* be. If they made the washing machine work, they could charge today basically any price, and use that money to bankroll their car project. They’re really missing a trick. Candy solved the machine expense problem by doing a subscription, you basically rent the washing machine and get sent detergents specifically for it in the wash pass program. Dyson could do something like that it gets over the hurdle of cost of goods, and produces constantly recurring revenue which is consistent which they can use as leverage for finance for car development and production
I feel like they shouldn’t have given up considering that the contra rotation system was actually successful. They probably just needed to try to improvise the way every other washing machine is made. They also just needed to figure out a way to make the washer less complex or if that would be impossible, then just charge more.
Actually, it ripped clothes and duvets when it went in opposite directions.. complete failure
I read a lot of people saying that however, I had one growing up and didn’t experience it ever ripping or destroying clothes, so didn’t include that in the video. Maybe the one I had was a unicorn!
I was literally just wondering about why those flopped, and you just happened to upload this a few hours earlier. Clutch timing!
Amazing!
I think the failure lies in styling the machine as a typical front loader. Top loader with sideways drums would have solved the leak problems and reduced complexity. Perhaps working with ASKO at the time would have resulted in a changed perception of the best washing machine.
Top loaders in of themselves wash better than front loaders, given that you have the space to have one. An old top loader can agitate back and forth and pull the clothes into the center spiral while doing so.
@@BrianGon89 the key word is old there. And what if you can't find one of those or just want something more modern. Unless you had one with good wash action a front loader will always be better and by that i means a no frills basic one will still beat out any top loader
I always thought that the contra roting drums would wear out the clothes & almost certainly the machine needed an overload cut out in case of overloading whereas a traditional front loader doesn't (if overloaded the clothes go around as a solid mass and motor load is reduced). So I didnt' consider buying one for long.
I remember seeing them in the stores, they stuck out like a sore thumb because of their odd styling and colour schemes, and would usually be positioned on its own near the entrance. I also remember thinking that they would look out of place in most kitchens, and plasticky, also that they looked a bit oversize, although I gather that they were the normal width and maybe just stuck out a bit.
Presumably, Dyson must have been paying the stores to have a prime spot to display them in. Having them on their own, well away from the lines of washing machines struck me as rather odd at the time, but I guess their prime market was existing loyal Dyson vacuum fans, not regular shoppers out to buy a new washer. I think they would have been better off doing what Hotpoint did in the 80's to make their X2000 Microtronic stand out from all the regular machines with mechanical timers, and put it on a plinth in the middle of the line of other machines.
The very expensive price was enough to put me off, you could even buy a premium quality Miele for less, but I also wasn't impressed by all the plastic, particularly plastic doors and plastic hinges, didn't like the style or colour scheme, and I'd seen the contra-rotation concept demonstrated on TV, possibly Tomorrow's World, and wondered if it might catch and damage clothes, and didn't think the added complication was worth it when my regular machine did a really decent job.
I also thought it an oversight not to have a matching style tumble dryer, even a 100% conventional one made for them out of house.
It was an interesting concept, the pirouetting washing was a cute party trick, but should have not progressed past a prototype, or at least not without coming up with a significant redesign to make it simpler, cheaper and more reliable.
I used to sell these. Can't remember ever having to replace one, but we only ever managed to shift a few. At that time you could buy a competent, low-end washing machine for under £130, so the price was just too much for most buyers. The thing weighed double (or more) the weight of a normal washer (and don't forget that it was common for a washing machine to be full of concrete ballast in 2001) and had a little pulley on the bottom that caused wheels to be lowered from its underside - just so you could drag it out from under a countertop. The biggest complaint we used to get though was the colour, though I believe that they toned the appearance back a little in later years.
Your videos are fantastic. Although Dyson vacuums are far from best. Quality and performance is average compared to the best German brands.
Thanks! Dyson's genius is their marketing...
This is an incredible video with stunning visuals! I genuinely thought you had downloaded Dysons assets. Then I saw the bit with the leaks on the floor and realised you had made them all yourself. Wow!
Cheers! Yeah all hand built assets! One viewer messaged me and asked for the washing machine model for a game he was making! Make sure you keep tuned in for my next video I’ve taken the rendering to a whole new level!
@@BehindDesigns looking forward to it - actually, let me drop you an email!
2 belts ?
The vortex system isn't complex compared to the washing machine. It is based on manipulation of the inherent physical properties as opposed to mechanical manipulation of a contraflow system.
Nice Video. I wonder why you are so underrated?
Thanks for the comment, I’m still trying to work out the YT algorithm but hopefully if I keep concentrating on making the best videos possible the views will come!
I don't need the washing machine but I would like to buy the wheelbarrow that I see he was promoting.
The word is PER-FORMING. Not “preforming” it’s “performing”. And the dyson car is a ridiculous idea like the Google or apple car. No one wants a dyson branded car how embarrassing. Huge ick actually. Companies need to stay in their lane.
Lol, noted!
I think doyson need to just stick to vacuums
This video is full of speculation that has no corresponding convincing evidence. It also ignores that they produced the CR02 in multiple variants, which is at odds with the clickbait title. I've seen no reason to believe the product line was discontinued for any reason other than profitability, preventing ever improving versions like with every one of their other product lines. The claims quantifying alleged reliability are not evidenced and no detail of the nature of machine failures is presented or contrasted with other machines on the market at the time. A simple fact-check from peer-reviewed studies published in 2019 reveals 1 in 3 washing machines on the market typically fail from multiple failure modes (electronics, shock absorbers and bearings, doors, carbon brushes and pumps). So, while there was some accurate history presented, which was interesting, I found this video somewhat misleading overall that paints a distorted and speculative view.
Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate you dissecting the video in such a thorough way. However if I might put forward my rebuttal to some of your comments. I grew up in a household with a CR01 washing machine. You say speculation but this is effectively eye witness testimony! Something that I should have probably referenced in the video, I witnessed the machine fail over and over and we indeed did have our engineer on speed dial… this is also echoed in every article and blog post you find relating to the CR line of Dyson products.
You mention a paper that says 1 in 3 machines fail - well 2 out of 3 Dyson machines failed, and that’s one brand not all washing machines on the market so it’s not a comparable number and just goes to highlight how unreliable their machines were!
Whatever way you look at it, Dyson stopped production due to profitability. Dyson say they made it too complicated and charged too little hence no profit. I’m saying it was too complicated and therefore massively un-reliable hence no profit… their competitors also confirmed this (not that a competitor is a reliable source of information, and could just have been them twisting the knife)
I’m also not sure you watched the whole video as you would have seen that James dyson himself remarked that the washing machine venture was a “educative failure”
The entire dyson washing machine line including the CR02 was cancelled 4 years after the original one was launched and the CR02 had such minor upgrades it was hardly worthy of its own number it was more like the CR01.5. In an attempt to keep the video under 30 mins I omitted the inclusion of the CR02 on purpose, as explaining how that fitted into the product line and what the differences were was in my opinion unnecessary.
And a click bait title? As someone who actively, to the detriment of their channel avoids clickbait in all forms I don’t think that qualifies…
But keep up the good work RUclips needs people like you keeping content creators honest! Even the small ones like me!
@@BehindDesigns Thanks for the response. A few thoughts in the interest of a conversation.
>> “You say speculation but this is effectively eye witness testimony!”
I don’t doubt your observations. However, the video at no point talked about your specific machine; it made sweeping generalisations and made specific factual claims about all the machines, which were not supported by any convincing evidence. I only intended to point this out and explain why I found it misleading and unconvincing.
>> “You mention a paper that says 1 in 3 machines fail - well 2 out of 3 Dyson machines failed”
In my original comment, I said I didn’t believe these quoted figures. They were not supported by any convincing evidence, or any detail of the level found in basic-fact checking on machine reliability. The video claimed this was simply asserted by a competitor. Vague subjective testimony by a no doubt threatened competitor on a factual matter is deeply unconvincing. Again, I’m just explaining why I was unconvinced and found it misleading.
>> “Whatever way you look at it, Dyson stopped production due to profitability.”
Precisely-because there’s evidence for this. But in the video, you started to imply there were other reasons. This was speculative, unsupported, and came across as half-truthy infotainment which had the effect of being misleading. Again, just expressing my thoughts.
>> “Dyson say they made it too complicated and charged too little hence no profit. I’m saying it was too complicated and therefore massively un-reliable hence no profit”
The first statement is true; the second is speculation that I didn’t believe. There is no evidence the mechanical failures of their first machine were a result of the ‘complexity’. Again, no data is available looking statistically at the sources of failure-which can be numerous, even today with simpler machines, as a simple fact-check can reveal.
>> “their competitors also confirmed this (not that a competitor is a reliable source of information, and could just have been them twisting the knife)”
Their competitors did not confirm this. They simply made statements without evidence and so I don’t believe it, for the reasons you suggest.
>> “I’m also not sure you watched the whole video as you would have seen that James dyson himself remarked that the washing machine venture was a “educative failure””
If you watch other interviews, he values failure as a means to learn (i.e., basic common sense). Such a comment from him simply means they learned a lot, as they do with all their product evolutions, and says absolutely nothing about reasons why they discontinued the line beyond what they’ve already said.
>> “The entire dyson washing machine line including the CR02 was cancelled 4 years after the original one was launched…”
Four years on the market is not as short as you imply. Regardless, this simply means it was determined by this time that it was never going to be profitable. The 4-year market lifetime says nothing much, especially as they were under guarantee for 20 years and thus contractually supported for those two decades.
>>”…the CR02 had such minor upgrades it was hardly worthy of its own number it was more like the CR01.5.”
I’m not sure I believe this statement. There is no evidence presented of what was different at a deeper technical and design level to justify the claim it was a minor upgrade. There could have been many changes under the hood, as is often the case with future versions, that improved reliability. They’d accumulated a lot of data by that point.
>> “In an attempt to keep the video under 30 mins I omitted the inclusion of the CR02 on purpose, as explaining how that fitted into the product line and what the differences were was in my opinion unnecessary. ”
What’s special about 30 minutes? Plenty of equivalent videos far longer than that out there. I felt the omission of the CR02 helped generate a storyline that had misleading elements and fuelled unevidenced speculation.
Overall, I’ve no doubt version 1 of any new product line is bound to be considerably weaker than future iterations; this is clear for all complex products and all manufacturers. To imply in the video there were reasons other than profitability for discontinuation, were simply not supported, and purely speculative. Again, this is simply the reasoning for my original comment. Some of the historically factually accurate parts of the video (that can be fact-checked) were, in fact, quite interesting. Their approach and technology was brilliant. If it was profitable, I’ve no doubt they would have continued evolving and improving the product line, just as with every other. You don’t see equivalent videos about their very first cyclonic vacuum cleaner (or other products) and all their issues-mostly because they’re still in production. It being stopped doesn’t mean there was anything wrong or negative about what they were doing at a technological level. Essentially, credit where it's due and critical claims require evidence (statistically significant and objective).
it's just over priced junk
Excellent video about a topic I'd genuinely never heard about before. Please continue uploading; I've seen many channels just like yours grow and you definitely have what it takes.
Thanks, will do!
A N I M E
N
I
M
E
A washer can not be built of all snap together plastic
Dyson should try make a computer or laptop if it be good or not would be a different matter but it would be interesting
Dyson did recently say that the worst designed product he has to deal with on a daily basis is a printer, so you never know!
It didn't have two clutches or two belts. It had one belt that ran around a planet-hub gearbox that was servo controlled.
If you'd like to see two Dyson CR01 washing machines running at the same time, check them out here:
ruclips.net/video/jc2BlcVpZYo/видео.html
Actually one belt, two motors, the two brushed (universal) motors both drive the same belt and drum pulley, how crazy is that!
I may well be wrong, but I would hazard a guess that the two motors may have been powered in series during the washing cycle, so each receiving around 120 volts, and in parallel ( 240V) for increased speed for the spin.
The contra-rotation motion was produced by planetary gears mounted on a steel clutch plate with yet another motor to drive the clutch plate in and out, which all look a bit thin and insubstantial, and also used plastic for some components, judging by the pictures on the web. I would assume that the inner drums contra-rotation motion had to be synchronised by gears, rather than having a simpler system with one motor driving each, in order to make both rotate at the same speed so that the laundry would pirouette properly.
There's a video showing some of the workings here: ruclips.net/video/WeVQ09BP2fY/видео.html
What's the best brand for washing machines, and what's the best model, nice to know people's opinions, I will reveal my favourite brand and model after you do, thankyou. Great video thankyou.
I would have loved to see a Dyson car that literally ran on air propulsion with batteries to help get the momentum, and power the internals
but that would be absolutely wild
Bet it would’ve cost upwards of £600,000 to buy LOL
@@LadyMoonstar6601 for the base model with optional seating lol
Great video as always, never seen on of these in real life… which probably say enough!
Cheers! e-bay is pretty much the only place you can see a picture of them these days!
Thank you for the video.
The Greatest washing machine ever built. I had 3. The title doesn't know what it's talking about.
As seen in automotive applications, more parts will always lead to more failed parts. Technology to overcome problems will get prices too high and will only slow down failures, they researched that for sure
Very true.
And now kids we have the Samsung Q drive similar but much reliable
Really? i saw a video on the channel thesuperwasherlab and the guy returned his within a month
@@johndoe-vc1we I have no idea
Another reason for its failure is the aluminium zinc die cast spider and the fact that stuff would get stuck between the two drums so that was quite a failure unfortunately
Here because of Sir Dyson on Tim Ferriss podcast
Cheers! I’ll give that a listen.
Your videos just keep getting better and better, this channel is brilliant, thank you for the work you put in to each video, keep up the good work
Thank you very much!
Great video
Dyeing never made a top load washer that’s why
Непонятно
Really well made video, keep them coming!
Cheers! Hopefully have another one up soon, just been so busy with "real" work....
5:57 imagine you reincarnate as a vacuum slapping robot lol
World of washing machines into a spin...
I see what you did there
; - )
I love everything about these i love the design i love the idea i love them i want one so bad what a pity they stopped making these
Get on eBay!
6:13
Why no mention of the contra rotation ripping clothes apart?
I did read some reports of that and originally had it in the script. However I had one of these machines and didn’t experience it so decided to leave it out.
KENMORE.
Dif
Hey can you send me the 3d model please :)?
Yeah sure! E-mail me and I’ll send it over. Let me know what format you want it in. I built it for what I needed so there isn’t much behind the surface! If I get a bit of time I plan to put all my models from the videos on turbo squid.
@@BehindDesigns thanks i need an answear from my friend in Germany what format he needs
@@BehindDesigns thx so much for the model btw
@@BehindDesigns oh the commend got deleted so can you send me the e-mail adress?
@@BehindDesigns so... what about it?
Washing machines are already complex machines. That's why they're really expensive. Even so, they are still compromised to keep the price as low as possible, everything from the excessive use of plastic, to the high school project level design of the suspension system. Even though it's a simple method of washing. A motor spinning a basket full of water in both directions, there's still a lot of parts that go into a washing machine that makes it as complex and expensive as it is. I don't think there's much room for innovation for a home machine since it's already complex and expensive. I mean, think about car washes. All of that equipment; hoses, pumps, brushes, conveyors, blowers, a hell of a lot of computers. Who knows how that would be watered down to make an affordable car washing machine to buy. It'd probably be a small robot that tries to climb every angle of the car for like 3 hours if it can even clean it, and still cost like $4k. All for what? The "convenience" of not having to take all that time driving to the car wash even though it would take like 20 minutes of your time tops as opposed to half your day? The "eco-friendliness" of not relying on a big ugly resource wasting factory, even though manufacturing all those individual machines for people would require, not only a lot more resources, but also emit more greenhouse gases, not to mention all the e waste. All of this to say, I think we got it all wrong. It's probably better to rely on machines for our daily needs though a service, instead of buying each our own, because cost can be a major barrier for innovation.
The run-up is ponderous, but interesting. 8:20 comes the real meat of this video.