Video

I'm sure. But the whole point of the video is to explain why it's irrelevant to. It's not recommended by the manufacturer or designed to be broken apart. The things listed all but eliminate bad odours if you do them correctly.

If you can explain why its technology pushes the boundaries at a deep technical level relative to current leading technology and warrants attention on my channel. If you don't, convincingly, I'll assume it was some shady marketing comment and encourage everyone to avoid your products.

They very explicitly state it's the filtration performance of their machine following the IEC test standard using their boost mode (i.e. the best they can get). They capture 99.999% of particles to 0.5 µm in size (i.e. easy, huge boulders). It's not as impressive as it sounds, and they patronise the customer by hoping they are too ignorant of what all this means to see through their snake oil and inferiority relative to their better competitor's technology.

@@VacuumFacts Yeah I agree with you. It seems like the multi-cyclonic design's of Dyson's competitors doesn't quite match up to Dyson's Root Cyclone and Radial Root Cyclone technologies, and of course the Cinetic cyclones have no competition that can match it. I'm glad that I bought a Dyson for myself for Christmas lol

The Filter Queen does not specify the size range associated with their "99.98%" claim on their (broken and ugly) website. They don't even make the claim it's HEPA grade or whole machine HEPA filtered. Even their replacement filters page doesn't specify. It's almost certainly not therefore. Even their cordless stick vac, Dyson clone, bandwagon jump product claims to be HEPA filtered but fails to specify the size range and capture efficiency. These are not the hallmarks of a reputable product, as discussed in this very review video. There's nothing about their products as advertised or the way they work that's impressive at all. You'd be better saving up and getting the next model, which looks to be radically different from their current models.

@@VacuumFacts Lol they haven't changed the design of their Majestic vacuum in decades. I highly doubt they're going to change it.

@@VacuumFacts Yeah I just looked at their website and they don't specify their filtration efficiency. Weird.

I don't think it's weird; they're a dodgy company. You'd withhold the full truth if you're trying to deceive potential customers.

@@VacuumFacts True. That and they expect people to pay $1,499 for the vacuum and $29.99 a year for their basic replacement filter package, and $79.98 a year for their premium filter replacement package. So in 5 years, $149.95 for the basic package, and $399.90 for the premium package. That's insane!

This is actually something commonly observed now, and I fully believe absolutely everything you say. Dyson's 'award winning' customer service has fallen right off a cliff somehow and is utterly terrible now. Whoever is responsible for that division needs firing. You hit the nail on the head when you say "The vacuum may be great, but beware of Dyson". People who hate the facts I present have falsely claimed I'm a biased fanboy for years. Yet even I now would strongly recommend anyone think at least twice before buying any Dyson product, because the after-sales service (as of mid 2024) is truly dire, frustrating, and very very poor. I'd love to see what the rabid vacuum enthusiasts thought of that statement.

​@@VacuumFacts They definitely need to address their customer service issues. That's going to hurt them in the long run, because people aren't going to invest in a high quality Dyson vacuum if they don't think that the company is going to back it up. I hope they resolve that problem soon.

Yup. You've got to watch the marketing types and fact check their half-truths. And yet I'm called 'biased' for pointing out things like this by people who champion feelings over facts. It's also not the number of cyclones that's important. In fact, Dyson's next model is reducing the number of cyclones in operation depending on flow current in a given mode to maximise their effectiveness. Marketing assume people are very, very stupid (which, for the most part, is sadly true due to a total failure of the state to educate in critical thinking) and suggest 'more' and 'bigger' is automatically better. Using less to achieve more is really what's better.

@@VacuumFacts Oh yeah I heard about what they're planning for the new model. That's pretty smart, considering that on a low power mode, trying to distribute the lesser airflow throughout all of the cyclones would mean more fine dust gets through, so having it shut off some of the cyclones to adapt is very clever.

They discontinued it when moving to cordless for reasons discussed here czcams.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/video.html

You claimed they had "crappy build quality and materials", then relied on 'feelings' instead of evidence to support your claim. Your feelings are opposite to reality. They use the most advanced polymers around and are evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt to be durable, especially relative to the competition (see all the official durability testing videos online for a start). And then there's the warranty of 2 years, which is more than enough to show problems if it really is 'cheap, creaky and brittle'. This is a complete misconception, unsupported by evidence, and at odds with reality. The only thing you got right was the price tag. That's high because they are the best products on the market, as far as testing shows, and you get what you pay for. This video clearly evidenced this, as have many others.

Well I can't help it if you have low standards for build quality and want to masturbate over materials. Then again I find the build quality and materials on my 2021 Porsche 992 to be pretty crap too. Must be nice having low standards.

Again, you've made a factual claim about "low standards for build quality" but failed to evidence it in a manner than anyone respectable would take you seriously. You're in conflict with simple observations and seem to be getting offended when someone points this out to you and making purile suggestions. I recognise you think they use 'cheap materials' but there's no evidence of this, no evidence of poor build quality, and no evidence of increased failure rates. There is evidence of you being at odds with reality and thinking your subjective viewpoint trumps objective facts. Oh dear...

Lol... Happy masturbating with your dyson you nigel. That's the only suction you get it seems.

If extremely soiled like it was, a couple of swipes in all of 1 second clears it. Also, even if you don't, it's loosened so the air removes much of it. The purpose is to remove the accreted material so there's space for air to pass through. The brilliant design in the future models is fundamentally changing this as well to avoid the problem of shroud clogging entirely.

​@@VacuumFactsAh, that makes sense. Do you have a video or link to information on the future models? I love seeing what Dyson comes up with!

No link because it's still being researched. But I've described it in the comments here czcams.com/video/lWpdK234XfU/video.html

The cylinders didn't perform as well as the other formfactors, as the data shows. Having owned all, I can confirm the latest Dyson cordless cleaners are considerably beyond their mains powered machines. They have comparable performance using much less power (as the data clearly shows), are far easier to use, facilitate bite-sized cleaning, are easier to empty, quieter, and have much better HEPA filtration. The shortcomings you emphasise are simply not a problem in practical use in typical homes. Furthermore, post 2025 when the new battery technology revolution starts, they'll be quantum leaped again. The new design features in the next generation of cordless coming are very impressive.

It's a perfectly fair review because both are vacuum cleaners designed to vacuum floors. One works well, the other doesn't. You correctly identified why. One is sold to you with poorer technology, like a non-motorised floorhead, thereby making the job less effective for your money. That's what a review is; comparing the two as sold. And then there's literally everything else important, discussed in the video, that your comment didn't seem to acknowledge...

So are you basically saying the only vacuum in the world isn't Dyson?The only type of action that can actually clean youbecause a Fifty dollar a vacuum from walmart or a grocery store can easily outperform a dyson In the regards of deep cleaning dirt out of a pile of the carpet I could even prove it

I don't understand your first sentence because it doesn't make any sense. If you can send the professionally -acquired data, ensuring it's independently verified by a reputable source, demonstrating "a Fifty dollar a vacuum from walmart or a grocery store can easily outperform a dyson", then I'll take a look. Otherwise, I don't believe you. And then there's literally everything else to consider that you haven't mentioned.

Of course people can disagree. Except on factual matters, which are true or false, on which there's evidence bearing, if people disagree with what's shown to be true, then they ARE stupid. Something you failed to recognise. I recognise you think Dyson machines are crap. I disagree, relative to other machines. And unless you can evidence why convincingly, in a way that doesn't show you are at odds with reality, then you won't change any minds here. You're also falling victim to the stupidity of confusing between stating facts that suggest something positive about a company's product and being some kind of tribal fanboy.

What are the 'physics' reasons you claim that a cordless machine can't replace a corded machine, precisely? The rest of your comment is at odds with reality of course, and the empirical evidence is all over my channel.

@@VacuumFacts By design cordless vacuums are top heavy and have very limited runtime and capacity and you can't increase either of these without making them very uncomfortable to use due to their weight. For instance can feel all that weight in your hand even on their relatively light and most popular V15. I'm not even talking about outsize models, as they are virtually unusable for most people. So there's pretty nothing nothing you can do about it, as you can't make cordless vacuum bottom heavy. It will simply hinder their versatility. In fact according to many users and many reviews the only cordless Dyson that is not cumbersome to use is V12 and it's very limited by its bin capacity. But it has very small bin and not as good for carpets cleaning. All their relatively light models are limited by only 60min runtime at min power. On practice no one is going to use it at min power, so the actual runtime is going to be even less, than that. And so cleaning a large house with cordless vacuum is not practical. It's only suitable for small or relatively clean spaces that don't require much cleaning. Corded vacuums on the other hand always have been and always will be more suitable for large spaces that require long cleaning sessions. And didn't even mention how ineffective modern battery technologies are and that drawing power directly from the wall is always much more effective and doesn't require wasting time on recharge or money on a new battery that inevitably going to lose its capacity and rather sooner than later.

>>”Cordless vacuum runtime and capacity are very limited by design and you can't increase either of these without increasing its weight and making it very uncomfortable to use.” Run time is determined by the power consumption and battery capacity. Poorly designed machines with weak and inferior technology require large heavy batteries and multiple of them to get decent runtimes. It has been established with good design that you can have run times sufficient to perform typical cleaning sessions with performance greater than even good mains machines without large weights. There is thus plenty of evidence showing that cordless can replace mains cleaners. As for bin capacity, the capacity in good designs is enough to last for a cleaning session and the emptying in said good designs takes 5 seconds without mess, making it superior to even the best mains machine emptying methods. Again, this conflicts with the suggestion that mains machines can’t replace cordless-at least when referring to best in class of each. >>”Pair this with the fact that cordless vacuums are top heavy and quite have already. You can feel all that weight in your hand much more than with bottom heavy corded models or canister vacuums that have most of the weight in a separate block altogether.” When used on floor, it is false to suggest you can feel the weight in your hand much more. The lower mass of (good) cordless machines also reduces inertia, making it feel much lighter to push than bottom-heavy mains machines. For above floor cleaning, good cordless machines (that have enough power to clean with simultaneous long run times) are typically 3 kg or less. The best machines are not overly tiring to use above floor and the much greater ease of use than corded machine is a much better use case. Furthermore, next gen battery technology looking to be released in late 2025 will quite revolutionise cordless cleaners. >> “runtime is only 60min at min power, which on practice is not going to be effective to use, especially if there's a lot of dirty carpets.” This is a misunderstanding consigned to the bin long ago. You can get a run time in auto mode enough to complete a reasonable cleaning session with performance superior to even good mains machines. People don’t like the whole-house mega clean chore anymore and habits have evolved now into bite-sized cleaning, which this formfactor champions. Run time is simply not a good argument anymore. >> “…cleaning a large house with cordless vacuum is not practical. It's only suitable for small or relatively clean spaces that don't require much cleaning.” This is complete nonsense as well. We bite size cleaning now and you can do a large house, as plenty of people show online >>”Corded vacuums on the other hand always have been and always will be more suitable for large spaces that require long cleaning sessions.” This is again false. Cordless machines are used in commercial environments quite successfully, conflicting badly with your claim. Weight, bin capacity, and run time tropes are your primary justifications for cordless not being able to replace corded. These have been debunked many years ago. Also, I’m still missing these ‘physics reasons’ you referred to (distinct from correct language associated with physical properties and practicalities of use).

@@VacuumFacts I gave you simple facts and reasons with real world examples of Dyson's own models, but you seem to be one of those mindless Dyson fanboys, that accept only facts in their own favor and discard all the rest. I can only wish you and your "facts" channel good luck. You gonna need it.

I simply didn't agree with your factual claims because they doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You appear to have ignored the details of what I gave you the respect to respond to, then took offense seemingly because the nonsense you claimed was well-challenged in a manner that made sense, and exposed your subjective wonky worldview. Instead you've now fallen back on a bizarre, tribal, form of anti-Dyson racism-like behaviour that constantly litters this place.

Don't believe you because that makes no sense.

@@VacuumFacts believe me or don’t - the facts are the facts. Do better next time, buddy.

What facts? You didn't present any. Where's the data? How do you explain your observations in detail that makes sense? This is why no one sensible would believe your wild statement that contradicts actual observation. Do better next time, buddy.

@@VacuumFacts facts: followed your silly little guide and this Dyson still smells like ass. Data: the Dyson smells like ass. Observations in detail: despite following step by step recommendations in video, the Dyson still smells like ass. Supporting data: several other comments state the same exact results (one with 19 upvotes nonetheless!). Conclusion: your video is useless and a waste of time. Need anything else?

@@VacuumFacts Facts: my Dyson smelled like mildew. I followed every little suggestion in your silly video step by step. It still smells exactly the same as before. Data: this vacuum still smells like mildew. Observations in detail: the vacuum cleaner still smells the exact same as it did before I followed this guide. Supporting research (several other comments, including one with 17 upvotes) points to strong evidence that this video does not provide a solution. Conclusion: this video is a useless waste of time. Need anything else?

Video shows why. You on drugs?

​@@VacuumFacts because you said so?

@@CB19087 No, because the evidence showed it. It was in the video.

These are unconvincing, short-sighted arguments debunked long ago. You show such staggering ignorance, I can only assume you're a 'central vac fan'. The idea that a "HEPA filter fails because it's dirty and puts it back into your home" is so dripping with total ignorance of how they work, it's literally not worth me investing time ridiculing this comment anymore. Way to ignore the points raised in the video or brush them off unconvincingly.

Representative lab testing has value. I test in my home and get a similarly real picture. Everything pointed out in this video is what you get when using it in the home. I believe you when you say your Henry has never let you down. But then there's literally everything else raised in the Henry product review videos to consider beyond reliability alone. If it's still good enough for you, that's great. But the point of my channel is to point out the whole picture that is otherwise hidden behind half-truths so innocent people are not misled and know the full truth before making their own independent decisions.

The cleaners that use bags have filters too. The bags are filters themselves. What you're advocating here is a throwaway, disposable, polluting, and a costly way of working that's wholly avoidable. If it wasn't that the machine cost more money than bags, you'd probably just throw the entire machine into landfill and get another when it was full. The best cyclonic bagless machines (namely the patented original design), if treated correctly, rarely need to have their filters washed because they're a last line of defense that hardly sees any of the dirt. Plenty of evidence for this, e.g. here czcams.com/video/T3prXR-aeOg/video.html . What you're revealing here is either that most bagless clones are terrible and sully the original idea, as discussed here czcams.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/video.html, or you are unable to muster the small effort to rinse a filter once in a blue moon, which is made easy as discussed here czcams.com/video/QTSadOm6WsI/video.html . And then there's literally every other problem and drawback of bagged machines you've glossed over, as discussed here czcams.com/video/ptN0kkOtGSM/video.html and evidenced in this very video seemingly ignored (or you were incapable of appreciating) that you think an ultra rare filter rinse is worse than. None of this makes you look good.

@@VacuumFacts I am going with my experience with a Dyson, got so fed up with it suddenly stopping because of the filter it just wasn't worth it. Numatic cleaners last much longer and if you are really worried about the environment you can also stick your finger in the bag and empty it.

I don't believe it suddenly stopped because of the filter. That makes no sense. The only way it would 'suddenly stop' because of a filter is if it's completely blocked. The only way it would block to that extent on a Dyson is through complete neglect, as evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt in basic testing ( czcams.com/video/uuF0Q0x3P8E/video.html ), let alone an understanding of the associated science. Plenty of evidence filters don't block e.g. czcams.com/video/T3prXR-aeOg/video.html . A bag is the exact same as a filter (except in the original cyclonic system, it's a last line of defense that sees virtually nothing under correct usage). So, if a Dyson 'suddenly stops', then a bag will 'suddenly stop' too since it's the same thing. And arguing Numatic cleaners last much longer is nonsense and unsupported by any reputable evidence. The idea you can empty a bag by sticking your finger in there is silly, since it doesn't remove the blocking micro particles, as evidenced here czcams.com/video/QTSadOm6WsI/video.html and in performance testing in this video. None of this makes any sense and then there's literally every other problem and drawback of bagged machines you've glossed over, as discussed here czcams.com/video/ptN0kkOtGSM/video.html and evidenced in this very video. I've seen all this before. You like Numatic and dislike Dyson at a cosmetic, subjective level. That's fine. But nonsensical factual claims will be called out here.

All their products are best in class for its generation and are still beyond the competition, as the data shows. The more recent models do it quicker/more easily/generally better because there's tech in there to improve things. An older one like the V11 will be good and similar and cost less. Just have to look at the features each model offers and decide what suits your budget.

I'm unlikely to review that model because there's no interesting or novel technology in there. The specifications provided and the technology are clearly substantially inferior to the best products on the market. It's therefore not competing in the same market space and is clearly intending to be a lower cost knock-off. It'll work, just not anything like as well.

No that's not how they work. The motor determines the suction. The magnitude of airflow in the context seen talked about on YT is not directly relevant for reasons I'll do a video on in the future. Watch out for all sources that say it is important. They lack knowledge of basic science, as will be revealed, and cannot be trusted, no matter what they say. Cyclones resist the flow of air but the motor is tuned to compensate to achieve the desired aerodynamic properties at the cleaner head where dirt removal occurs. Their function is to separate particles from the air.

It's not possible to know without any meaningful information and data. However, all possibilities are covered in several of my videos under the kirby czcams.com/play/PLBxUOcW7kaEs7xuTK2A-pncwupMjXuRbb.html and educational playlists czcams.com/play/PLBxUOcW7kaEvk3bygbiP56Fw3UtLog_p_.html

"Considered overpriced" is subjective. It's better than anything else by far and therefore costs more than anything else. The rest have cut corners and produced a less good product. They charge almost as much. You get what you pay for in this case. It's for an individual to determine whether they wish to spend this amount of money to get the best product of this class on the market by all meaningful, objective measures. Alternatively, they can pay much less and get much less. I bought this product with my own money. I thought it was extremely expensive. Luckily, I could afford it. I think every penny was well spent and would buy it again if ever needed. I've tried the cheaper products. They're cheaper for a reason and I wouldn't buy them again.

@@VacuumFacts Thank you. I have seen quite a few reviews showing that on bare floor at least, there is actually almost no difference between the G5 and even the supposedly weaker and cheaper V12

That's probably true. Bare floors without crevices are relatively simple to clean. An antistatic technology and a means to ensure small and large particles can be brought into the cleaner head are the key features needed, and both products have those. Carpets require more advanced technology to clean well.

@@VacuumFacts So it is safe to say that the Gen5 has no significant advantage over the V12 for instance, when it comes to a house with 99% bare floors other than larger bin and a little longer battery?

The Gen5Detect has more air power, so can extract dirt from deeper cracks if you have any. It has a higher grade HEPA filter if you suffer allergies. And it has a larger bin and longer run time, but a bit more weight. Otherwise, for hard floors, they'll be comparable. However, the next gen machines coming out (possibly soon) might be worth waiting for.

Yeah. And then there's everything else poor about it in the video.

I feel like this guy is a paid anti-dyson shill who will just say the opposite of what's shown to be true with correct usage in the video. You took a used and no doubt abused product and almost certainly didn't do what was specified in the video, did things you're not supposed to do, and then complain it still smells. Probably didn't correctly rinse the filter, probably didn't use microsponges...and so on. Yawn

Mind is still under warranty and yet they told me to change the motor need to pay for rm1k + which ty said the motor still function not warranty for it😅

The cyclone discharge chamber is not part of the air path. "years of rancid dog filthe (sic)" will make ALL vacuums cleaners smell. The video explains all this and how to reduce odours.

It's probably not an error; it's known about. But their product is a nasty clone. They produce something to look like the best products on the market-on the cheap having bypassed the hard and expensive work of research and development, circumvent patents as best as possible resulting it something that doesn't work as well, then sell it to unsuspecting customers who aren't taught properly to fact-check, think critically, and ask important questions. They're almost certainly deliberately exploiting the victim customer to undercut rivals in an act of a regressive form of capitalism, relying on their brand name secured by decent products in other product classes. The entire purpose of my channel is to help people wise up and learn to spot exploitation.

It's a good question I always think about. There's nothing from others that doesn't come with major drawbacks that makes things net worse off. Shark made the best effort but their output was gimmicky in the end with little real world benefit. The competition's battery technology is inferior, their motors are inferior, their design and usability is inferior. Dyson have no true competition, and that's not a good thing-not least because it wrongly makes me sound biased to state a fact. Dyson's competition is nothing but corner-cutting and cloning at your expense to make a fast buck to undercut them. True competition requires major investment in R&D and imagination to solve real-world problems. That's expensive, and when you've got the pockets of greedy shareholders to line (unlike Dyson), then you don't have that luxury. Looking at what Dyson is about to release in this space soon (and a little further beyond), they're about to jump leaps and bounds over the non-competition again and I guarantee they'll all copy as closely as they can because it's a better solution. If another company excelled beyond what Dyson do, I'd be all over it. Instead, I just have to state facts and look biased (to idiots).

@@VacuumFacts Wow, Dyson must be doing something amazing, I've never heard of any other industry so dominated by one firm.

I think it's partly down to their business model, as I've discussed in other posts. I can't think of another example actually where one company is hugely dominating over others. But then again, I can't really think of a big firm which also doesn't have shareholders. Maybe Tesla for EVs but Dyson was right on their heels until they pulled out, ironically because they would have needed shareholders to become enslaved by to raise enough money.

@@VacuumFacts You mentioned that Dyson invented the chordless vacuum and everyone else copied - I'm sure my gran had one from decades ago before Dyson was a thing as far as I know. What specifically did they invent?

They invented the cordless STICK vac form factor. Essentially the vacuum in the hand, and with modular components to toggle between handheld and a full-sized mains replacement. The DC35 was the first such machine in 2010. Some years after that, the first clones started to appear. Now, I don't think there's a single major manufacturer who doesn't have a stick vac clone.

I think you might have missed the evidence in the video supporting the claims made. I'd suggest watching it with less focus on unimportant cosmetics. I've always loved how when facts are stated that paint a full picture that's devastating for a particular product, people simply can't believe it, even though it's right there in front of them to see, and so automatically default to an unthinking claim of 'bias'. To reject evidence like that demonstrates a level of disturbing intellectual incapability that's frightening to think exists in the public domain.

Some people have reported different rates of filling a pod and suggested 1 week and less in some cases. Obviously this is a variable and so costs scale proportionally. If you took it literally and failed to recognise it was a variable, it's pretty stupid to come on here attacking and criticising me for your error. "Can't trust" your comment when you've misunderstood the most basic things. And then you've missed the point entirely, anyhow. Regardless of rate, it's a wholly avoidable ongoing running cost and environmental impact. How did you miss this? It was spelled out very meticulously. If you like product A more than product B, that's fine. But what's objectively superior is evidenced in the video, whether you like it or not. Your subjective opinion is not important on matters of objective fact. There's literally everything else you glossed over raised in the review you apparently didn't take issue with-like its attrocious performance, mess, clogging etc. I'm sorry you're offended by facts and reality, but I don't think there's much anyone can do for you.

@@VacuumFacts Wow, your manners leave a lot to be desired.

I was just thinking the same thing about your style over substance interpretation. When you've got nothing left to go on, play the 'I'm offended' card to try to reclaim some ground. Nuff said...

Same here, been using my Henry quick for couple of months now, I'm glad I haven't seen this video before, I would probably not buy this great hoover. Very biased review

@@jack_3.5mm Being contented with a product you bought is not justification for suggesting bias at a collection of evidenced facts. Everything said in the video is true because there's data to show it. If those facts don't bother you, that's fine, but they're still true. Which statements made in the video do you think are false and where is the evidence to confirm? What important facts do you feel are missing from the video, and again, where is the evidence? To misinterpret facts stated in a video that paint a full picture, rather than half of it, that ends up not being favourable for a particular product, even though the data is right there in front of you to see, such as to unthinkingly conclude "bias", demonstrates a level of disturbing intellectual incapability that's frightening to think exists in the public domain.

Possibly the only person in the world to have shown representative data that allows intelligent people to draw meaningful conclusions for themselves about what's actually true.

@@VacuumFacts data? Heres some data. 130 quid, best suction, doesn't break. Thats all the data i need. Ive used nearly every type of vaccum and brand. Nothing compares to the henry. Especially price to performance its unbeatable. Not sure why you hate it so much

@@stevem9529 You stated many claims but provided little in the way of reputable data. Anyone who forms a judgement based on that is unlikely to recognise the help provided here and instead misinterpret and draw conclusions that are at odds with reality. Too bad. The rest of the picture not ackowledged in your comment can be found in the video.

@@VacuumFacts £130 and best vacuum I've ever used. Only 'data' i need

That's fine. Then this video wasn't for you...making it strange that you commented for any reason other than to troll. This video provides the rest of the actual data you're apparently not interested in for others to make more informed decisions.

Why? There's literally no good reason to, especially given the evidence already available of the performance deficit and other practicality problems with Kobolt machines, as evidenced very clearly here czcams.com/video/ZmzG8XOQAeQ/video.html

Found an insecure anti-Dyson rabid vacuum enthusiast that's offended by facts that conflict with their wonky worldviews

@@VacuumFacts Not anti-Dyson, just pro-good vacuum. You have to look at the comments on all your videos and see the theme. Your viewers don't think Dysons are the best thing since sliced bread. So many people want a bagged vacuum. You can't have that with a Dyson. So many people want something that isn't a cordless stick vacuum. You can't have that with a Dyson. So how can Dyson, with the only thing its bringing to the table is a semi-decent cordless stick vacuum be the best vacuum manufacturer ever? The SEBO Felix checks the boxes for the people that want a powerful bagged vacuum that will last them a long time.

You just have to look at the evidence to see the theme. What people 'think' is irrelevant. What's true is what matters and the objective evidence is overwhelmingly clear. Bagged vacuums are a silly technology of the past, riddled with disadvantages and shortcomings. Better technology exists that achieves more with less. Bagged vacuums are available for the deluded few who don't appear to appreciate the best technology available to make the chore easiest. If people like bagged vacuums best, fine. Each to their own. But don't come on a channel about facts arguing they're better. They're not and there's no evidence they are. Pointing this out doesn't make someone a fanboy; it makes them truthful.

@@VacuumFacts A non-bagged vacuum has yet to solve the allergy issue. When you open up the canister on a stick vacuum, you get hit in the face by floating dust and debris. And emptying it into the trash is messy. Bagged vacuums have solved that issue.

This is a false statement. The original bagless vacuum can be emptied without mess as evidenced here czcams.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/video.html and bagged vacuums are extremely messy to empty, as evidenced here czcams.com/video/ei3rEQzMoPk/video.html | czcams.com/video/c4X9GAOJiLs/video.html | czcams.com/video/YPnPwBRpNBc/video.html | czcams.com/video/ZmzG8XOQAeQ/video.html | czcams.com/video/x_Rry3u1Kcs/video.html | czcams.com/video/IJz-lYoF1_o/video.html .

Their future technology looks very interesting. Discussed in pinned comments on my latest video.

I've seen no evidence to support this claim. Some sources on YT use multiple pads at the same time (e.g. czcams.com/video/HoZrl93TXb8/video.htmlfeature=shared&t=470 ), which obviously provides greater air resistance and is deeply misleading and unrepresentative. This would also imply Kirby are stupid for inventing this method of testing that isn't representative.

The video clearly evidences that the bag and dirt meter are indistinguishable relative to the flow reduction provided by the carpet. I suggest you watch the video. There is no other physical means to explain the observed data trends.

Not sure who that's directed to, but if you're suggesting I'm a 'Kirby vacuum sales person' then you might want to go do a little fact check.

Only neglect results in damage to components for the most part, certainly within the warranty period. Before then, it's customer services are far superior. The whole design is modular and under warranty, new parts are shipped out. Out of warranty they're fairly inexpensive. After 10+ years, it's simply discontinued because it's time to recycle and move on because the technology has moved on. The idea that you have to continually buy components in a Kirby doesn't speak well of it. No one uses an old phone for decades. No one uses an old PC for decades. No one uses an old car for decades. No one uses old clothes for decades. And then there's literally everything else wrong with Kirby vacuums.

OK. What vacuum do you recommend for deep wet carpet Shampooing other than Dyson???. What vacuum do you recommend for industrial wet vacuums. The Submarine doesn't cut it. And under normal wear and tear where can you get new genuine Dyson parts for the DC02???

Suddenly the subject has changed from dry vacuuming to sticky dirt removal, which is a different product class. You shouldn't ever be wetting carpets and there are far better technologies out there, as has been discussed many times on my channel. The DC02 is a defunct machine superseded many times now and should have been recycled long ago. You can get the latest product for a fraction of the cost Kirby would want you to pay for the equivalent top version of their product from them. It's a no brainer to forget about Kirby products.

I like the way you circumvent the system buy backstabbing other products, no matter what proof is being thrown to you. A biased one sided leaning based on just science and one sided view of personal opinion with no footnotes or references supplied is no reason for justification. Bar graphs mean nothing. Every vacuum is flawed. Dyson goes by quantity not quality. Half of the older cordless models are discontinued. Who doesn't shampoo carpets anymore???. It still needs to be done to get the dirt out of the carpet or to surface it. One follows up afterwards with a regular carpet vacuum once it's dried. Also certain expensive rugs I wouldn't recommend a Dyson, because it can ruin the fibres. Thus is the expense of carpeted floors a dry brush over doesn't cut it. Air wattage means nothing if customer service isn't there. That includes most Dyson products. Like their filters for their bladeless air purifiers and fans. These have been back ordered for years. Also charging docks, extra batteries, pre motor filters. You name it. What good is a product when no maintenance or proper service isn't available. Kirby has all that which Dyson lacks. "DON'T BE FOOLED" Dyson isn't all cut out what it should be.

>> “I like the way you circumvent the system buy backstabbing other products, no matter what proof is being thrown to you.” This makes no sense. I don't think you've provided any 'proof' of whatever it is you're proposing. >> “Bar graphs mean nothing.” Bar graphs mean *everything* because they're the data collected following the methodology outlined in the video (and all the other ones). >> “Every vacuum is flawed.” This is a meaningless statement >> “Dyson goes by quantity not quality.” Dyson goes by quality and therefore quantity. The evidence is in the video. >> “Half of the older cordless models are discontinued.” I’m not sure where you’re getting your faulty data from, but everything before the V8 is discontinued-and that's because it's now very old technology vastly superseded by the modern machines, as clearly evidenced in their reviews on my channel. >> “Who doesn't shampoo carpets anymore???” No one suggested otherwise. I simply said no one should be wetting carpets to remove sticky dirt in the home. There are better technologies, as discussed on my channel in microsponges playlists. >> “Also certain expensive rugs I wouldn't recommend a Dyson, because it can ruin the fibres.” If you have irrefutable objective evidence, please send it along for review. Otherwise, I’ve no reason to believe what you say. >> “Air wattage means nothing if customer service isn't there.” I’ve no confidence you even understand what air watts are, physically. And customer service is there. >> “Like their filters for their bladeless air purifiers and fans. These have been back ordered for years.” No idea what you’re talking about. >> “What good is a product when no maintenance or proper service isn't available.” Not sure you understand what you’re talking about. You don’t need to replace anything if you’ve used it responsibly. Spare parts are available on their website for machines still supported (within the last 10 years). A simple fact check reveals this, so I’m not sure how it’s possible you’re missing it. >> “Kirby has all that which Dyson lacks.” I’ve already discussed this nonsense in the previous post. The idea that you have to continually buy components in a Kirby doesn't speak well of it.

Thanks. I'm only sorry that the internet fails to provide quality content such that my meagre video is considered the best. I've reviewed the successor to this machine as well. czcams.com/video/7wa3SrXh-0s/video.html