I've not yet seen anything worth reviewing. Also extremely busy. But do have more videos planned.

You know I've never once felt Dyson has "forced" me to "buy a new one" for top price. I've never understood how a trigger breaks, as shown in the statistically insignificant number of videos on YT, given that it is feather touch. I've had many such products on this channel and not one of them broke with heavy use. Go figure. Suction doesn't reduce in the cyclones (unless complete neglect or abuse has occurred resulting in product failure, like with any product). In fact, my Samsung review kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2LEmKSPZ8xkqK8 showed that theirs don't work very well and can clog, even with normal use, unlike the original and effective cyclones by Dyson. Everything you've said here is either false, known to be caused by neglect rather than product design flaws, or is simply misleading.

Should do

The outsize models are usually the same technology but larger. Hopefully Dyson's fundamentally new battery technology-looking likely released in 2025-should solve the capacity issues, even for larger homes and those retaining the old model of the tiring, weekly, mega-clean chore. It's energy density and specific energy increases should be at least a factor of 2 (possibly up to 4). Commercial environments will still benefit from multiple batteries, but a bank of those will all be charged and ready to go ready with everything else in that environment.

Hmm. Sounds as though you're not emptying or using it right somehow. Check here kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5DMnGmniMimZtE and here kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4W2kpeFopuKqas

Cheap knockoff clones get clogged. I showed this myself in the samsung Jet 90 review kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2LEmKSPZ8xkqK8 . The original cyclonic cleaner by Dyson does not get clogged (unless you neglect and abuse it). You're simply not giving an accurate picture and spouting generalised nonsense. Incidentally, washable cyclones are a hassle and don't stop bad smells. This is all covered in this myth busting video kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqTPZad5lrFpnZo

There are a lot of misleading videos by unchecked YT cowboys showing unnecessary cleaning of internals that don't need it and show complete misunderstanding of how these machines work, resulting in the wrong conclusion of a 'design flaw'.

It's explained in the video. You empty it. A wipe with a dry cloth is usually not necessary. Using microsponges can help remove odours at their source. But smelly material is smelly material and if it's created, there will be smells on any machine. It's that simple. You can't eliminate it, but you can reduce it.

Possibly. You can definitely remove it with cutters or a saw, or rip it off with pliars. But then the product wouldn't work as designed.

@@VacuumFacts If it is coming out on its own what to do.

@@sriramm7465 I don't think it's designed to be user-removable. It would require careful dismantling. It's wholly unnecessary to do though.

@@VacuumFacts No I mean that the ring is coming out own. I moved the bin back and forth till the stop 2 or 3 times to clean the mesh, after that I can see the ring coming out from where it is held on. Do I just push it back in?

Oh right. It's not supposed to come off. Try to push it back in. If you can't figure it out, call their support team since it's under warranty.

What's really important is to contrast what was said by those people and actual reality. It's important to identify the properties and behaviour of those who were naysayers-namely, a lack of credible evidence-and forever blacklist anyone who shows similar behaviour. This entire channel is dedicated to countering the disgusting behaviour of people like that, in this case, the rabid 'vacuum enthusiast' community, who have been nothing short of disgusting here. Their general behaviour is consistent with the undereducated who show right-leaning and racist tendencies based on the vile and disgusting comments I've had over the years. Identify people who behave like that and ensure their influence is reduced to zero. On the technology side, the V10 remains better than any copycat clone I've tested, which is astonishing. A lot of progress has been made since the V10 too, and the next generation of their cordless looks quite radically different.

Just search for "carpet cleaning microsponges". Envirodry produce the same as Zorb and I use it regularly.

The consequences of 'dirty internals' are mostly myths spread by ignorance. I produced a video to counter the falsehoods: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqTPZad5lrFpnZo Future generations of the cordless cleaners are likely to have modified internals and much simpler air path, which should minimise further any 'internal dirt'. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oojTlX5oaJmLnLc While the Miele C3 Excellence has clean internals, it's actually dirtier along the airpath since all the air has to pass through the longer dirty hose and all the dirt in the bag. The Gen5 on the other hand has just the relatively shorter wand and then the cyclone pack air path. Most of the air doesn't actually pass through all the dirt in the bin, unlike a bag. The cyclone pack on the next generation of dyson cordless, the air passes through even less of the dirt in the bin, which is separated inertially instead.

@@VacuumFacts very interesting, thank you for taking the time to respond! I am quite excited to follow Dyson’s upcoming innovations in the space. Fascinating!

It depends to what level. if it's lay, then internet searching. If it's deeper and scientific, then the library and lots of books. While you could measure the suction pressure at the cleaner head, you're simply better off conducting careful comparative testing of cleaning performance (as I do in my reviews). Resultant cleaning performance is all that counts for most end users, and other metrics aren't that relevant unless you're engineering and tuning a product and tell you more about the motor.

The disgraceful and complete lack of quality, detail, and thoroughness in other reviews required me to do a proper job with mine.

You have to wonder what's gone wrong with the rest of the internet that key things like that aren't mentioned.

This is false, as demonstrated clearly and repeatedly in the respective reviews. You should watch the videos before commenting on them so you don't look foolish.

This is a flawed and specious argument debunked long ago. Trot along. Your opinions are not accurate or interesting, and you ignore literally everything else factual pointed out in the video...

@@VacuumFactsplease show me the source where this is debunked.

You don't seem to understand the burden of proof. You need to show the evidence that "a Numatic will last a lifetime"-presumably excluding all the disposable, costly ancillaries-and then explain why so many are dumped and why there's evidence that they don't out there on YT. As for "Vacuum bags make up only a minor fraction of the total waste created by people", your claim misses the point entirely. Vacuum bags scale across the globe to make a substantial avoidable waste. And then there's their cumulative carbon footprint in manufacture and distribution. All avoidable, as discussed in the video you don't appear to have watched. You're not being clever here; you just look foolish now.

@@VacuumFactsThe burden of proof is on you my friend, as you’re mentioning the Henry’s environment unfriendliness. Since you claim to state facts only and base everything on data: can you show me the total environmental footprint of let’s say 10 years of Dyson use compared to 10 years of Numatic use (taking in account production, development, production location (Malaysia vs EU), distribution, marketing etc.)? I would like to see some hard facts at this point, because your claims are wild.

If you can't see that (dust + bag) is worse than (dust alone), then there's no hope for you or point in continuing your troll comment. And then there's literally everything else mentioned in the video you continue to glaze over.

An absolute tribal, anti-Dyson racist and rabid 'vacuum enthusiast' who finds subjective hearsay that any clown could make up, in lieu of actual detailed objective data, more reliable than the findings of independent formal test laboratories that used the gold standard of industry test standards, and findings of those whose tests are consistent with them.

@@VacuumFacts so much emotion, a true fanboy.

All I did was reflect you. Interesting that you identified it as having "so much emotion". You also completely evaded what was said. And you fell victim to not being able to distinguish between admiration for a company (your accusation) and admiration for technology produced by that company (reality). I've no allegiance to the Dyson company. We have enough here to conclude all we need to know about you...

No. Bagged vacuums should never be used. Even a cheap, crappy Dyson bagless clone is better, since instead of throwing a costly bag into landfill completely wastefully, the filters they overly rely on can at least be rinsed, even if it's a small hassle. There is still also performance degradation of both bagged and cheap copycat bagless clones as they become dust loaded. There is simply no justification anymore for bagged machines existing. They're a scam and are only advocated by regresive capitalists out for a fast buck at your expense, or ignorant tribalists that are sometimes also deliberately misleading. There are many technologies which can achieve high levels of filtration without reliance on filters. Only one company is researching them though. The rest of the regressive capitalists are content with swooping in with a nasty clone for a fast buck at the customers' expense.

@@VacuumFacts I have a bagless vacuum and it's a pain in the ass to clean, and the filter clogs up very quickly. There are some affordable bagless vacuums on the market that claim that they use cyclonic dust separation, but I am a bit reluctant. You convinced me to look into cyclonic separation and consider buying a bagless vacuum instead. If I find one that doesn't need thorough cleaning almost after each use I will buy it. AEG LX7 looks fancy but is it good though?

I hear you. Copycat clones of good technology that sully the original idea (kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5DUhGWfa62EiLs) are often poor. If you're genuinely looking to avoid the hassle of regular filter maintenance and have good technology, you'll have to pay for it. It's the way of the world. The higher-grade copycat clones-some of which I've reviewed on my channel-are almost as much as the top-end products. This is deliberate to undercut the best on the cheap at your expense. My advice is to hold your nose with whatever you're using now, save up for as long as it takes, and invest in the next model of Dyson's stick vac-which will no doubt be extremely expensive. From what I've inferred of it so far, it looks to be quite radically different from their current flagship offering (the Gen5Detect), as I've discussed in pinned comments on my latest video (kzbin.info/www/bejne/oojTlX5oaJmLnLc). It's unclear whether it will use the new revolutionary battery technology from the gigafactory that is due to come online in 2025, but, it's a possibility. If there was better technology out there, I'd recommend that; this isn't a plug for Dyson as such; they just have the best technology on the market by far.

@@VacuumFacts thank you for your time. I will probably end up buying something that catches my attention and test it, if it won't work I will return it. I am at such a point in my life that I really can't afford to spend more than 150€ on a vacuum. There are already a lot of expenses going on, and they will only increase in the following years (finally going to the university). As much as I would love to have a Dyson or equally advanced machine, they aren't the right product for me, not yet. Really appreciate your help though.

This video mostly reitterates what's in the manual

It's a combination of tribalism, lack of education, and lack of critical thinking. Those afflicted congregate into the 'vacuum enthusiast' community online, which are pretty rabid. It was their vitriol that inspired me to make this channel as a counter.

You're welcome to translate into writing, upload to a location of your choice, and post a link here for other people, if you're as passionate as you sound.

Something's wrong then. The filters shouldn't get that dirty. It's possible to go for months without needing to rinse it, e.g. kzbin.info/www/bejne/imTTo4uIYsaYhck without issues or loss of performance. You don't need to pull any bits apart to clean. In fact, you don't need to clean it. What were you doing with it? The major downsides of the Henry design you glossed over are evidenced clearly in all the reviews. It's also completely false they clean better and there is hard data for that. You also, unsurprisingly, didn't mention which model of either machine you were talking about.

The motorbar doesn't throw debris under real-world usage. There's also no evidence one performs better than another in real-world situations. People may subjectively 'feel' otherwise and like it more though.

​@@VacuumFactsNo, in the five years I've been using both on a weekly basis it's 'fact' that the fluffy head works better on hard surfaces and throws less debris. I don't have a video to back it up, just countless weeks of using both heads and experimenting lol

That conflicts with my experience and direct, real-world representative measurements. Go figure.

>> "@VacuumFacts Fair enough, though I think this video does a better job than yours of comparing the two heads; kzbin.info/www/bejne/raKQc5qVdth5b9E" My video doesn't attempt to compare the heads under real-world representative conditions. This was explicitly stated in the video description. This was just a silly entertainment video to appease that audience. The video you pointed to also doesn't show meaningful real-world representative conditions. Worse, it doesn't state that and implies it's a meaningful comparison. And, almost a moot point, but the head being used in that video is a much, much older design without the gates of the more recent head, so obviously it's not going to work as well for large particles-that's why that old head was updated. So, to conclude that video "does a better job than yours of comparing the two heads" is absurd on many levels when you break it down and look beyond the cosmetic. The reality is, under real-world representative conditions, both heads do comparable jobs. One is just more practical to use in mixed-flooring homes.

It's a disgrace there's nowhere on the internet, let alone YT where you can find that out either. If you want a job doing right... The Gen5 advancements are covered in its review as well. The next model looks to substantially revolutionise many areas as well, whenever it's released. Also, I'm not a "Dyson enthusiast"; I'm a technology enthusiast. It just happens that Dyson are the only one pushing the technology and so get all the attention. The rest just copy at the customers' expense.

Please can you evidence and quantify “the change of the nylon bristles”? Presumably you mean wear. If you didn’t, then it’s not clear what you’re talking about, why it’s meaningful, or how you’ve concluded I’ve ‘underestimated the change of the nylon bristles’. I’ve reviewed your test methodology and it is not satisfactory to draw any convincing conclusions from it. The most obvious problems I noticed were that • You didn’t specify carpet backing type; its porosity strongly determines results. • You didn’t say how you controlled distribution of test dust to ensure homogeneity. • You simply pressed down on the test dust, which doesn’t simulate fibre motion and representative embedding, and why controlled brushing is better. • You showed variable numbers of passes over same area to collect datapoints, particularly in later passes (e.g. V8 with Gen5 head), which is clearly unrepresentative. I’ve not yet seen any other source on YT which doesn’t suffer from obvious issues with testing methodology.

This guy has obviously never watched the video...

Me too. It's very disturbing how YT has evolved. It's a regressively capitalist machine now.

I still have new educational videos planned for this channel...eventually. If more manufacturers innovated, there'd be more review videos. Sadly, they just clone on the cheap at the customers' expense or peddle useless gimmicks.

@@VacuumFacts It's refreshing to see a channel that just stop doing reviews, yet still actively supports viewers when there's no actually new product coming out, instead of milking every single inferior releases from other companies over and over. After using my Dyson, I have to say currently, they are clearly light years ahead of the competition (if you can even call it competition). Hopefully some interesting stuff happens in the future. By the way, is it normal for the filters to have light fraying on the non-HEPA part, and is it by design choice that the wand and other attachments are slightly loose when connected to the vacuum ?

Yes, the premotor filter is essentially a bunch of fibres, so they become frayed with rinses. But they still filter fine. The 'looseness' is mechanical spring that good design incorporates to minimise fracture chance. Many people (usually Dyson brand haters) wrongly conclude it's bad. It's actually good and they're still sealed.

@@VacuumFacts Exactly as I thought, thanks for the answer it really saved me a headache. Now onto binge watching the rest of your videos lol

What is? The evidence-supported facts presented? Someone sounds like they don't like reality. :/

@@VacuumFacts Reality from what your independent home testing that's not in a lab and has no real actual science to back it up? You're having a laugh mate. And don't get me started about calling other machines clones and then claiming that they don't match the Dyson in performance and don't look like it what's so ever. Utter waffling and misleading consumers from your end. Shameful behaviour.

The testing I do is not to the same statistical rigour of industry standard testing, but does not suffer from the flaws seen in all other bedroom testing seen on YT. It shows a fairly representative relative comparison that is fully in line with a) expectations from known science and what would be expected (see all other videos on my channel), and b) with evidence formally acquired from industry standard testing. You simply haven't a made a case here. And then there's everything else in the review glossed over.

@@VacuumFacts My case is you're a self proclaimed Dyson biased superfan (thank you for clarifying in previous comments, makes my case and point work a lot easier) which while fine doesn't translate to the unbiased review that this should be. Do you mention obvious undeniable flaws in the machine (and there many) yes. Do you give fair marks to the competition and even possibly recommend other machines from different brands? No. That's what a REVIEW is for. Pointing out the pros and cons of a machine and taking the cons and formulating possible other options for the cons for consumers. People like MKBHD, one of the most notable tech reviewers on the platform wouldn't be nearly as good as 16M subscribers worth of success if he didn't do this extremely basic practice. People that have been collecting vacuums and testing them personally has a hobby since their childhood like Parwaz786 who is also somewhat of a Dyson fan points out that this machine is lacking in build quality and general good brownie points you want on a machine that nearly costs as much as a high-range television. Also, if you know and accept that the tests you do are quote "bedroom-like" your channel shouldn't be plastered and even video water marked in "vacuum facts" like it's a general facts channel on the entire topic rather than a few home tests by a Dyson superfan judging new machines.

>>”you're a self-proclaimed Dyson biased superfan” What evidence have you relied on to conclude this? Please share it. I have stated the exact opposite on more occasions than I can remember now. >> “Do you mention obvious undeniable flaws in the machine (and there many) yes.” Pity then you didn’t mention and then evidence a single one in a manner consistent with your very own criticisms. Makes you look very hypocritical. >> “Do you give fair marks to the competition and even possibly recommend other machines from different brands?” What does that even mean? “Fair marks to the competition”? This is a relative comparison. What was observed was reported. I don’t even recommend the Dyson machine; I simply stated the facts. People can make their own minds up. Not sure how you missed this or why you appear offended. >> “That's what a REVIEW is for.” You have a bizarre and warped idea of what a review is. This review is a review of the facts and the full truth. Technologically, there’s little to criticise relative to the competition. >> “Parwaz786 who is also somewhat of a Dyson fan points out that this machine is lacking in build quality” That person is an entertainer and provides little in the way of credible testing or facts of a nature within the remit of this channel. You also failed to explain what “lacking in build quality” even means, let alone evidence it. You carry no credibility and are being very hypocritical. >> “your channel shouldn't be plastered and even video water marked in "vacuum facts" like it's a general facts channel” The watermark is to stamp my content. The name reflects that I present the facts and full truth. Plenty of evidence of that on my channel. >> “by a Dyson superfan judging new machines.” That you think I’m a Dyson (the company) superfan automatically leaves you without credibility. I care about technology on this channel and only the best I can identify, which, like it or not, comes from Dyson at the moment. Sorry it offends your apparently tribal worldview. You’ve spouted much here but provided the same level of substance from all the similar whiny voices I’ve become bored with in the past-namely zero.

Dyson customer service have become very, very poor recently (as of mid 2024) and lets down the entire company. The total clean is the higher end product, whose only difference is that it comes with more tools-most notably the anti-hair screw tool, which is pretty core. I'd also add the Gen5 is much better still, and the next product looks to be quite radically different, whenever it's released (maybe next year).

@@VacuumFacts I’m glad you mentioned the customer service because I’ve found the same thing. My wife and daughter have Dyson hairdryers, when my wife had an issue end of last year they were great but we called 2 weeks ago about my daughter’s and they were utterly useless. It’s a real shame, given it’s a premium product, good CS should be an area in which they excel. Thanks for the reply, very helpful!

Their customer service used to be truly excellent. Replacement of modular parts no questions asked. Now it's a joke and others have described the utter shambles it is now and the miserable experience you have to endure if something goes wrong. What a genuine shame. Technologically, they are unsurpassed or even approached.

They're engineered to be the best known how. The other manufacturers copy at the customers' expense to bypass the expensive R&D. Sadly, Dyson's customer service quality has fallen off a cliff recently. Not sure I agree that particles affect the lusture of carpet. It would depend on the carpet itself and abrasion by other materials will affect wear just as much.

You seem to be confusing wild accusation with evidence supported facts.

​@@VacuumFacts It's not actually that wild. I just looked into it for a matter of five minutes and there are lawsuits from ORECK and bothered consumers that indicate to the false no loss of suction claims. One such article is from the guardian in 2007 where the NSA (which also looked into this case with Shark V Dyson) said that the No Loss of Suction claims from Dyson were untrue. My point is, this is a hypocritical move from Dyson although what Shark was trying to pull off was sketchy too. I just think that this video shines a limelight on Dyson that shouldn't really be there as they've been stuffed into the same corner for the same shady advertising and claims before.

You seem to be confusing wild accusation with evidence supported facts.

@@VacuumFacts You keep posting the same comment this time 10 minutes apart...

Because it still applied. You continued to show no understanding of the distinction between clear, objective evidence and accusation.

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.

@@VacuumFacts Do think its wise to buy additional coverage?

@@hurubi For what? Like those insurance offers. I've always thought they were a scam. Even out of warranty, you can get any spare modular parts for their cost value if ever needed. Additional coverage won't fix Dyson's spotty customer service now either.

What makes you say this as I know you’ve been an advocate for dyson products, are you able to say how the service has declined?

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 kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGSwlpmjftSnbK8