Bagged Vs Bagless Vacuum Cleaners
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- A video covering the main reasons why (the best) bagged vacuum cleaner filtration technology has had its day and is outperformed across the board by (the best) cyclonic bagless technology. Several frequently-peddled myths are also addressed.
ERRATA: @4:50, the cylinder shown is a bagless model. Wrong image accidentally used; it should have been a £350 bagged cylinder.
Links:
1. Why Dyson Cinetic technology is amazing: • Dyson Cinetic Technolo...
2. Best holistic review criteria to judge a vacuum cleaner • The Best Way to Review...
3. Messless bagless bin emptying • Emptying Bagless Vacuu...
I really love and appreciate your videos. You talk such sense.
I think there's a strong correlation between being ignorant and strongly subjectively-opinionated, and how likely you are to put a "non" in front of the "sense".
@@VacuumFacts I am a person that only ever uses a cyclonic bagless vacuum cleaner,this type of vacuum cleaner has got to be the best type ever
@@gncc600 Bullshit. He tells the truth. If he didn’t like something he would say so.
@@VacuumFacts I was a janitor for nearly 30 years & I used many types of vacuum cleaner. Bagless vacuum cleaners are garbage. I would never use a bagless vacuum cleaner or recommend them.
@@autodidact537 Well thanks for your learned and well-evidenced insight... For the non-luddites, there's my channel with facts supported by objective evidence so they can make up their own minds.
A picture is worth a thousand words. After spending time telling your viewers that they don't want a bagged system because of the bag waste, in your video at 12:18, you overlook the fact that your bagless system's waste is being dumped into... a bag! Also clear is that the debris falls into the plastic bag with no seal around it (the debris is clearly visible) so the particulate matter will become airborne and go billowing back into the room, land on your countertops, get breathed into the lungs, etc. The reason that people who test out a bagless system go back to the bagged vacuums is because it is extremely unpleasant to expose yourself and your home to the process of emptying out the bagless cannisters, and the maintenance associated with cleaning the waste containers and filters that exist in many (but not all) of them. I have had a simple, inexpensive, bagged vacuum since 1993 (almost 3 decades) and it has yet to show up in a landfill. There's a lot of huge, plastic Dyson vacuums that have come and gone, ending up in landfills during that time. Don't overlook the impact of that waste.
It was emptied into a bag to make filming easier. Sorry it was confusing for you. Updated demo ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html Your assumptions about cloud splashback are also demonstrated to be false in that linked video. All products that are not recycled end up in landfill. You also seem to have overlooked the entire video evidencing the problems with bags and don't seem to have any real argument here.
@@VacuumFacts a pointless video that was a waste of time to watch with zero evidence in it. If you want to prove anything, you'll have to purchase a particle counter and take measurements of the air quality prior to vacuuming, after vacuuming, and after emptying the vacuum container.
@@GodleyX You may not have noticed, but the V15 has a particle counter built in and detects no such mess. You might also want to view the Henry review videos showing bags leaking dust. And then there's literally everything else shown you ignored. Also, the claims made in this video are easily fact-checkable; something you failed to do, given your complete lack of detailed discussion.
I think the thumbs up two thumbs down ratio sums up this video. When a modern bag quote-unquote clogs up loses less than 10% of its efficiency. Most modern bag vacuums will fill their bag to the point where they go back into the hose before you'll notice if you don't look at the full bag check indicator.
I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions about the thumbs up to thumbs down ratio given a) the statistically insignificant number of people are involved in the voting, and secondly, it's opt in (go read some statistics books to learn why that's important :P ). The number of people who gave any kind of thumbs vote relative to the total number of views says more. xD As for the claim about the quantification of suction loss as a percentage of bag fullness, I'd need to see the evidence you've used to come to that conclusion for me to believe it. Presumably there were no issues with all the other points I raised which made the full picture, seeing as there was no mention--which is good.
@@VacuumFacts i agree with you performance reviews bagged will always outlast bagless no filters to clean and messy clogged cyclones bagged beats bagless any day.
Lets just clear one thing up... bagless vacuums are absolutely shit. The amount of dysons i get in for repair is unbelievable, and even if you type in on ebay ‘spares or repair vacuum cleaners’ loads of dysons come up.
What type of vacuums do asbestos removal people use?? They use bagged hepa vacuums as bagged it way more efficient than bagless when i come to your health and the environment. Although dyson filters are washable you still need to replace them after a few years.
Unfortunately, you haven’t cleared anything up and I think you’ve got your work cut out for you if you are hoping to convince anyone. The number of Dysons you get in for repairs is easily explained. They’re extremely popular machines, so there are many more in ownership out there, relative to others. People abuse their machines and they fail. So, you’ve got relatively more failed Dysons now in for repair. This is a world away from being right in claiming Dysons therefore aren’t good cleaners or their technology doesn’t work. Any technology will fail if it's abused. This is covered in my videos and I’d recommend watching them to learn something.
Removing asbestos is not a suitable task for commercial household vacuums, so citing the lack of Dyson use for that problem is highly fallacious. I’m sure they don’t use a Henry and instead have highly specialised equipment for something so highly dangerous.
There is no evidence that lifetime washable filters need to be replaced after a few years (in the modern cleaners); if you have data of a formal study showing this claim is true (not whimsical hearsay or dodgy UA-cam clips), please share, otherwise you’re simply not convincing us by blurting out claims that demand evidence.
For $1000 you could get a supreme commercial or industrial vacuum. I would like to see what these vacuum industry standards touch on, but when i looked to read the standards they were behind a paywall (not unusual). I’m interested but not obsessed enough to pay for an iso global standard that I won’t use after reading it.
Yes, they are copyrighted. I have access to them and plan to talk about them in a video in the future. It's really boring though so I keep putting it off. Not convinced an industrial vacuum is better because of the price tag or name. Data might show otherwise, but no idea where said data is. Then there's literally every other factor to consider as outlined in my "how to review" video. Any idiot manufacturer can brute force performance if you jam enough power into it. Achieving performance with extreme efficiency and minimalism is an art-like skill, and very few are capable of performing at that level.
My Miele vacuum is 30 years old and I use original bags I can fill that bag until it’s rock hard and the suction is still excellent I might be throwing bags away into land fill but if everyone throws out there Dyson cordless every 3 years that’s going to add to land fill more than people throwing bags out every 2 months
Except you're not supposed to throw out a Dyson cordless, and no reason to "every 3 years". They are to be recycled and are made from recyclable materials. Dyson even have recycling support in more developed parts of the world. www.dyson.co.uk/inside-dyson/sustainability/dyson-weee-recycling This is in stark contrast to bags, which by their design, are intended to be thrown out frequently. Scaled up across a nation, this is hugely wasteful. And worst of all, it's completely unnecessary. Furthermore, not everyone fills the bag until it's rock hard because they fester vile odours, as many complain about. It's not just Dyson machines that are 'thrown out every 3 years' by some of the more careless, but ANY product. There are plenty of Kirby's, or other bagged and bagless clone machines thrown out. As such, it's simply not an argument in favour of bagged technology, which has had its day. And then there's everything else in the video.
@@VacuumFacts I work in a vacuum repair shop and the amount of Dyson cordless vacuums we get in for repair is starting to get ridiculous we even get the newer Dyson v11/v15 mostly because it has lost suction or it’s pulsating or its smelling the costumer says they’ve been emptying the bin cleaning the filter, but cyclones still get coated with fine dust and over time that dust bilds up causing it to smell and lose suction
Ignoring that your response didn't address anything raised in my previous response, the reason you get more is because there are more in ownership. Furthermore, they are abused and neglected. Evidence clearly shows that when used as instructed in the manual they do not fail or clog, as you've misleadingly claimed. Only if neglected do they fail...like literally any product. I have seen absolutely no evidence showing how such failures can be reproduced from scratch when following the instructions. Not a single dot of evidence. And I guarantee you have absolutely none. It's always anecdotal. And all seemingly from people who go to vacuum repair shops rather than to the manufacturer (Dyson) themselves, who'll fix it free under warranty, or send out replacement modular components inexpensively if out of warranty. That says it all. You are convincing no one intelligent or educated with your 'stories'.
I see why some people choose bagless vacuums. However, I personally prefer bagged vacuums just from an emptying/maintenance standpoint. I have a Miele and I prefer it to my Dyson. I thought the part on the EU power-cap was interesting. As someone that lives in the U.S. that doesn't apply to me, but I could see how that could factor into people's decision making if they live in a country that is part of the European Union. That being said, I agree that suction power and airflow stats aren't the only important factor when examining a vacuum.
Each to their own. Although, from an emptying/maintenance standpoint, it takes 5 seconds to completely messlessly empty a (good) bagless cleaner and without incurring any costs, as evidenced several times on my channel e.g. ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html . I know of nothing better. Some people use a horse and cart rather than a car. Some people like using candles to light their home instead of electricity. I respect you too much to respect your opinions though, given their 'justification'.
@@VacuumFactsmparing a bagged vacuum to a candle or horse and carriage is monumentally stupid. Dust and airborne particles are much better contained by a bagged vacuum which is especially helpful for those with asthma or lung conditions.
@@josephk1342 It was a perfectly apt analogy that represented the regression of older technology that doesn't work as well and that we've excelled far beyond now. Your claim that "Dust and airborne particles are much better contained by a bagged vacuum" is a misleading half-truth. It is true for cheap, nasty bagless Dyson clones, but is utterly false for Dyson machines and any others that are marketed as "whole machine HEPA filtered". The latest Dyson technology currently has the greatest level of filtration of any residential machine on the market by an utterly huge margin, as explained in great detail in both the Gen5Detect review ua-cam.com/video/7wa3SrXh-0s/v-deo.html and the V15 Absolute+ review ua-cam.com/video/4aL0eJenTqw/v-deo.html which I'd encourage you watch to learn from. Other machines, including all bagged machines with HEPA filters are relatively polluting in comparison now.
one of the biggest problems with Bagless vacuums is that when you empty the dust it all goes everywhere and lands on everything
That's true for the poor copycat clones that are designed very badly to profit from the customer. The original bagless, that was done correctly, can be emptied for free, in 5 seconds, without any mess, as demonstrated here ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html . The problem with overpriced copycat clones and how they sully the image of the original product that actually worked is discussed here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html
How often u need to change EPA filter on bagless?
@@mitch5222 depends on what kind of HEPA filter you have, the disposable one or the washable one. Also it depends on the pre-motor filtration.
@@mitch5222 it's called HEPA FILTER
@@VacuumFacts I use a bagless vacuum cleaner and it's never messy when I empty it
9:15 bagless motors don't get stressed because they run at much lower power, matched to the filtration system. my first time with a cordless, I could not believe how weak suction and quiet it is, it felt like a toy and I was scammed. I kept using high power first the 3 weeks until I started investigating with a flashlight parallel to a hard floor. I found there is little difference, the higher power is cleaner but quite moot as small particles return in one or two hours anyway (unless one is running a powerful air purifier)
Truth is never use cordless vacuums as you will not get much suction at all from it,using corded vacuums are much better
Ok. 1 - yes, cyclones do reduce airflow - resistance absorbs the energy. If you don’t believe me, take a motor off a bagless machine and see how much air volume it can pull without all the cyclones.
2 - bagless machines tend to not have multiple power settings - the more power, the more effective the cyclonic separation.. cyclones do not filter, they separate and that’s an important distinction. Lower the power, you lower the separation, and more dust particles are sucked into the motor. That power use becomes a problem for cordless machines especially, which is why, surprise surprise, you see filters are all cordless and even most corded Dyson vacuums. This power setting is the biggest issue for me when I am trying to vacuum furniture.. with my Miele, this not an issue, and I can get the power lower that I need for that task.. my old Dyson was much harder because it could lower the power and I had to push the nozzle with much greater force across the upholstery.
3 - smells.. ok. Twice a year my Dyson had to be literally taken apart and washed because every time we turned it on, the smell would eventually be impossible to stand. Any smells out of the Miele have never been as bad, nor have I ever had to actually clean my Miele..
Enjoy whatever vacuum you use, but I can tell you that my experience with a bagged Miele has been 10 times better.
Much of this is misleading half truth. 1. This doesn't matter; all that matters is the actual performance you get and what it takes to get it. You've said nothing about that. Those that have looked at it (e.g. the measurements on my channel) clearly show that modern top end bagless vacs that do it right (Dyson) offer the highest levels of performance with minimal power consumption and environmental impact. 2. You've said absolutely nothing about measurements of filtration performance and the environmental consequences of different approaches. Those that have show that cyclonic filtration (done correctly) eliminates the wasteful disposable bag approach and running costs. 3. You've presented no objective evidence about the origin of smells. This is all covered on my channel. Smells are caused by sucking up smelly material; it's that simple. If you have smelly material, then smells cannot be avoided but can be minimised with a few simple steps on Dyson machines: empty, filter rinsing, and zorbing the carpet. I've no reason to believe your positive experiences with your particular product would translate to anyone else. There is better technology out there; this video explains what it is and why.
Let's see....empty DC40 every few times, dismantle bin to clean shroud, reassemble, dust machine as it's covered in Erm dust.OrReplace bag in Sebo X4 3-4 times a year. Remove bag, fit dust seal, throw in bin and replace bag. No need to clean machine as guess what....no dust 😆
You're describing your use of a bagged machine. The implications of this is all covered in the video.
Totally agree. This video has many inaccuracies. Bagless systems have many flaws. They are terrible at trapping dust. Just remove the canister and look at all the dust caked onto the back of the machine. Now think of what is being thrown back into the air for you to breathe in as you vacuum. ‘Cyclonic technology’ is nothing new. Electrolux used it many moons ago before Mr Dyson jumped on it. Saying this is a new and up to date technology is misleading. So many more areas whenever this video is misleading but I don’t want to write a book! Likely this video was paid for by Dyson. Marketing is something Dyson and Shark do very well to make you believe their products are superior.
@@CorbinCarling Knockoff clone bagless are terrible (this was mentioned in the video). Done properly (Dyson), they are superior (this was mentioned in the video). You've also confused what is meant by 'cyclonic technology' (it's primary filtration leaving little left for a filter / bag). Your wild claims are very poorly evidenced.
@@VacuumFacts I own a Dyson animal 2 and yes the vacuum does get dirty a lot. More than a good bagged vacuum. I’m happy with my Dyson. I just wished you could do real world comparison and not sight with just the Dyson cult of saying the best Technology sure they retain their airflow but no agitation is also key
@@Fight4freedom. It's not clear what specific claims in the video you disagree with. I presume none.
And the final question. The pre motor filter on the light ball and the Cinetic cyclones both filter to 0.5 microns yet Dyson recommend you clean the Hepa filter monthly on the light ball yet the Hepa filter on the cinetic never needs washing? This doesn't make sense! Plus the cinetic motor is also producing carbon dust! What's your answer to this Johnny boy? :)
That's actually a fair and original question and you're right that it appears contradictory. The likely answer has its origins in the complex statistical physics of the two filtration methods. The "500 nm" thing isn't some hard cut-off and you actually get particle size distributions that are a function of many parameters. It's not clear what assumptions (or detailed observations) Dyson are relying on to make their recommendations, and obviously something this scientifically recondite isn't going to appear in marketing. I suspect the Cinetic tips are actually more effective than the pre-motor filters, and they're also assuming people will not wash them as recommended, leading to a relatively much greater amount of dust getting to the motor such that it could be problematic. The Cinetic cyclones, negating the need for user maintenance, are therefore more reliable, and the amount of dust they let through (assuming the machine isn't abused) is insufficient to cause motor issues in 10 years (this is formally measured in the labs), or clog the HEPA sufficiently to produce any measurable performance drop. HEPAs can get dust-loaded and not suffer from reduced suction; they don't work like normal filters (why in detail is covered in my filters video). In other words, it's not an issue if some dust gets through the Cinetic tips to the HEPA; in 10 years it's still got full flow. That's really amazing technology. No wonder it's only repair people are the only ones trying to smear it with propaganda; it's putting them out of a job.
JohnnyL8 You have an answer for everything don't you. But whether you are always correct is debatable. The big ball weighs 19 lbs that's too heavy for some. Why haven't they extended this technology to their other uprights?
Feel free to debate (with evidence). That's a good question and only Dyson can answer that. I suspect the Light Ball was their fast-track product recycling old tech to meet the EU caps, rather than a fully worked new piece of technology which may take longer. Nevertheless, the Light Ball was a fantastic offering relative to the sloppy low power remakes of the bagged cleaners that even the enthusiast bag-purists were disappointed by.
I agree the Eco Miele and Sebo models do not perform as well as their previous offerings sadly. I wouldn't buy them. But the models I have I think are excellent.
Yes, and that's the beauty of the EU energy caps. They expose the brute-forcing cheating behaviour of manufacturers trying to peddle inferior filtration technology (for all the reasons outlined in the vid). As soon as you cap motor power, you show why bags have poor suction; ironic given that cyclones-often accused of this very point-are thriving with the motor power cap, as discussed. (FYI I might miss some of your comments because YT's system is poorly developed. It doesn't always notify me of messages so they can get unnoticed.)
12:05 I just empty the bin outdoors. though some dust might stick to the tool, it is insignificant compared to the always present indoor/outdoor dust.
Well designed products can be emptied without mess or cost very quickly. ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html
Typical Dyson fan boy. :/
Typical meaningless comment that entirely ignores the points raised in the video
This man lived as an NPC all his life abd never experienced bagged machine with HEPA media bags, with SEBO, Lindhaus, and numatic
If you think that, then I suggest you check out the reviews of such machines on my channel that evidence your error. Coming on here making false claims is one thing, but you didn't seem to disagree with any specific point raised in the video or form any meaningful position at all. You can't get more superficial and NPC-like.
@@VacuumFacts I have used bagless machines like shark and Dyson, There's nothing worse then having to dump dirt that flies everywhere, constantly washing a filter and cleaning the cyclone
@@VacuumFacts and also SEBO makes fleece HEPA bags with caps that seal them off, so bags has evolved over the years
You clearly haven't watched the very video you're commenting on. You've literally just watched it by title only, like an NPC. Many videos on my channel directly demonstrate you are peddling complete nonsense. These are the same old regurgitated myths that have been thoroughly debunked in meticulous detail years ago. You have no credible position and simply need to go away, look at the information provided for you, and increase your knowledge. Staggering hypocrisy on display in your silly comment and you are demonstrating all the hallmarks of an insufficiently educated internet kid which have plagued my comments for many years. I'm not prepared to engage with you anymore until you show strong evidence of a much greater level of knowledge.
What about the dust behind the shroud? I think Dyson should introduce removable shrouds for washing
Yeah, it could be a source of smells I suppose if the material is smelly. There's no impact on performance though that I've ever come across.
The nice thing about HEPA bags is they have a lot more surface area than the post motor filters on a bagless unit. The bags also don't require cleaning because they are disposed of after a month or so. The increased surface area and regular replacement offers more protection to the vacuum motor, traditionally.
Cleaning post motor filters also tends to open the pores over time. I also don't know many people who know this is required maintenance on their vacuums. Failing to clean the filters on a bagless unit will wear the motor out. A worn out filter will need replacement or dust will begin to damage the motor.
Usually a solid bagged unit can last decades as a result and bagless units are usually replaced more often. This does depend on the user, however. I used a Bissell bagless for ten years and I cleaned it religiously. I have a neighbor who's Shark died after 6 months, and they had no idea they were supposed to do some preventive maintenance.
Premium vacuums like Sebos and Rccars, and commercial units use bags for a reason, longevity, ease of maintenance, and simplicity.
There is also a lot of independent testing that proves modern bagged vacuums don't lose suction, even when full. Check out Vacuum Wars video on it (love that channel).
I do prefer bagged units, but I think Sharks and Dyson's are solid vacuums. My Hoover Hushtone is currently my favorite vacuum. I'm hoping to add a Shark Apex Pro (bagless) to my collection after I save some more shillings.
Thanks for the comment. A few responses:-
>> “The nice thing about HEPA bags is they have a lot more surface area than the post motor filters on a bagless unit.”
For cheap knockoff bagless units that try and cash in at the expense of the customer (see here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html), then yes, what you say is true and meaningful. For decent technology that solved the dust filtration issue decades ago (Dyson’s machines), it’s an irrelevant point. The cyclones do the main filtration work and are a first line of defence; there’s hardly any dust left for the filter, so it only needs to be small and doesn’t clog (bar abuse and neglect). Any technology that relies on filters or bags as a first line of defence is crap technology that deserves no respect.
>> “The bags also don't require cleaning because they are disposed of after a month or so.”
That’s not a good thing and the genuine problems with this are discussed in the video you’re commenting on.
>> “Cleaning post motor filters also tends to open the pores over time.”
I do not believe this, and it contradicts observation. Can you provide some strong, convincing, objective evidence from a respectable source to support your claim and give it a little credibility, and distinguish it from a made-up myth? I would bet you won’t be able to source the evidence.
>> “I also don't know many people who know this is required maintenance on their vacuums.”
Anyone user who isn’t aware of the most utterly basic things outlined in the manual constitutes an abusive and neglectful user. That’s not the fault of the manufacturer. Most car owners know they need to put fuel in their car and change the oil etc. if they want it to keep working. Machines aren't magical and do require basic user responsibility.
>> “Failing to clean the filters on a bagless unit will wear the motor out.”
Maybe a cheap knockoff copycat product. Dyson machines detect when filters have been neglected and deliberately stops working until rinsed.
>> “A worn out filter will need replacement or dust will begin to damage the motor.”
Maybe a cheap knockoff copycat product. Dyson filters are lifetime filters and should never need replacing if treated as intended and outlined in the manual.
>> “Usually a solid bagged unit can last decades as a result and bagless units are usually replaced more often.”
Maybe a cheap knockoff copycat product. Dyson machines are built to last 10 years at the very least with responsible use-by which time, many people will want to upgrade to newer and better technology.
>> “Premium vacuums like Sebos and Rccars, and commercial units use bags for a reason, longevity, ease of maintenance, and simplicity.”
I’ve seen no evidence Sebos and Riccars are ‘premium’ or better than products that market themselves as premium products (like Dyson). But as for commercial use, yes, I discussed this here ua-cam.com/video/qmEj9NFZzCI/v-deo.html. Commercial environments favour sloppy, lazy, brute-force, quick-and-simple operation. This is shockingly wasteful and not good for the environment-especially when scaled up again to the substantial home residential market. The residential cleaners require superior design and, as shown in the video just linked to, the best Dyson cleaners outperform commercial units, proving the ‘premium’ label a myth.
>> “There is also a lot of independent testing that proves modern bagged vacuums don't lose suction, even when full.”
Er, Vacuum Wars does not conduct representative or convincing testing. He doesn’t even use representative test dust and sticks with sand, which is utterly stupid for all the reasons covered in my videos. There is NO evidence on his channel for the claim you make. There is plenty of evidence showing that modern bagged units lose suction when dust loaded, as presented here ua-cam.com/video/O-8Ysa44XrQ/v-deo.html. And I’ve produced videos explaining why, based on well-established textbook science ua-cam.com/video/QTSadOm6WsI/v-deo.html (something also lacking from dressed-up bedroom amateurs like Vacuum Wars-that channel is entertainment at best, not factual to quantitative levels).
@@VacuumFacts It's funny you call vacuum wars amateurs. The videos you linked are Movie Maker slide shows and videos of you vacuuming and talking. A clear dodge of results contradicting yours. I don't think you've seen their testing videos, or you're not being honest.
Lol, you've seen no evidence Sebos, Miele, and Riccars are premium vacuums. The burden of proof is in you at that point. Made in Germany vs the Malaysian Dysons built on child labor.
I doubt there is a possibility of convincing you there are pros to bagged units, I'm detecting quite a bit of density.
I would normally engage in link sharing, but I assume you'd call any third party channel from yourself an amateur.
@@281cu6 I explained why I reject the silly bedroom testing you mentioned. You didn't really acknowledge anything I gave in response. Just need some decent data that doesn't suffer from obvious problems. No one provides any though and you've directly cited absolutely nothing. People never properly account with solid reasoning why they reject the data I present, despite it being well reasoned, sensible, and showing all the trends you'd expect. If you actually want to make a serious point backed up by some good data or have a learned discussion about my work, I'm more than ready. The points you've raised so far have been addressed and shown to not be universally applicable or supported by good evidence.
@@VacuumFacts The disabling of the like/dislike button, the slideshow spamming, and the usual discourse between you and commentators infer you wouldn't be swayed.
@@281cu6 Now who's being evasive. Raising cosmetic nonsense in lieu of real evidence and argument. I can easily be swayed with strong evidence. You have none and there's no conversation left until you do. Unless you'd like to take 'offense' as a last resort, as is the usual thing people with your behaviour and tone have done at this stage.
I find bagless vacuums can sometimes be a mess to empty, I prefer the system on my Dynamic U1 that closes the top of the bag as soon as you remove it. I suppose if you didn't want to throw it away you could sell it to someone else as a pillow.
Hi, yes I cover this in the video. Dyson are the only company which do bagless technology correctly. This is not surprising given they invented it and the rest just copied to jump on the cash bandwagon. Unfortunately for them, Dyson patented their designs and ideas, so others are left makig cheap imitations which don't work. As such, emptying the bin is a messy nightmare on all non-Dyson bagless machines. Dyson did it right however, and with their latest models-such as the V10-it's messless and takes 5 seconds without any additional cost to the user or environment, putting only dust into the bin (my reviews demo this). It's far superior to bags. The trapdoor bag you mention isn't a bad idea, but still suffers from the fundamental problems explained in the video: it's extra unnecessary waste (some plastic) added to landfill which scales hugely across a nation, it's extra cost to the user to replace them, you've got to keep a supply ready, and bags encourage smells more than Dyson bagless which can be emptied easily after every single clean.
@@VacuumFactsyou literally emptied the trash from your vacuum into a plastic bag…which will then go to the landfill. What a ridiculous comment.
@@josephk1342 Same old comments from rabid vacuum enthusiasts and bagged machine apologists... You, somehow, seemed to completely miss that the "plastic bag" in question is a bin liner and nothing to do with vacuum cleaners. Worse, you also seemed to fail to notice that the bag of a bagged machine goes into the same bin liner, in addition to just the dust it contains, and is unnecesary additional waste, as pointed out explicitly in the video. Staggering. You can really see how the same nonsense regurgitates from the echo chamber you all come from.
@@VacuumFacts you are in the biggest echo chamber. You don’t read any 3rd party sources, don’t consult with others, and reject all opposing opinions. Don’t pretend to care about the environment you clown. You whine about an extra bag, but then recommend battery driven vacuums. Batteries have limited lifespan, are environmentally unfriendly to produce, and become ewaste after their capacity is exhausted. If you cared at all about the environment you would use a corded vacuum.
what about when u emty the dust form a bagless vacuum when pourin in a bag it goes back into the air
That implies user error or inferior design from weak competitor products. See here for evidence showing bagless (done right) is the most hygienic, environmentally and user friendly way to empty. ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html
Bagless is a gimmick. Growing up we had bagged vacuums. They lasted forever and were better for allergies. I didn’t get dust and crap trying to fly up in my face every time they are emptied.
I can’t tell you how many bagless vacuums I have bought over the last 10 years. Roughly one per year. I am not talking cheap ones. Even $200-$300 vacuums.
I am sitting here looking at one that just died as my wife is running out to the store to buy a bagged vacuum.
Poor bagless products do suffer from the issues you mention, but not all do. Dyson's do not, as evidenced on my channel e.g. ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html . Only Dyson have done bagless properly and were the original developers; the rest have jumped on the bandwagon and copied poor immitations that are low quality (see ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html ). The new V15 just released is the current king of premium vacuuming products, as my upcoming review will evidence. I'd encourage at least looking. The problems with bags are highlighted fully in this video. They are an old technology that has been surpassed by modern approaches (at least the ones implemented properly rather than cheap cash-ins).
Basically either buy a Dyson or stick to bagged if you are broke.
With low to mid priced vacuums bagged is always a safer bet, am I right? Like, can you buy a good cyclonic vacuum for 150$ which won't require filter cleaning after each use? Also you are not required to buy original bags... Just saying. Still not sure if I'll buy a bagged or a bagless vacuum
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 (ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html) 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 (ua-cam.com/video/lWpdK234XfU/v-deo.html). 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.
You seem to mention Dyson a lot as premium and the price certainly is at the top end and don’t wish to recognise Sebo. It really doesn’t take much research to see that shark and Dyson are not particularly reliable. This is where Miele, sebo, numatic are generally considered very reliable machines that all use bags.
One thing I will say and it’s relevant to the debate about bagged vs bagless is I have a multi cyclonic upright vax Mach air. Couple years old and I can tell you that I clean it religiously every time it’s emptied. I can do 2 rooms before it’s full and it’s filter is dirty, hanging in crap and that’s the last filter before going to the motor. The tube after that filter is dirty with a film of micro dust all over it. That dust is inevitably getting to the motor itself. Better machines have more filtration to prevent dust particles entering the motor and the room and that’s a cheap vs expensive argument. But the most reliable machines tend to use hepa bags. At my local recycling centre there’s no shortage of broken Dyson and other bagless machines to a point where there’s a shipping container full of broken bagless machines. Bagged I believe is more reliable as the bag acts as a large filter and is replaced when full. In the uk we don’t have any cheap bagged vacuums so you have a choice of numatic, sebo, Miele and some Bosch machines, all reliable brands to begin with. Bagless I feel to be reliable and have the longevity of bagged counterparts they would need to have filter changes more regularly and filters to be cheaper and replaced at similar rates to a bag replacement.
I don’t like how bagless has been marketed as being so easy to empty as reality shows the it simply doesn’t matter how many cyclones they have the dirt stick to the inside of the cyclones, internal plastic, filter, rubber gaskets. It’s a chore to clean them and when u empty them u get covered in cloud of dust.
Your praise for bagged technology is flogging a dead horse. Cheap knockoff bagless and old-fashioned, limited bagged technology is not worth serious attention. The points raised in this video (that were not addressed in your comment) make this point clear, as do the technical details in other videos on my channel (such as the recent V15 absolute + review exposing the relatively pathetic level of filtration of even HEPA bags). You also provided no statistically significant, objective evidence to support the claim that Dyson machines aren't reliable (however you defined that). When treated as instructed in the manual, they last 10 years at the very least, by design.
You're literally wasting your time arguing with him.
I’ve watched this debate with interest!
I place my trust in someone who has a broad experience of a wide range of different cleaners. Someone like @beko1987.
@JohnnyL8 I admire the quality and presentation of your videos but your arguments would be much more compelling if you had a catalogue of videos analysing what you set out as important, across a broader range of Vacs. Bagged and Bagless. But you only appear to feature and have experience of (so far) Dysons and to cite your “scientific” approach that makes your assessments come across as subjective and somewhat biased.
There isn't much of a debate to be honest. Unfortunately none of what you've said actually addresses any of the points I've raised in the video, so it's hard to have a meaningful discussion. It's not clear at all, and you haven't made a strong case, that experience with any particular vacuums is relevant. The video isn't about any particular Dyson vacuum. It's about the publicly available knowledge about various technologies, and their advantages and disadvantages, used in a range of products.
JohnnyL8 mine is a much more general point about the perception created by your dysoncentric analysis. I’d be much more convinced about your scientific experiments if I had been able to watch you assess say a Henry, a Sebo and a Miele for instance. It’s not too late to apply your rigorous testing to a broader range of cleaners.
One other point that occurs to me. Defending Dyson failures on user abuse is not a realistic parameter. In my experience the only people who do not abuse vacuums are collectors and repairers! Modern day Vacs have to be designed with the assumption that they will be abused. The max fill line is largely ignored!
Yes I understand how my videos can appear Dyson-centric. This is for two reasons: 1) The technology I admire happens to be created by Dyson; if it was another company, their company name would be mentioned instead; 2) I only own 1 vacuum (and a handheld), which is a Dyson, so that features in many of my videos. For the record, I've never claimed to have conducted any scientific experiments, which is something I need to correct you on there. My videos provide reasoned and often evidence-supported/cited explanations for various points raised, depending on the video in question. Again, my videos have focused on general technologies used rather than specific products (reviews aside), and thus it's somewhat off topic to discuss any particular product. Again none of this specifically addresses anything I've raised in the videos, so there's little else I can say.
As far as the claim that the only people who don't abuse them are collectors and repair people; that's a factual claim which will need evidence if I'm to believe it. If you could provide strong, verified, statistical evidence of the portion of owned Dysons that are abused/not abused by their respective users, I'd have more truck with the claim. Lacking that, it just comes across as subjective, which is fine, but I can't comment further as such. Similarly for the claim that modern vacuums are designed to be abused-I don't believe that, but any formal evidence you have would be welcome. Statistically, it's expected that some would be abused (e.g. going over the max fill line-something I've only seen on YT by 'enthusiasts' ironically). If that happened, they'd end up in repair shops and in UA-cam videos.
Maybe a bit misleading quoting a bag cost that includes freshners. On amazon the bags no freshners are £8. I love how you pick the most expensive Mieles over the cat and dog cylinders which can be found at £160 or even the most basic at prices as low as £119.
I hear you, but no, I think it's defensible. It's not just bags, but other disposables you're expected to buy. I think this was well defended in the video. And I'm aware you could choose another brand, get different precise numbers and so on. This was just one example to give ballpark numbers. The important point: hidden costs, and total lifetime cost for ('best') bagged is likely just as much as the best bagless, and possibly greater. Choosing the most expensive in both cases is comparing apples and apples as best as possible. And then there's every other point I raised in the video.
+JohnnyL8 As I say, the filters come with the bags so there's no other costs to run the machine.
JohnnyL8 It may be very expensive but in my mind worth it. Not as if it’s cheap to just buy a Dyson Cinetic.
Personal preferences are a different matter. I can't argue with those and if you prefer bagged cleaners, that's great. But what I outlined in the video are factual claims which are true and I understand how it can sit heavy with the opinions of bag-lovers.
no a bagged vacuum is better because you don't just pour dust all over your'e floor.
A false myth. Plenty of videos on my channel showing how to do it properly without any mess at all ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html . Much better in every way than bags. Plus there's literally everything else mentioned in the video you conveniently ignored.
and you waste more money to buy the useless bags that just hurt the environment.
@@jonny11bonk A bag is just a filter that can hold some of the matter you want to remove, and you need filters to prevent the harmful dust from being send into your room after you had spend time to suck it up, bag og bagless it needs filters to do so no way around it unless you are willing to accept the harmful dust re-entering in the air. The harmful dust is that small you can't see it, and it pass right thrugh any cyclone (the factual details is right in this video btw).
Bottomline is that you need filters, in a bag system the bag is the first filter one or more are placed before or after the motor, in a bagless system the cyclone is the first filter and it heavily depend on the airflow speed to maintain it's filtering properties, one or more filters are placed before or after the motor.
Bagless systems reduce airflow which is needed to deep clean!
This is not true. Check out my latest video (re-upload coming soon) which explains why.
@Luke Morris that's extremely rude
Bagless vacuum cleaners are way better
Great video, appreciate the effort
Which would you say is better, miele blizzard cx1 or dyson small ball allergy? Thanks
What do you mean by 'better'?
@@VacuumFacts do you think miele use as good bagless technology as dyson? Im considering the miele because it is quieter, but my house has both carpet and hardfloor and I dont want to bending my back, struggling with the cleaning hose of the cannister miele..
@@JohnSmith-oj4jp Dyson has the best bagless filtration on the market by a huge margin and nothing even comes close. Everyone else kludges a copycat clone 'solution' which doesn't perform anything like as well and is heavily reliant on messy or expensive filters instead, as discussed here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html . How do you know the miele is quieter? And quieter than what, specifically? The dyson small ball allergy is one of the quietest machines on the market that performs at the highest cleaning levels. The Miele does not clean carpets anything like as well as the dyson small ball allergy either; the dyson small ball allergy has the highest cleaning performance on average across all floor types than any other machine on the market, according to independent testing.
@@JohnSmith-oj4jp In fact my reviews of the Dyson machine are here
ua-cam.com/video/H8s9eBXeN4E/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Fd9ealM0O1E/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/mLIqvsGLovU/v-deo.html
@@VacuumFacts thanks for the response, much appreciated
I usually go through 2 bags per month. If they are $5 each, that's $130 per year. Those people who claim "dumping bagless vacuums is messy", Its only messy if your and idiot who holds it way over the bin. The V10 and V11 you can stick way down in the trash in eliminate 99% of the mess. In facts, removing a vacuum bag can be messy, especially when you stuff it in the trash. Look here at a one week update of me using on Oreck, see how full the bag is. ua-cam.com/video/lmvtDTaaWew/v-deo.html
It's the false economy of bagged cleaners that was rendered obsolete by Dyson. That's why the bagged cleaner companies were so aggressive towards Dyson initially-bagless was killing off a profit line for them. They had to accept defeat eventually because the bagless idea was just too good and popular. Alas most bagless cleaners are terrible and a step backwards. Dyson's ideas, which worked, are patented, and no one else seems to have come up with other good, working ideas since.
As i've said before I agree with a lot you say. explain this.....I've seen videos where they measure the airflow with the air going through the cyclone unit then they measure again bypassing the cyclone unit and the airflow increases greatly. Why is this happening if cyclones don't restrict airflow?
"I've seen videos" to me means subjective nonsense on UA-cam. You've also missed the point, again, about the fallacy of the claim that "cyclones restrict airflow", and I'm having to repeat myself yet again. So instead, I just refer you to the video @6:41
By the logic you're peddling, cyclones restrict airflow in a way no different to how bags restrict airflow. Putting anything that filters dust in the way of air flow will restrict it. But this is totally irrelevant as discussed in the video.
I've covered this fallacy in detail multiple times. Putting anything in the air path with restrict airflow. But only fixating on this (and ignoring literally everything else I've said that contributes to the topic) is probably why I'm repeating myself. Quoting those numbers instantly shows you're falling victim to the fallacy of the assumption that motor power and design is the same in all products. The motor for a particular product is tuned to deal with whatever restriction happens to be in whatever that product is, to ultimately perform to a designed level, as measured by the test standards. And that resulting cleaning performance is all that's important (well, along with all the other holistic criteria I've outlined in the 'how to review' video). If you don't understand this by this stage, other than repeating myself further, there's not much I can do to help you understand. :(
JohnnyL8 Motors are tuned to give best performance but that's within the capabilities of the restriction of the multi cyclones. You can only get a certain amount of performance. A bagged cleaner can produce much more airflow when it is new and the best bags will produce more airflow than a Dyson when it's full too. The V10 has just been measured on an airbox and the airflow at the cleaner head is just 24 cfm. I am very disappointed by this, for a £400-£500 cleaner 😟
JohnnyL8 ua-cam.com/video/NkAA8Kbm7XE/v-deo.html
Dyson performed this standardised test and their uprights get a C rating. There are many bagged cleaners that get an A and B rating for performance on carpet and hardfloors. I think you need to actually try a bagged Miele or a bagged Sebo for yourself. See how well they clean and also see how little the airflow diminishes as the bag fills. Also you need to try a Cinetic and see how much fine dust gets to the motor over time. Henry bags are 9 litre costing £1 per bag. My central vac bag are 8 gallon you can get 12 gallon. These bags last me a year and are £3 each. There's no post motor filter it's vented to the outside. It's one thing going on about these standardised tests but the best test is how these cleaners actually perform in your home. Try some out for yourself! 😁
I've already discussed the inconsistency between the EU ratings and formal testing in the EU label video. The EU labels are confusing and of little value and aren't the same as industry standard testing. It's also the reason why I didn't criticise the bagged cleaner D performance rating based on those EU labels. The rest of the video mostly addressed filtration, not vacuum cleaning performance. I've also no interest in subjective testing; I only care about objective evidence on matters such as how much suction a bag loses. I've already addressed in great detail the myths and propaganda surrounding alleged Cinetic filtration failure, as I'd hope you're aware by now. I'm sure some manufacturers have cheap bags, but the brand people always harp on about was considered here. Central vacs are not commercial off-the-shelf products so are a different class of machine not covered by this (although I will say "venting outside" is much like throwing your shit out of the window into the street like some Victorian peasant). The industry standard tests are supposed to replicate home use (this will be covered in a future video, but the information is already available to the public). Some manufacturers also are aware of the need to test in real homes, and when they cite industry test data, they do it for even more rigorous conditions, such as bin full rather than empty, and they still come out on top. Many of the opinions spouted in my comment section are rooted in complete ignorance of much to do with vacuum technology, testing, and core physical principles. The rest of my points in this video you presumably have no truck with.
So explain why Dyson in their standardised test which is done in proper test facilities only gets a C rating? If it's cleans as well as they say it should get an A rating. The rating system correlates to the percentage of dust picked up from the carpet. And as for shitting the dirt outside the bags filter to 0.3 microns so I don't think thats much shit haha
I think there's some confusion. Dyson test to formal IEC industry standards. The EU labels represent testing not done to industry standards (as far as I can tell; it's all very vague) and have invented their own lettering scale. It's not clear what it means and doesn't cover what the consequences of a given grade are in other holistic areas. In formal industry standard testing, the best cleaners get the best cleaning performance on average across all floor types. This doesn't mean the best on one specific type of flooring. None of this detail is covered in the EU labels. This is discussed in my EU label video. I've discussed the importance of holistic cleaning, not only in this video (if you watched it all), but also in the "how to review" video (if you watched all that).
The lettering scale is correlated to the percentage of dust removed! It is very clear! You can't have it both ways. If Dyson got an A rating you would be saying the EU test is accurate :)
It's not as clear as you state and you're showing tremendous ignorance making claims like that. I've even covered much of this, again, in past videos. "hard floor" isn't some universal floor; there are different types, shapes, structures etc. Some are smooth, some have crevices and gaps, some undulate etc. Same for carpets. So and "A" rating on one carpet might be a "C" rating on another carpet. The EU tests are far too vague and tell you very little. Your confidence in the EU ratings is completely misplaced.
Interesting video here. I’m not sure how many bagged vacuums you’ve tried, but they’ve come a long way. You mention how bags can split, clog, have odours, and end up being expensive. Hepa cloth bags have pretty much replaced the one layer or two layer paper bag. Hepa bags can not only continue to function with the bag being full, but they can trap odours better than a paper bag or even a bagless vacuum. While the cost of the bags may seem expensive, they last way longer than filters in a bagless vacuum. It is important to know that filters wear down as you wash them. They may seem fine, but dust can pass through filters after a few months. You should also know that when you empty a bagless vacuum, you end up breathing the dust which is terrible for your lungs. You need to realize that people who have allergies use a bagged vacuum for that reason. Your understanding of cyclones is also not very good. It doesn’t matter if newer Dyson’s have multiple cyclones, you still need a pre motor filter. Cyclones not only let dust through, but they also clog up pretty quick. Vacuum stores that actually take apart these machines will tell you the huge amount of dust that gets into the motor. Agitation is also important when it comes to performance. Most bagless vacuums like your Dyson’s have extremely pathetic roller brushes. Over here in North America, roller brushes or brush rolls that are small or one’s that are too soft will not clean carpets. Dyson’s usually have pretty bad roller brushes that don’t clean well. As someone who’s been fixing and using all kinds of vacuums, I can tell you that a bagged vacuum will clean better and last longer. I’m not just disagreeing with you for no reason, I’m pointing out the facts from experience.
>>”they’ve come a long way.”
They’ve come a long way from paper bags but have reached technological stagnation (as pointed out in the video) and are quantifiably superseded by better technology (and have been for a long, long time) that is better performing, easier to use, with few running costs, and much lower impact to the environment. No one should be using bagged machines anymore, including commercial environments. as discussed and evidenced in several videos: ua-cam.com/video/S9MtVVkOZek/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/Ue2X1b4cRTE/v-deo.html
>>”Hepa bags can not only continue to function with the bag being full, but they can trap odours better than a paper bag or even a bagless vacuum.”
This statement is false as evidenced clearly here ua-cam.com/video/ei3rEQzMoPk/v-deo.html and here ua-cam.com/video/ZmzG8XOQAeQ/v-deo.html The myths surrounding odours is fully covered here ua-cam.com/video/hsl4tCaL6g8/v-deo.html
>>” While the cost of the bags may seem expensive, they last way longer than filters in a bagless vacuum.”
This statement is only partially accurate. In cheap, nasty, knockoff bagless clones that rely on disposable filters, this statement may be true. For the original bagless cleaner which did things right and was designed to have lifetime rinseable filters, this statement is false. Bags are a wholly avoidable ancillary that costs money, costs time to ensure you have them in stock, and have substantial, wholly avoidable environmental impact when scaled up to all users.
>>”It is important to know that filters wear down as you wash them.”
Could you provide some clear, quantified, reputable, independently verified evidence to support this claim? I have seen none and believe it to be completely false. You’d think such evidence would be freely available if true. Vague anecdotes and citations to disreputable sources, such as lay users on YT are not good enough. What is the mechanism that causes such ‘wear down’ at a microscopic level? What effects does it cause specifically? No one who makes this claim over the years has ever been able to defend it reputably or make any sense, and I suspect this will be no different. (It’s false BTW)
>>”Dust can pass through filters after a few months.”
As above. Just how is it that dust ‘passes’ through a filter? You’d see performance improve because air resistance decreases if this was true, and emissions quality reduce. How does dust pass through a borosilicate nano structure because water has contacted its interface? It’s high surface energy make it fairly hydrophobic. You’re aware of the basic science right? Your statements are a complete odds with reality.
>> “You should also know that when you empty a bagless vacuum, you end up breathing the dust which is terrible for your lungs.”
Cheap, nasty, knockoff bagless clones do suffer from poor emptying mechanisms which makes this half true. But the original bagless cleaner which did things right solved this problem a long, long time ago, as evidenced very clearly here ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html
>>”You need to realize that people who have allergies use a bagged vacuum for that reason.”
Yes; ignorance. It’s quite possible to empty the original bagless machine correctly without triggering allergies. It takes 5 seconds and adds nothing but dust to landfill. It’s also a myth that bagged machines that self-seal don’t produce dust clouds. This is clearly evidenced here ua-cam.com/video/ZmzG8XOQAeQ/v-deo.html and in the Henry cleaner reviews ua-cam.com/play/PLBxUOcW7kaEv_NwGkf-S1IKMP16cpUgqQ.html
>> “Your understanding of cyclones is also not very good.”
How have you concluded this? No one who had watched my videos could sensibly conclude this.
>> “It doesn’t matter if newer Dyson’s have multiple cyclones, you still need a pre motor filter.”
This is not true for Cinetic models, as evidenced here ua-cam.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/v-deo.html
The original bagless clear relies on a premotor filter much less than cheap, nasty, knockoff bagless clones, as evidenced here ua-cam.com/video/T3prXR-aeOg/v-deo.html
In a bagged machine, the bag is the filter, which clogs, as already evidenced earlier. In other words, the filter in the original bagless machine is all but the same as the bag. It’s smaller because it’s relied on less.
>> “Cyclones not only let dust through, but they also clog up pretty quick.”
Again, this is only half-true. Assuming the user hasn’t abused the machine and caused a clog, the original bagless cleaner cyclones do not clog. Cheap, nasty, knockoff bagless clone cyclones do. This is evidenced clearly here ua-cam.com/video/11agqY2g1rM/v-deo.html
>> “Vacuum stores that actually take apart these machines will tell you the huge amount of dust that gets into the motor.”
Vacuum stores are a false economy and a scam, praying on ignorance and poor technology. They often do unnecessary things. This is de-mythed clearly here ua-cam.com/video/TjUdD6FZtMY/v-deo.html and here ua-cam.com/video/hsl4tCaL6g8/v-deo.html
>>”Agitation is also important when it comes to performance.”
Most people that don’t understand the science of how vacuum cleaners work use the word “agitation” to mean vibration from a brush bar, rather than what’s important, which is pile flexing. This has been covered here ua-cam.com/video/WzkFvMLy-Eo/v-deo.html , and here ua-cam.com/video/urXCmJsDgXs/v-deo.html and evidenced to be false here ua-cam.com/video/UaOjiLqkgGA/v-deo.html
>>”Most bagless vacuums like your Dyson’s have extremely pathetic roller brushes. Over here in North America, roller brushes or brush rolls that are small or one’s that are too soft will not clean carpets. Dyson’s usually have pretty bad roller brushes that don’t clean well.”
Pity this assumption, stated without evidence, conflicts with actual evidence, e.g. ua-cam.com/video/7wa3SrXh-0s/v-deo.html
>>” As someone who’s been fixing and using all kinds of vacuums, I can tell you that a bagged vacuum will clean better and last longer.”
Can you provide evidence that supports why? People who make this claim never do. You should be able to show, with statistical significance, the mechanism which leads to the lifetimes observed. Where do failures occur, why did they occur at a detailed level, how had the machines been treated during their lifetime and the evidence for that. Your unsupported anecdotes are completely unconvincing when there’s real evidence available.
And then there's literally everything else in the video, glossed over. I’ve seen all this before of course…
If you ever wonder why people who vacuum in commercial places use a bagged vacuum, it is because emptying a bin multiple times takes away time that could be used properly. When the filter clogs, they have to tap it out which is a pain in the ass to do since you’re 100% going to breathe in all the dust. A large vacuum bag like a Hoover type a bag is huge in size. Compare that to a small vacuum bin. Trust me, people who are serious like me when it comes to cleaning will go for a bagged machine. Your statement in your video on how even a cloth bag can lose suction is extremely false. I’ve vacuumed with cloth bags that are more than full, and the machine was still performing as normal. There are even videos on UA-cam that show this, so it isn’t like I’m the only one who thinks this way. I can tell you ended up falling for one of Dyson’s lies about a “lifetime filters”. They originally meant the lifetime of the vacuum, not your actual lifetime on earth. The early Dyson’s had really cheap plastic that broke easily no matter if the machine was new or old. It also doesn’t matter if the bagless vacuum is a Dyson or not, they all require filters that are more expensive than a pack of bags that can last 3-6 months or even a year. Someone who uses a vacuum in public spaces will tell you that it is easier and cheaper to throw away a bag instead of replacing filters so often. Any filter is going to wear down no matter if you clean them or not. That’s the way it goes. Filter material simply degrades over time and there is nothing you can do about that. Filters in bagless vacuums can have dust go through the filter and into the motor more quickly than a bagged vacuum. The reason why is that cyclones, no matter which one it is, will still have dust go past them. That’s why they heavily rely on a pre motor filter. The science behind how cyclones work is meaningless. The reason why is because people who open them up will show you what they collect. You don’t see this, and it causes the machine to not only lose performance, it can also cause a bad smell. It doesn’t matter how you empty a bagless vacuum, they still put dirt into the air no matter what. The fact that you called people who suffer from allergies as ignorance is insane. Bagless vacuums aren’t fully sealed, which makes their hepa filters pointless. Cyclones just collect dirt. This is from experience. That crappy model of the Dyson with no pre motor filter is garbage. Someone opened one up to show all the dust that goes right into the motor. The fact that you shame vacuum stores is depressing. They not only sell you parts instead of you waiting for them, but they also service machines. They aren’t a scam, they just know the facts from fixing so many vacuums over the years. If you wonder why vacuums that are meant for carpets include a brush roll, it is because it needs brushes to dig into the carpet to lift up the dirt. Suction and airflow itself won’t deep clean carpets without agitation. Without agitation, you’re just surface cleaning. The reason why vacuums over here in North America have brush rolls, it is because our carpets aren’t rugs. Simple as that. The vacuums I’ve fixed that last longer are old school bagged vacuums. These are machines that were made in the 90s or should I say the 20th century. The reason why they last so long is because direct air vacuums are designed to not let dust into the motors as easily. They blow all the dirt into the bag. Bypass machines that are bagless will have motors caked in dust. That causes the fan to get off balanced and can even ruin the bearings. Older vacuums were also made in America. The build quality was so strong that it made the machine to last forever. So many older vacuums like Hoover convertibles, concepts, and elites are still working like new. The fact that you don’t know this makes me believe you just haven’t seen or used that many vacuums in your life. It is important to know that facts are more important than feelings. I’m someone who has experience instead of online myths. The idea that we can control the weather is a good example of a myth.
I've answered all this above. To suggest, for example, I'm false to state cloth bags clog, is to ignore the evidence provided to you that it's a true statement. This is the difference between the two of us; when it comes to factual matters, you rely on 'trust' and anecdotes, whereas I provide objective empirical evidence that's true to everyone regardless of their opinion or feelings. People can make up their own minds. If you have any real evidence to support anything you say, I'll take a look; otherwise I'm wholly unconvinced by anything you say because I have no good reason to be and it conflicts with simple observation and understanding of basic science.
I definitely agree with most things said here. I have worked with a bagged before and lord isn’t it an absolute dust spewer! It easily spews fine dust out of the hole where dust enters and actually made my lungs hurt for a short while. Never experienced any of that with Dysons. Bagless haters will always be blind.
That being said I do disagree with a few things you said but regardless I will always go for bagless
You know depending on the vacacuum you can literally by self sealing bags or even bags with caps. Not to mention it isn’t as bad a bagless cleaners where it just lets it all fly as you empty the bin.
I Love Dyson. I have many. I agree with everything you have said. I rarely use bagged vacuums, But i do sometimes. The only reason why i would use a bagged vacuum is for a lot of fine dust or powder. I dont like that powder getting in the cyclones and seals on the bin. I find it much more easy to clean a bagged vacuum than a bagless. I have a vacuum technician so I have cleaned many dysons. They arent a walk in the park to clean. But Dysons do perform much better than nearly every vacuum out there. If people are more on a budget, I recommend Shark. Their cyclone design is bad, But they perform well as a vacuum. New Subscriber By the Way!
Many of these myths are dealt with here
ua-cam.com/video/TjUdD6FZtMY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/hsl4tCaL6g8/v-deo.html
By the way others have cover other points but you said bag vacuums loose suction as the bag fills up. This is correct but this is solved by replacing the bag. Where as filters the issue stays even after being cleaned, until you replace the filter. You can get years worth of bags for cheaper than buying years worth of filters. Plus with bagged machines you get better filtration. You have the bag it’s self, pre motor filter, post motor filter. Bagless you only have pre and post motor filters.
There is a reason why commercial vacuums have bags.
All this is covered in the video you're commenting on. Replacing the bag is not a solution. It's wholly avoidable cost, environmental impact, and requires forward planning to have them in stock, the hassle of changing etc. All discussed in this very video you're commenting on...and brushed over seemingly. You have also made a false statement that bagged machines give better filtration. If, again, you'd watched the videos on my channel, you'd know you're peddling nonsense and myths. The filtration of bagged machines is covered in the V15 ( ua-cam.com/video/4aL0eJenTqw/v-deo.html ) and Gen5Detect ( ua-cam.com/video/7wa3SrXh-0s/v-deo.html ) reviews. It leaves a lot to be desired and is shockingly inferior now. The concept of commercial machines as being something impressive or better is fully debunked in a number of other videos on my channel ( ua-cam.com/video/S9MtVVkOZek/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/2xMzOSfEHw0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Ue2X1b4cRTE/v-deo.html ). Commercial vacuums have bags because the nature of the working environment champions a disposable, throwaway approach. It doesn't have to be like that-and in fact isn't any longer. And after all this, there's then still everything else wrong with the technology in bagged machines, also covered in their reviews ( ua-cam.com/play/PLBxUOcW7kaEtK3qcKCMEaLKTrP8Ehu8sz.html ) that you've probably not watched either. Sadly, the information to correct for great and common ignorance is available but wholly ignored...and so ignorance continues to manifest in such comments.
The reason why vacuum bags don't decompose in landfills is the HEPA ones with a plastic cover budget bagged vacuum cleaners have a paper bag with a cardboard fitting and paper causes the bang to be very easily decomposable and typically bagged vacuums clean better than Bagless vacuums because of increased airflow
I also hate bagless vacuums that are done poorly. Unfortunately, only Dyson did it right and continues to today. They patented their ideas so others can't steal, and so they're left with making cheap copycat clones which are terrible and sully the image of the good original ideas as discussed here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html . Bagged cleaners don't perform better than the best bagless cleaners, as industry standard testing shows, and so your comment is a myth. (And then there's all the issues with bagged cleaners raised in the video.)
Also talking about landfill in one of your videos you show how to empty the Dyson into a bag. Is this not adding to landfill also?
Also, I made it very clear, in two different ways (description and in-video) why the bin liner was used (to assist visually). It isn't necessary to use, could line the next bin, and regardless, still has a considerably lower carbon footprint then thick vacuum bags. All this is covered in these videos and I'm constantly repeating myself with your comments.
JohnnyL8 True, better still if your council provides biodegradable bags for green waste like mine, you could use those instead eh?
They're a bit small, but whatever works best. I just dump straight into the bin making sure I don't splash. Literally no mess, unlike in the hater-infomercials where they practically throw it across the room to show how 'terrible' it is. xD
I know for a fact that finding bags for most old vacuums is not very difficult. You can say “I don’t believe you” all you want. It’s a fact. Bags for old vacuums are not hard to find.
Also I looks like what you say is based on what Dyson says. I thought you were in support for bagless vacuums as a whole!
Also there is no way to confirm that bagless vacuums are truly “better”. It will always be an opinion, whether it’s a common opinion or not.
You can be happy with your opinion backed up by “facts” and “evidence”. So can people who like bagged vacuums.
o_0 ...and then there's everything else mentioned in the video that renders your entire point moot, whether or not it's true. >_>
I saw everything else. I’m just saying that this video (to me) just seems like a video that is showing your opinion and why you say this. I respect that. But some of the things you say don’t appear to be true. And I know that some of it is very true. But it doesn’t look like all of it is. It’s not possible to avoid getting some dust into your air with any bagless vacuum. And like I said before, finding bags for old vacuums is easy in most cases. (Yes I mean most.)
And if your emptying your dust into a plastic bag, that may be more harmful for the environment because plastic isn’t biodegradable. Lots of average vacuum bags are made of paper. I’m not saying we shouldn’t worry about paper going into landfills. I’m just saying that you’re defeating the purpose of your point.
And just because Dyson says that their vacuum doesn’t lose suction and their filters don’t clog, doesn’t mean it is actually true, even if it is stated as a fact. Just about everyone I’ve seen (not always on UA-cam) that has Dyson vacuums, has some clogging in their filters, and it tends to smell worse than bagged vacuums. I’m not saying I don’t like Dyson.
@@colbydyer7191 >> “this video (to me) just seems like a video that is showing your opinion and why you say this”
Might want to watch closer; you’ll notice the facts that can be checked
>> “But some of the things you say don’t appear to be true.”
Like?
>> “It’s not possible to avoid getting some dust into your air with any bagless vacuum.”
You mean when emptying? True for inferior cheap knock-off bagless junk. Empirically shown to be false on my channel for Dyson cleaners. This was stated in the video; I recommend watching it.
>> “And if your emptying your dust into a plastic bag, that may be more harmful for the environment because plastic isn’t biodegradable”
I’ve said countless times in comments on my channel, emptying into the bag was to ease recording, the bag could easily be used to line a bin, and it’s been demonstrated subsequently, time and again, how to empty directly into the bin. This is simply a straw-clutch non-argument.
Unfortunately, you’ve not raised any valid counterpoints that aren’t debunked as misleading or false. Better luck next time.
Oh by the way Genuine Sebo bags cost around £10-11 for 8 which will last at least a year.
In the video I discussed about hidden costs and the need to maintain supplies of bags that become increasingly hard to source over time. The problems with landfill, carbon footprint, keeping dirt-filled bags for long periods of time, and how the apparent advantages of bags are myths.
Well Sebo have used the same bag in their x series since 1991 ..............
I'm not sure what point you're making. Some other bagged brands touted as the bees-knees, haven't. So pot luck.
Cyclonic technology is nothing new. It's been used in mines for years to filter large particles out of the air. It's hardly a replacement for proper HEPA filtration though which is why cyclonic vacuums (ie Dysons) still need filters. The main advantage is upkeep. The cyclonic filtration reduces the load on the filter. A bag-less vacuum without cyclonic filtration will go through filters faster, but a bagged vacuum won't go through them at all, since the bag is regularly changed. This is more a question of preference as long as one is comparing properly sealed systems between bagged and bag-less vacuums. There are pros and cons to each system, otherwise commercial vacuums would all be bagless because the upkeep is lower, but the commercial side of things seems to slant heavily towards bagged vacuums.
I don't really think you actually addressed any of the issues with bags raised in the video and somewhat glossed over their major problems and impact. If you want to understand why commercial vacuums aren't bagless, see this video: ua-cam.com/video/qmEj9NFZzCI/v-deo.html It has nothing to do with performance though and relates to convenience in a commercial environment as you allude. There is literally nothing a bagged vacuum does (in terms of performance, ease of use, and environmental impact) that isn't surpassed by the best (i.e. Dyson) bagless cleaner. Non-Dyson bagless cleaners are terrible because they can't use the patented cyclone technology which is the only method I've seen which solves all common filtration-related problems.
@@VacuumFacts "Non-Dyson bagless cleaners are terrible because they can't use the patented cyclone technology which is the only method I've seen which solves all common filtration-related problems."
That's painting with a pretty board brush I think. Just because something is patented doesn't mean it is good or works, it just means they have exclusive rights to it. The "Neurophone" is patented by Patrick Flanagan even though it's completely useless, it aligns brainwaves or vibrations or some such spiritual hogwash. Patent offices do not verify functionality of a design, only uniqueness. Not saying cyclonic separation doesn't work, it does as I stated. Dyson was the first to adapt the tech to a vacuum and it is a great creation and does solve many issues, chiefly among them is saving on filter life. It could be used in a bagged vacuum as easily as a baggless. It has a habit of building static, something that Dyson seems to have solved with a metal impregnated paint that shares a ground with the power supply. This solution to my knowledge seems to work pretty well provided the paint is kept in relatively good shape. Also, I did listen to the video at 1.75 speed due to time constraints, and just wanted to share my thoughts on the debate in a very general way. I don't think any one design is suitable for everyone, or we wouldn't have so many choices in other products (cars, computers, even something as simple as lighting).
In general, I do prefer to stay on the cutting edge of things, as technology today is, with few exceptions, better then that of yesteryear. My house is equipped universally with LED lighting, for example. My cellphone is only 8 months old, because it's just better then my old one, and neither hell nor high water could make me revert to my first cell phone, a Moto Krzr. My Mazda is a 2018 not because my previous car, a 1997 Nissan Maxima, didn't get me around, but the Mazda is safer, faster, more efficient, etc. *But* my toaster is a SunBeam Radiant Control from I think the 70s (Technology Connections has a great video on this toaster), which is simply better for my purposes then a modern toaster.
Edit: Fixed formatting, youtube keeps adding line breaks to my comments.
@@linksmith1057 Oh, I didn't see this response; no YT notification... Cyclonic filtration could be used in bagged cleaners, but then what would be the point? The filter in bagless cleaners would be doing the same job as the bag, but without the environmental impact, as discussed here ua-cam.com/video/T3prXR-aeOg/v-deo.html . I've seen no issue with static or evidence of paint being grounded, or paint being kept in good condition. Happy to receive some formal evidence of this to review. As far as design goes; whilst many designs are possible, some work better than others, as measured objectively, and when such evidence exists, then it transitions from opinion to fact. There is plenty of evidence that the latest Dyson cordless cleaners out perform their competitors in terms of cleaning performance, ease of use, and environmental impact. I'm always reviewing this though.
Vacuum Facts during the design phase of one of our instruments (I’ll keep the company name to myself, but I will say it’s a subsidiary or a Fortune 500 that sales products to nearly every country on earth and has been around since the 40s), we used cyclonic separation to pull particulate mater from a water sample (yes, water, but fluid dynamics are fluid dynamics) prior to the waters entry into a sampler. The issue was the samplers fluid pump was getting damaged by sand and other large debris getting embedded into the vinyl tubing. The separation solved the issue, but it developed a problem. If the sampling tube was not kept in contact with the water body, and thus grounded, the vinyl built up some pretty massive static charges. The circuitry was properly protected, but it a user touched the tubing, it could be quite painful. The solution. Was quite simple, we added a simple grounded wire into the cyclone to pull charges out of the water sample. Dyson also makes a hairdryer with what is called a “Horn or Plenty” on it. While not exactly the same as cyclonic separation, the design is also prone to static buildup. I’ll admit I don’t know if the vacuums solve the problem the same way, but I do know they solved static in this case by used for a metal impregnated paint that is electrically connected to the neutral circuit of the wall socket.
The other method they might be using to fix it is a snubber diode to the negative of the battery, basically using the batter as an “airbag” to breakdown the static charge when it goes over the diodes breakdown voltage (which isn’t hard to do for static). This method would perhaps be easiest since it’s already in play in *any* device with an electric motor to stop back EMF.
Edit: as for why one might use cyclonic separation with a bag, it wouldn’t be of much advantage you are correct. If someone were using very poor quality bags that clog up and restrict airflow or suction fast, cyclonic separation could conceivably be used to extend the life of these very cheap bags. Modern HEPA style bags really don’t suffer from this much however.
@@linksmith1057 That is interesting. Although I remain to see any evidence static is an issue on Dyson cleaners in use.
I went back and read your original comment more carefully and wanted to address it again now I have more time. You’re right that cyclonic tech isn’t new. What was ‘new’ (and patented) was the application and engineering the concept to work as an air filter for domestic vacuum cleaners. Unlike with sawdust in mills, which was apparently the inspiration, achieving filtration to sub-micron level was difficult, but achieved. And yes, an advantage is upkeep, but there’s also environmental impact (which is significant across a nation), cost to the user, and consistency in performance-all of which benefit hugely from cyclonic dust filtration. Cyclonic filtration rendered bagged technology an inefficient thing of the past, like the horse and cart, or the candle-they work, but are superseded. The technology is patented however, meaning competitors can’t blatantly steal, and those that tried, like Hoover, were crushed in court. As such, every competitor to Dyson relies on primary filtration using a filter/bag-so either environmental impact or user hassle, with reducing performance as a function of dust loading. Modern cleaners also benefit from many other innovations, such as the cordless form factor, allowing easier, bite-sized cleaning. Again, Dyson objectively excel in this area, being the only company (currently), after several years, to offer machines which are not only marketed as being mains-replacements but are measured to be. Ultimately, whilst preference comes into the choice of product a person buys, the facts above remain true; cyclonic filtration solves problems bags create. This was the message of this video. Unfortunately, the regressive capitalists who saw the benefits of cyclonic filtration but who couldn’t steal the tech, relied on cheap clones rather than better innovative solutions, which brought their own set of problems as I discussed here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html
How does a Dyson stand up to a Commercial vac like Sanitare and Royal or an high end multi purpose vac like Kirby? And besides them what other brands do you prefer.
I'm definitely not a fan of shark at all They're bowling ball and liquid testes are extremely flawed.
Unfortunately, other manufacturers don't publish their industry standard test results, so it's hard to be sure how well they stand up. It's likely they do less well-otherwise marketing wouldn't hesitate to jump at letting people know. I've never used a commercial vac; they're also not in the same category as commercial user household cleaners, so comparing would be apples and oranges.
Oh yes, those liquid tests show suction power, but they don't necessarily directly equate to cleaning performance. At least when Dyson do those tests, it's to show how powerful their motors are and not to show how well they therefore clean; different industry standard tests are used there. Those tests are something Shark won't show because their results aren't as good.
only reason we dont only have bagless vacuums is because of patents....
Explain?
@@VacuumFacts You explained it yourself, Dyson product is so much better than anything else that any other producer of vacuums can't reach their level of perfection, because of the patent that Duson holds they are alone in the top.
So if this patent was not there, all other producer of vacuums would just copy Dyson's idear and there would then only be "Dyson style" vacuums because it is so much better than anything else, or did I get something wrong ?
@@K2teknik. Sadly, most capitalism is conducted regressively, meaning almost all companies are only interested in profit at any cost-usually the customer. Capitalism done correctly, i.e. progressively, is about investing much of the profit into genuine improvement and advancement. This is often achieved in the form of very expensive research and development. Patents are designed to protect that investment, and regressive capitalist companies attempt to circumvent patents with knockoff clones which don’t work as well and sully the original idea (see this ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html ). Dyson are one of the very few examples I can cite of progressive capitalism that’s genuinely done (mostly) right. They positively improve the leading front of things as their business model. If patents were not there, yes, many regressive capitalist companies would just blatantly steal even more egregiously and undercut for profit at the customers’ expense. In an ideal world with nothing but progressive capitalists, companies would be competing not solely for profit, but for genuine superiority in advancement by being exactly like Dyson, investing in R&D, and producing products which were objectively better in every way to them that make others want to one-up. Dyson are at the top because of the failure of the economic model we vote for, which breeds companies that race to the bottom for selfish gain. That lower floor is only kept high and improving because of companies like Dyson who do things right and advance us. There is genuinely no serious competition to Dyson (in the sense of advancement) I’m aware of, and that’s a terrible shame because we all lose out. But it’s our choice, ultimately, because we can choose to vote for the economic policies we want. We can go for a greedy, shortsighted race to the bottom, or for accelerated advancement.
Numatic hepaflow bags are £5-£10, they are hygienic and don’t let dust escape from bags. They last about 1-2 months per bag or even longer.
Yeah, that's just awful. If cost is an issue, people could just buy cheap ones. I'm also not convinced any bag doesn't let dust escape-that claim needs formal evidence if I'm to believe it. In fact, all bags let dust out, as is obvious from the fact there are plenty of filters afterwards. I discussed all this in the video.
I'd believe they don't lose suction if I saw formal test data proving it (following the airwatts test). Some suction must be being lost because of how bags work. I suspect it's just not easily noticeable it in use. As for the dust cloud, I'd recommend watching my videos where I demonstrate how to empty a bin without a dust cloud. In the video here I outline many reasons why bags are not better.
JohnnyL8 Actually hepa flos are £6 for ten and usually last me about 6 months. I have a dog and my bagged vacuum has never smelt bad. Actually I have to bath my V6 cyclone parts more than I change the bag in my Henry.
Some people may not suck up smelly material and may not get smells. As for bagless cleaners breeding smells; that's something that would have to be formally demonstrated, because there's no sound reason why they would, given what I've described in the video, and I don't buy into unevidenced claims. This also matches my own experience with collecting material that gives off odour; remove it by emptying the bin and the smells disappear. You should also never need to wash cyclones. They're supposed to remain dusty and this causes no problems (that have been formally evidenced).
JohnnyL8 I’ve seen the evidence with my own use. I don’t bath the cyclones just the parts I cam easily strip and remove
If this video is in defense if bagless vacuums, how come you’re supporting only Dyson vacuums?
This was explained in the video you're commenting on (14:54), suggesting you didn't watch it. :/ Also here ua-cam.com/video/pVheYuzIk3I/v-deo.html and here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html
I'm asking YOU, not the other videos. And I don't need a 500 word explanation.
@@colbydyer7191 ?? Same thing. Go watch if you want the fullest answer
It's clearly not the same thing. And the answer can't be that full can it? Also you don't need facts from me. Backing up an opinion with facts doesn't make it a fact. I'm pretty sure one guy in the comments got you to admit that it is an opinion.
It is the same thing. @ 14:54: Most other bagless are terrible. @ ua-cam.com/video/pVheYuzIk3I/v-deo.html: Explanation why Dyson feature so much on my channel (i.e. your question). @ ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html: Cheap knockoff bagless are rubbish. I make these videos and reference them so I don't keep on having to answer the same question over and over again. Apparently, some people are too lazy to watch, but love playing hypocrite and going to the effort of causing trouble and being obnoxious in comments. And no you're right; backing up an opinion with facts doesn't make it a fact; it makes it an evidence-supported and informed opinion rather than wild ubsubstantiated subjectivity that carries no credibility. The facts however are facts.
My personal opinion I hate Bagless vacuums and I much prefer bag that can clear will vacuum bags don't actually clogged that bad and the reason why they stopped working is because they are completely full to the brim and when you put in a new bag it's just like a brand new performance where the bag was vacuum Dyson or not empty the few times then you have to wash the filters and also there are vacuum bags out there that has a sticky flab that go over the whole as soon as you remove the bag so there is zero dust flying in your face
Might want to learn a bit of grammar; your comment was very difficult to read. I also hate bagless vacuums that are done poorly. Unfortunately, only Dyson did it right and continues to today. They patented their ideas so others can't steal, and so they're left with making cheap copycat clones which are terrible and sully the image of the good original ideas as discussed here ua-cam.com/video/U_qS2i6HQRY/v-deo.html . Unfortunately, bagged cleaners are also terrible for all the reasons discussed in the video which were solved by Dyson. Those flaps don’t always seal the dust in, as shown here ua-cam.com/video/YPnPwBRpNBc/v-deo.html , and it is possible to empty a Dyson without any dust, as shown here ua-cam.com/video/E_ik6qScs0o/v-deo.html . So there’s no good reason why bagged vacuums exist anymore; everything you’ve raised is accounted for in the video.
Do remember that the video mentions that bagged vacuums let out air that isn't 100% clean but bagless vacuum cleaners make the air that flows back into the room is much cleaner especially as many vacuums nowadays use the common HEPA Filter
In my opinion Bagless Vacuum cleaners are way better and they exhaust out air that is way cleaner
Are Shark now steeling Dysons thunder?
Dunno. Ask both companies (and beyond) for market share research which will tell you the answer. How would I know?
JohnnyL8 Maybe one of your subs will know. I think they clean ok but the cyclonic system is very poor. They do seem to be selling very well. Dyson have some strong competition. But that's a good thing.
Well, competition is a good thing if your competition are good. Shark apparently sell dressed-up tat and their marketing is apparently effective. They never show performance metrics, and their claims are always full of absurd asterisks which when you inspect, you realise they're inferior to the Dyson brand they explicitly mention, know it, and need to distract people from noticing. "Greater suction than a Dyson!"* (*when used on the moon). The only people on YT who seem to buy into Shark's marketing and get excited by them are seemingly those with an irrational Dyson hatred.
JohnnyL8 yes I've seen their informercials. On the moon. Haha I like that 😁 I don't have a hatred of Dyson I've owned about 5 of them. There are things I like about them and things I dislke. Like every other vacuum cleaner I've owned.
God, these comments never get notifications...
There are things I dislike about them too. There is no perfect vacuum (yet) as I've said more than once on here. I'm often accused of not being able to see the negatives of Dyson vacuums, but usually by people who didn't notice when it was presented directly to them on a plate-such as in my fair review(s) of the one I bought. Just can't win; too many people just don't listen and criticise anyway, and suddenly, I'm arrogant. I'm also accused of being a Dyson fanboy; again not strictly true; liking a technology that happens to have been made by company X doesn't therefore mean I like company X. I own ONE Dyson (well, and a handheld) so that's all I can talk about; the technology I like happens to be made by Dyson, so they get mentioned a lot. I'm forced to mention Dyson a lot. If another company made vac tech I admired, they'd be mentioned too; I'm still waiting. I don't know much about Dyson other than they have great R&D and a great philosophy of (meaningful) problem solving that I don't see in other manufacturers.
Hi Johnny. How's the V10 review going? We are all waiting patiently 👍
haha killing me. Looking to be almost 30 mins long, so I might render a 'short version' too that's 2 mins long after I publish. I've got 1 hour left to work on it tonight, possibly a few hours tomorrow evening. I'm compositing the edit but being hampered by the need to re-record bits here and there while there's daylight to avoid black screen while I waffle on and fix errors. At least Thu before I publish.
JohnnyL8 It's a lot of work isn't it. People don't realize this when they make their comments. 🙄
Bagless are the best! When I saw the Roomba emptying base, I threw out 🤮.
No filter, only the bag itself was the only filter. One day when It was emptying my Roomba S9, the bag suddenly tore apart and destroyed the motor and I almost choked with the dust in my lungs. I thankfully got refunded it and the insurance company was able to cover me. I hope that one day all the bagged vacuums will die painfully. The best thing of the bagged vacuums are when you suck something unwanted like the lego or the money you tossed for the bags into the bag, you have to tear up the bag and sell yourself for another bags.
Its true, some bagless vacuums make high pitch noises, but that's because of the cyclonic filtration. Whats a complete false, is the fast that the bagless vacuum cleaners run hotter than the bagged. All depends on the motor, not the filtration.
Do you know Kirby vacuums? You suck up some rocks and then you can just cry you wasted 1000€ for a vacuum that got destroyed in less than 1 minute. I think its even banned in my country, like the sink garbage disposals are.
I compared my 60€ Philips bagless vacuum against the 600€ Kärcher bagged vacuum. The Kärcher failed and tripped the breaker after it got full and ran another 1 minute. When I filled the Philips vacuum, It still had some suction even when the fullness protection got triggered.
@@goodgremlinmedia2757 They're bagged and overpriced. Not even available in my area. I already have a good mains and a cordless vacuum. It's not a Dyson.
I like the look of the V10 a lot but having just purchased the Light Ball do I want to spend another £400-£500 for the convenience of the V10? Right now no I don't.
I thought this was worth pointing out to highlight a point I've made frequently. Look at how competitors asterisks actually pan out. They'll say "The world's most powerful suction*" in marketing, but the asterisk (in almost unreadably tiny fine print they don't want you to see) reads "suction tested in comparison with leading cordless stick vacuums" and "based on internal testing". And no one calls them out on this. So, firstly, they apparently compare with Dyson's older normal mode and completely ignore the other higher power modes, thereby not comparing apples with apples. Then they literally ignore international industry standard testing, which is the only way to achieve fair comparison. They're completely deceptive. As soon as you see this, it should send alarm bells ringing. Why would they need to be so deceptive? What are they hiding? Why not do fair comparative testing? Why not show real test results? Dyson at least have never done that. All their advertised claims have been measured against formal international test standards and they never play deceiving games and make comments that are measurably false. "The world's most powerful suction". What a lie, even before the V10. Interestingly, the Samsung digital motor is only 150 W (not air watts). There's no way their tech is likely to reach the levels achieve by Dyson now. Dyson did what all good companies do; invested hugely in R&D. They nailed the science and engineering way before anyone else, became quantum leaps and bounds ahead of the competition and down the technological road, and most importantly, patented all their hard work so some cheap scum company out for a fast buck can't just steal it all and repackage it. This is so clear in Samsung's offering; it's actually inferior to Dyson's version 1 digital motor from 2009. Yes, they're literally more than 10 years behind. And people just buy into marketing without checking anything. And then no doubt get very aggressive and anti-Dyson when they're called out, much like I experienced in recent weeks.
EDIT: Link: ua-cam.com/video/hZZJ8TJkAw4/v-deo.htmlm2s
What's also particularly hilarious about their daft marketing claim of being 'faster than a tornado' (whatever that actually means) is that they were forced to put a second "**" and cite the enhanced Fujita Scale, which is totally off topic for vacuum cleaners (and in case anyone isn't aware, is a measure of damage levels associated with wind speeds and projectiles, determined from engineering-studies). xD
JohnnyL8 I agree with you. But too be fair Dyson have had their fair share of marketing BS over the years too 😁
They also don't specify whether it's fade free battery to achieve that 40 minutes of run time (in normal mode don't specify whether includes tool attachment or not) or whether half way through a charge, you're getting 30% of the original suction now and thus wasting your time because you're not picking anything up. They also state their batteries retain 80% of factory new charge after just 5 years-3 times less than the V10. It's quantifiably inferior technology.
Like what, specifically? Also, nothing in this league of utter falsehood I'm aware of.
4:50 that blizzard is bagless
Obviously the video is only referring to the bagged equivalent
Good spot though; I used the wrong image! >.
I've left an errata in the description; thanks!
I understand I also want to say how interesting you’re videos are
Johnny could you do a review of your V10 when you have time? 👍
Yeah, I already said I would
JohnnyL8 Ok Ok don't get your knickers in a twist 😀
ha im not, just sayin
JohnnyL8 I will look forward to seeing it in action. One thing I can say is your videos do look very professional so thumbs up for that.👍👍
I'll start the planning tonight (that takes longest of all steps)
The best bagless cleaners do have filters.
You're absolutely right. What on earth is your point though? It sounds like you're trying to demean the technology rather than understanding anything about it, what the filter is for, where it sits in the air filtration system, and so on.
@@goodgremlinmedia2757 When did I say precisely that? Timestamp please.
I have Miele and Sebo bagged and Miele bagless and imo bagged is by far better.
It's not surprising you'd come to that conclusion from the list of bagless products you mentioned.
@@VacuumFacts well I have a handheld Dyson too but the suction on their isn't very good but it never gets blocked or gets too dirty so I like it.
However with a Miele Blizzard bagless vac I have had to unblock the little round filter mesh filter a few times.
Overall I just think Miele and Sebo bagged vacuums are miles better than any bagless ones and are more hygienic as well when you empty them. Plus the bags last for 6months or more and even when they are full the Miele keeps going strong.
@@Hero87 For many people, long term use of a bag results in vile smells because the dirt isn't emptied. Many have also suggested they need to change bags weekly because they collect a lot of dirt. Any Dyson before the V10 was not intended as a mains replacement. The latest V15 performs better than any mains cleaner (in max mode) and exceeds typical mains cleaner performance in its default mode.
@@VacuumFacts ah right that's interesting to know about Dyson thanks. No wonder my handheld Dyson is kinda weak. I only use the motorised brush to clean the stairs tbh.
I've never had issues with bagged vacuums smelling plus the Miele has a charcoal filter so that the air comes out freshly filtered.
If users are filling up bagged vacuums weekly then they must be using them as commercial cleaners but even that seems impossible because the dirt is compacted. I like the Miele bags as they have multiple layers and really do a great job. I take it you prefer bagless? I honestly would stick with bagged only from my personal experience rather than Dysons which I find gimmicky with clever marketing imo.
What do you think of this video Johnny?
What a one sided comparison and he cherry picks his arguments to accomplish his predetermined outcome. There is no impartiality where both sides of the argument are wagered, rather it's only bashing one and elevating the other. Furthermore he twists facts in order to make it sound like all the negativity is on the cyclone ones in order to win sympathy.
I have owned both bagged and bagless ones during my lifetime. My first was a Miele, second a Dyson, then a Hitachi cyclone, and now I'm back to a Miele. In all honesty they all have their perks but they are also vastly different in comparison. It's all down to the context and circumstances you find yourselves in. The cyclone ones always throws fine dusts back into the air whilst the bagged ones don't, and this is the primary reason why I like bagged ones over bagless. Since I have Asthma and suffer from allergies, having a dust free environment for me is a no brainer.
Also one will find bagged vacuums tend to have a much higher wattage rating than the bagless ones, this extra power allows the vacuum to adjust when needed during operation and helps compensate for a reduction in air flow when the bag starts to become full. So basically you shouldn't find a reduction in suction power on reputable brands because you have this extra power at hand.
a) it's not a review, b) what parts specifically did you disagree with and can you provide a reputable source of evidence to refute the fact-checkable content in the video? Or are you a whiny troll who simply doesn't like facts that conflict with a wonky worldview or what you'd like to be true. >_> yawn
I see you've edited your original post. The factual claims you've made are demonstrably false; I recommend actually watching the videos on my channel for the evidence. I also see you haven't defended your position in any convincing way. A classic example of misinformation in your comment.
@@VacuumFacts You provide no source for your "evidence" whatsoever, if the testing done by Dyson as you've shown here is your evidence rather than it being done by a reputable, verifiable, independent third party source, then I think there isn't much in terms of credibility to go on in this case, and I'd certainly question the conflict of interest here too. Just so that you know suction power, one aspect in which you're overly focused on about, is only one variable amongst a whole bunch of others that a vacuum's measure of quality is determined by, you'd also have to consider what the vacuum does after the dirt gets sucked in. Suction power does not necessarily mean it's a measure of quality, rather how much of the dirt doesn't get released back into the air should be your primary concern, what is the point in a vacuum cleaner when it cannot achieve the purpose it is set out to do from the start?
@@VacuumFacts Your videos are mostly about Dyson and how good they are, there are very few comparisons with other reputable and top quality brands, I don't know what information you expect me to extrapolate from them when it lacks any form diversity. The fact you already stated in your channel description that it's not based upon scientific evidence and that you're more interested in quantitative than qualitative content, is enough proof for me you're not concerned about quality and truth in your videos.
You're still extremely vague. You've not said what specific claims in the video you don't agree with, so it’s hard to comment.
>>“if the testing done by Dyson as you've shown here is your evidence rather than it being done by a reputable, verifiable, independent third party source, then I think there isn't much in terms of credibility to go on in this case”
The claims shown in the video are from testing done by independent laboratories to international industry standards. This is exactly what you wanted, but somehow have suggested it’s weak, which makes no sense.
>>”and I'd certainly question the conflict of interest here too”
Well, that was poorly defended.
>> “Just so that you know suction power, one aspect in which you're overly focused on about, is only one variable amongst a whole bunch of others that a vacuum's measure of quality is determined by...”
I suggest you bother to watch my other videos which explains all this in meticulous detail.
>> “Suction power does not necessarily mean it's a measure of quality, rather how much of the dirt doesn't get released back into the air should be your primary concern, what is the point in a vacuum cleaner when it cannot achieve the purpose it is set out to do from the start?”
Where is your evidence that modern Dyson machines expel dirt during operation? There is none.
>> “Your videos are mostly about Dyson and how good they are, there are very few comparisons with other reputable and top quality brands”
Incorrect again. My videos are about the best technology out there. This is provided by Dyson by all measures. And many of my videos are very much comparing it to competitors. Incredible ignorance on display here.
>> “I don't know what information you expect me to extrapolate from them when it lacks any form diversity. The fact you already stated in your channel description that it's not based upon scientific evidence and that you're more interested in quantitative than qualitative content, is enough proof for me you're not concerned about quality and truth in your videos.”
If you have specific objections to specific claims made in my videos, then provide some detail. Otherwise, your whining rings hollow.
And some earlier comments you made:
>>“What a one sided comparison and he cherry picks his arguments to accomplish his predetermined outcome.”
I present carefully reasoned explanations that are fact-checkable. Something you have failed to engage with despite multiple requests.
>>“There is no impartiality where both sides of the argument are wagered, rather it's only bashing one and elevating the other.”
Again, I’m stating facts. If you disagree with something, state what, very specifically, and evidence it. Otherwise stop whining that facts conflict with what you’d rather be true.
>>“Furthermore he twists facts in order to make it sound like all the negativity is on the cyclone ones in order to win sympathy.”
Which facts have been twisted, specifically, and in what way? What is the truth as you see it, and most importantly, can you provide the evidence for your claims? I’ve done so in this video, and if you disagree, state what and why, specifically.
>> “The cyclone ones always throws fine dusts back into the air whilst the bagged ones don't”
Please can you provide evidence for this. There is plenty on my channel empirically demonstrating this is false for the Dyson machines that are the subject of this video. At the end of this video, I also criticise bagless knockoffs which are guilty of what you speak of.
>> “Also one will find bagged vacuums tend to have a much higher wattage rating than the bagless ones, this extra power allows the vacuum to adjust when needed during operation and helps compensate for a reduction in air flow when the bag starts to become full.”
The myth that using more power automatically achieves better performance has been demonstrated false, not only by me on this channel, but by others independently, as discussed in many of my videos. Pointing out the disgusting copout that brute forcing performance by jacking up the power to compensate for a failure of bagged technology is not only self-contradictory, but a serious criticism made in this video. The whole point of this video was to show that better approaches eliminate bags and this problem.
And then there’s literally all the other disadvantages of bags discussed in this video that you’ve completely ignored. You have a wonky worldview, make factually inaccurate statements, demand evidence already presented in this video whilst providing none of your own, and are utterly vague about what it is you take issue with specifically in what’s presented. Waste of time.
With Brexit on the horizon, I wonder how this will affect the consumer products in this country regarding EU energy caps. Perhaps vacuum manufacturers will be allowed sell higher powered motor vacuums again. If so, I hope it doesn’t stall technological progression.
I wouldn't worry; the people most against the power caps were the bagged manufacturers who were at greatest risk of exposure of their cheaty tricks, and they're predominantly European-based. Brexit won't affect anything.
From what I've heard there won't be any Miele, Sebo, AEG, or any other european built products sold in the UK after Brexit. Which reminds me I need to stock up on Miele supplies to last for the 20 year life span.
There needs to be a ban on the sale of bagged vacuums and replacement bags in order to protect the environment, as well as reducing the harmful emissions from bagged cleaners that people brethe in.
Like with all polluting technology, an approach usually taken is to heavily tax it to dissuade people from using.
Why? Some people prefer to use bagged vacuums especially if they have to use them for large areas. To me it just seems wastefull just banning everything and forcing everyone to do things a certain way. It sort of reminds me of the way North Korea are.
Yeah, it's not considered appropriate to outright ban things in general unless there's a serious reason, such as danger to health (e.g. asbestos). Usually, if something is polluting and falling out of favour, governments tax it to make it less appealing. There's no evidence bagged tech is uniquely valuable and market share has massively shifted away from it anyway because most people see bagless is better. Having said that, there's a lot of very bad bagless tech out there, a good chunk is adequate, and only really Dyson's is truly great-which is not surprising given they invented and patented the best of it. I've never come across a good reason to use bagged filtration methods nowadays given that cyclonic tech exists, much like how there's no point in candles now the light bulb exists, or horses and carts since cars came along etc.