@@Muaaz_122 yep I had a huge chunky old Miele that was a nightmare to drag everywhere and clean. The shark is so much lighter and easier that I actually don’t mind cleaning with it instead of it being an effort, it just needs emptying more often which doesn’t bother me
Can’t speak for Riccar but sharks are horrible. Use a hose they tip over you’re forced using it as the lift away option. Suck anything up with a shark it clogs
@@jacksvacssafety2620I call BS on that. Shark's are by far the best I've ever seen in their price range. Link the video showing this Eureka beating the Shark.
I owned a shark stratos, and compared to my old nv351, it did worse, I even used the hard floor setting for max power. Still nothing. Even plugged the airflow vents and still nothing.
You realise why a lot of people think Sharks are awesome, right? And think your test is hilarious. Also the fact that you passed over the Shark so much faster, lol 😂. Shark suction is SUPERIOR, period.
I owned 3 sharks in the past, just wanna clarify that. Riccar vacuums have 2 motors for suction, and shark only has 1. Wattage doesn't matter because the 2 motors have less air travel, and have more even air spread.
Ditto! I’ve owned Dyson, Miele, Hoover, Bissell etc. I stuck with Shark vacs after the first time I ever bought one due to its’ suction, plus they took YEARS to even break.
@@DiosaDe1So1 I love my sharks they are amazing! I agree I've never had a shark break on me like in my comment I've always given them away after years and years and years of use!
@Captain_Eggnog the carpet type you test with matters very much. Rubber backed entryway mats do not represent regular pile carpet in homes at all. Not even close.
@@VacLabso? If a vacuum cleaner has a setting for that carpet (like the shark stratos and vertex, including this vacuum with a suction control incase if it cant move) surely it has to do at least decent. And if a vacuum leaves that much debre on a rubber backed carpet...its bad no matter what.
Yeah but where does that dust go when you empty your bagless double the action on filters so instead of buying 1 box of bags a year you would rather replace the more expensive filters and empty your bin inside the house I reckon so all those real fine dirt particles come back out like a dust cloud so you can breathe it back in.. that's just my take on the bag vs bagless
I like the Riccar Tandem Air. I think it’s an amazing idea to have two different vacuum motors working at the same time, but at $1600 it’s just too expensive. Plus I am not a fan of replacing vacuum bags. So if I wanted to save money, I’d personally be better off with the $200 Shark. I love the Riccar, I just cannot afford it!
@@davidperry4013 You’ve taken it a little too far there, I don’t hate replacing vacuum bags, their just not my personal preference! That’s all! Plus, whenever I hear the word hate, I think of fascism! I have Autism and I think globally!
I have that riccar and the bags last for a while that and depends on how dirty your floors get that I bought mines at the end of 2021 I only went through 2 boxes of bags or 2 in a half and the last time I replaced the bag was after new years after vacuuming all the pine needles from the christmas tree and that bag is still in there that it packs the dirt like a brick and that it depends on how fast the floors get dirty for the bags will fill up
You're hilarious if you think you save money by not buying bags. 1 pack of bags with the riccar on average will last you 6 to 8 months for about 25 bucks... Price is what you pay value is what you get, clearly with your 200 dollar shark it doesn't even clean and really this can be said about any vacuum cleaner you buy on the internet or the grocery store. I am a vacuum dealer even though riccar is not my brand I can tell you if you want clean floors, air and durability go with a quality brand from a shop not the internet or Costco...
@@jhomrich89 What part of I cannot afford the $1600 Riccar do you not understand?! I have a house to restore, I don’t have the money for an extremely expensive quality vacuum! Get it?! How a vacuum performs and holds up really depends on how well you take care of it, I always maintain the Shark on a regular basis by air compressing and washing the collection bin and filters, it has performed and held up well thanks to how I’ve taken care of it. If I used it like most people would, it wouldn’t have. The most common reason why vacuums break down is from lack of maintenance! Not how they’re designed, not manufacturing issues, because of lack of care and maintenance! PS I’m not a dealer, I’m a collector/enthusiast and a restorer. I restore vacuums for a hobby, not a living.
hum that Shark sounds like it plugged up. I think this is set so makes it look like the Shark is terrible. No doubt in my mind that Shark would have picked all that up. I know the Riccar is way more premium.
I’m not surprised. The Shark Navigator has mediocre performance. I currently own the Shark Apex and I can guarantee you that the Apex can vacuum those stubborn debris in one pass.
The apex had bristles, and the vertex uses carpet fiber for its bristles, and 2 mm rubber flaps. So yea, the apex would do better, he's right.@@DJR5280
As homes in America continue to transition from carpet to hard surfaces this becomes less relevant. A Shark Vertex or Stratos can easily be found on sale for $300 or less. They perform light years better than the Riccar on hard surfaces and well enough on rugs. At 5x the cost what are you gaining unless your house is all carpet? 🧐
I agree. Homes are trending towards carpet only in bedrooms never in living areas and hallways leading up to them so vacuums need to cater to multiple floor types. Also rubber backed entry rugs are far harder to clean than residential pile carpet so most vacuums have a hard time cleaning sand and grit out of them.
The fact that the Shark couldn't even agitate the rubber backed rug says A LOT. And to everyone saying the Riccar is more expensive, we know, but the point is anything with a good brushroll, even a cheap Hoover or Bissell, will clean better than the Shark.
I agree with you. But brushroll isn't everything. Airflow also helps in agitation, and debre cleaning. How? it pulls on the carpet a little and helps the brushroll get into the carpet deeper, and not only that, the riccar has 2 motors. One at the end, and one at the top for optimal airflow.
Problem is no one is old and dumb enough to buy a 1000 dollar vacuum that looks like it’s from the 50’s and still has a bag. That’s old technology trying to be sold as new because they put a huge motor in it basically. 😂
Also what old technology? It has 2 motors at the top and the bottom, simultaneously working together, for optimal airflow and suction. Plus, it's brush roll's bar (not to be confused with bristles) is made of steel, so it lasts longer.
Test would be more useful if you also performed it on a non-carpeted surface. As many homes have a mix. Some vacuums will tend to scatter cat litter on a hard surface, where others will pick it up.
first of all you took a basic model of sharks but you got one of the top of the line models from riccar that costs thousands of dollars more. and pass the riccar of the sand at the same speed of the shark and see what happens.
Let’s see the same test done on normal residential carpet 🤔 Also, let’s compare handle weight, cost to own, And Reliability (Riccars tandem air model is a joke for this) I’ve taken apart so many tandem air units it’s literally unreal 😂 also shark is made in the same country the components are for the Riccar. It’s just not assembled here 🙄
Riccar was made for people and companies who care about power and cleaning performance. Sharks are for household use. How do I know? Check for the,label on each vac.
1) you went half the speed with the riccar, giving it way more time. How ever I still believe it would have done better. 2) the riccar is literally 10x the price of the shark you are using. It better have also come with Bluetooth.
@@Captain_Eggnog it wouldn't be as big as the difference shown, but it does make a difference as it gives the brushes more time to agitate and more time to suck up debris. It would be similar to giving it another pass.
@@LoyalDW have u seen the brushroll motors they use in shark vacuums, and the fact in this test was a rubber backed carpet also means it wouldn't do anything
@@Captain_Eggnog considering I vacuum a rubber backed carpet everyday, and used to use a shop vacuum with no brush, and now use a turbo brush head for it, I can tell you that dirt still gets stuck in fibers and needs agitation to be dislodged. I don't actually understand why this is a conversation to be honest. The reality is neither of us seem to be interested in budging on this, so it's a waste of time.
@Captain_Eggnog bags clog and lose airflow, a properly designed cyclone can last ages with no filter cleaning. You just need to make sure you're not overfilling the bin.
All vacuums will leave something. Regardless of what type of vacuum you’re using, no matter how many times you go over a spot with it, you’re always going to get up something with another. No machine will ever extract every bit of dirt from the carpet, not even tandem air units.
If any of his machines did picked up 100% of everything the dirt he spreaded, then tell me why did the Sanitaire SC886 he did a video on picked up WAY over 100% of the dirt he spreaded on his test carpet? If you ask me, sounds like his results from his previous tests provided incorrect results. As a person who understands how physics work, NO vacuum is going to get everything off the carpets. You'd be surprised by how much dirt you'd find underneath the carpets if you were to rip them out and replace it with either newer carpet or barefloors. No wonder it's one of the reasons why alot of homes don't use carpets anymore.
I would buy bagged. I have a Shark and cleaning it is a mess. The bin alone gets so cacked up with dirt, not to mention the filters. Dyson is superior in this way because their cyclonic tech leaves the machine and filters cleaner
Bro, at least go slow with the shark vacuum as you did with the Riccar. Come on! Stop upselling expensive equipment with these "Sh!tty" side by side comparison.
You're using 2 different types of vacuums with 2 different types of motors to prove something 🤔that makes no sense. If you're going to try to prove something, at least use two vacuums of the same caliber and similar as close as possible motors.🧐
It doesn't matter which vacuum u use, tests like this are for people who want to see which is better, and if so, by how much? And which carpet type is it good for?
They always do these stupid test that’s what got me to buy a shark then I realized shark can’t get the most simple stuff right. Use the hose on a shark and the entire vacuum tips over. Use the hose on a shark and it clogs so easily. I’m not sucking up anything different than I’ve done with 5 different vacuums in the past yet I find myself trying to unclog these shark hoses every time I use it. I feel like sharks should be for EV drivers they type of people who ignore the inconvenience or truly don’t care.
I know cheaper vacuums that beat shark vacuums. This isn't a test of price or which vacuum you should choose, its a test to show how much dirt shark vacuums leave behind despite how they market their product as the creme de la creme on the market.
this is waaaaaaaay to pointless! Of course the riccar is going to win! ITS $1,010 MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE SHARK AND IT HAS 2 MOTORS! TWO MOTORS!!!!!!!!
You are comparing a newer tandem air vs a much older model shark. Compare too a new flag ship shark. The new tandem air is the new flagship. Compare top of line to top of line and quit suckering ppl.
And another thing, when you are using the $1600 Riccar Tandem Air, you need to make sure your floors are clear of any debris like coins and gravel, otherwise you’ll ruin the fan in the lower dirty air motor and replacing Direct Air motor costs $193.78 in addition to the fan being $17.99 to replace. Together that’s $211.77 to service a damaged Direct Air Motor. With the $200 Shark, being a clean air Design, if you suck up coins or gravel with your not going to ruin any fan or any dirty air motor components, it will just go into the bin so there is no damaged parts to replace. You can also reclaim the coin which is a big advantage to bagless. I would be better off using the $200s to buy a Shark, than I would to service a Damaged Riccar Direct Air Motor. Hope that straightens things up.
Are you aware that the Shark doesn't have repair parts available? If something ever did broke on that Shark, even if it's just one little part, you're basically screwed. You'd have to buy a new vacuum. Plus they're not meant to last, $200 says nothing to me. Cheaply made with motors that don't have many hours of life in them. I don't like that at all. The Shark at my office is about to die and it's not even that old. Riccars are built better, they have replacement parts available, and they're proven to last longer. I'd rather buy the Riccar over the Shark, $1200 is more promising.
@@panasonicvac4036 okay so spend 6 times the amount on a vacuum for just to spend more money to have replacement parts.... Kind of stupid especially since other UA-camrs have proven that the shark can be just as effective also don't these vacuums do really shitty on hard surfaces. Btw I've had my vacuum six years just replacing filters and it's works great just saying
6 years is not impressive. I dare you to come back here in 20 years and tell me that your vacuum still runs. Or if you're up for the challenge, do it in 25-30 years even. I'd bet you wouldn't have it anymore by then. In fact, I just picked up a 20 year old Riccar recently from a second hand store and it still works! Because Riccars are built and engineered to last longer than any Shark so it's technically better for the environment. Plus alot if not all the parts to replace are still cheaper to get than buying a brand new Shark. Also what other UA-camrs say that the Shark can work just as well as the Riccar? You've clearly saw in this video that the Riccar out cleaned the Shark, doesn't look like an unbiased test to me. The Riccar CAN do a very well job on bare floors, they even offer an excellent floor brush that's even better than any of Shark's.
@@panasonicvac4036 lol so let's assume that I have to replace a vacuum every 5 years at 200 dollars per vacuum... In 20 years Idve still spent less than one riccar with no maintenance no having to find a dealer or order special parts literally no different in outcome and riccars sebos and Kirby's are great vacuums just severely over priced motors don't cost that much neither do metal roller brushes... Everytime you hear about someone who owns a riccar they have some speel about how your wasting your money and you need to come to their side... Never heard anyone do that for a shark or Dyson they just buy it and move on... Point being shit is over rated like an bmw
There are vacuums that you don't HAVE to spend a fortune on like Sanitaire for example. Replacement parts like the motors are less than $60 and the metal brushrolls are like $20. And way easier to fix. If you're really concerned about the maintenance cost on vacuums, ever head of Vacuflo's true cyclonic central vacuums? No bags or filters required, lifetime bumper to bumper warranty, and quality made like it could outlast either of us. Unlike some people, they don't like having to keep upgrading vacuums alot. They'd rather buy something that'd likely be the last vacuum they'd ever purchase.
No doubt that the Riccar is a better vacuum, but it does seem like he passed the Riccar over the sand more slowly than he did with the Shark
He did for sure😊
And there’s a huuuuge price difference
@@TayWoodealso I think the riccar is way to big and heavy but shark is really portable and easy to use
@@Muaaz_122 yep I had a huge chunky old Miele that was a nightmare to drag everywhere and clean. The shark is so much lighter and easier that I actually don’t mind cleaning with it instead of it being an effort, it just needs emptying more often which doesn’t bother me
Can’t speak for Riccar but sharks are horrible. Use a hose they tip over you’re forced using it as the lift away option. Suck anything up with a shark it clogs
Let's at least compare the $2500 vacuum to sharks top of the line ... This isn't a test this is a joke.
How about this, $50 Eureka from 2005 vs Shark. Eureka won
Thank you
@@jacksvacssafety2620 I would love to see this... Because it sounds like a lie
That Riccar doesn't cost $2,500. In fact that's not even Riccar's top of the line model. Looks fair to me.
@@jacksvacssafety2620I call BS on that. Shark's are by far the best I've ever seen in their price range. Link the video showing this Eureka beating the Shark.
If you’re unable to see your own bias here, then you have to be blind. “Let’s compare this 10nyear old Mitsubishi mirage to a brand new Bugatti” 💀
Not even...an old lowodel shark vs. a $2500 vaccum 😂
your partially right but going onto the web site for riccar its 2000 even
Compare one to a shark stratos next I'll like to see that
I owned a shark stratos, and compared to my old nv351, it did worse, I even used the hard floor setting for max power. Still nothing. Even plugged the airflow vents and still nothing.
Pass the cheaper one quickly over the sand compared to passing the expensive one more slowly 🤷🏾♂️
You realise why a lot of people think Sharks are awesome, right? And think your test is hilarious. Also the fact that you passed over the Shark so much faster, lol 😂. Shark suction is SUPERIOR, period.
I owned 3 sharks in the past, just wanna clarify that. Riccar vacuums have 2 motors for suction, and shark only has 1. Wattage doesn't matter because the 2 motors have less air travel, and have more even air spread.
And even If it was superior, it wouldn't matter cuz u need airflow for suction.
😂I'm happy w my Shark!!
Me too!
Ditto! I’ve owned Dyson, Miele, Hoover, Bissell etc. I stuck with Shark vacs after the first time I ever bought one due to its’ suction, plus they took YEARS to even break.
@@DiosaDe1So1 I love my sharks they are amazing! I agree I've never had a shark break on me like in my comment I've always given them away after years and years and years of use!
At least use the same speeds and make it fair… you pushed the shark WAYYYYYY faster than the other
If sharks are better, it wouldn't leave that much debre behind with a regular push like that.
Is this a joke? You went literally wayyyy slower with the Riccar. Do the same speed on the Shark. Itll do about as damn good of a job.
If only Riccars weren't so damn expensive
I can't remember the last time I vacuumed a rubber backed entry way mat in my home. How about an actual measured test on residential pile carpet?
that itms a good point i like there vacuums though pretty neat looking ones to i like this model, the radiance an the r modeled ones
Does it really matter? Just to clarify, because if so, then why do we have carpet agitators?
@Captain_Eggnog the carpet type you test with matters very much. Rubber backed entryway mats do not represent regular pile carpet in homes at all. Not even close.
@@VacLabso? If a vacuum cleaner has a setting for that carpet (like the shark stratos and vertex, including this vacuum with a suction control incase if it cant move) surely it has to do at least decent. And if a vacuum leaves that much debre on a rubber backed carpet...its bad no matter what.
And yea, I did own 3 sharks so I can say I have experience.
Notice the speed of each vacuum
It don't matter what speed the shark will not out clean that vacuum
Yeah but where does that dust go when you empty your bagless double the action on filters so instead of buying 1 box of bags a year you would rather replace the more expensive filters and empty your bin inside the house I reckon so all those real fine dirt particles come back out like a dust cloud so you can breathe it back in.. that's just my take on the bag vs bagless
And 1600 is not bad. If you still consider rainbow and kirby sell for just about double that and more
@@zmanifest that's where the lower line riccars come into play anywhere from 199 to 1600 covers all price ranges
@@zmanifest you keep rocking the land shark and I'll keep fixing them and upselling the disappointed customer riccar vacuums
When i see newspapers like those, i tend to add them to the burn pile.
I like the Riccar Tandem Air. I think it’s an amazing idea to have two different vacuum motors working at the same time, but at $1600 it’s just too expensive. Plus I am not a fan of replacing vacuum bags. So if I wanted to save money, I’d personally be better off with the $200 Shark.
I love the Riccar, I just cannot afford it!
Consider getting a Miele Boost CX1 if you really hate dealing with bags
@@davidperry4013 You’ve taken it a little too far there, I don’t hate replacing vacuum bags, their just not my personal preference! That’s all! Plus, whenever I hear the word hate, I think of fascism!
I have Autism and I think globally!
I have that riccar and the bags last for a while that and depends on how dirty your floors get that I bought mines at the end of 2021 I only went through 2 boxes of bags or 2 in a half and the last time I replaced the bag was after new years after vacuuming all the pine needles from the christmas tree and that bag is still in there that it packs the dirt like a brick and that it depends on how fast the floors get dirty for the bags will fill up
You're hilarious if you think you save money by not buying bags. 1 pack of bags with the riccar on average will last you 6 to 8 months for about 25 bucks... Price is what you pay value is what you get, clearly with your 200 dollar shark it doesn't even clean and really this can be said about any vacuum cleaner you buy on the internet or the grocery store. I am a vacuum dealer even though riccar is not my brand I can tell you if you want clean floors, air and durability go with a quality brand from a shop not the internet or Costco...
@@jhomrich89 What part of I cannot afford the $1600 Riccar do you not understand?! I have a house to restore, I don’t have the money for an extremely expensive quality vacuum!
Get it?!
How a vacuum performs and holds up really depends on how well you take care of it, I always maintain the Shark on a regular basis by air compressing and washing the collection bin and filters, it has performed and held up well thanks to how I’ve taken care of it. If I used it like most people would, it wouldn’t have. The most common reason why vacuums break down is from lack of maintenance! Not how they’re designed, not manufacturing issues, because of lack of care and maintenance!
PS I’m not a dealer, I’m a collector/enthusiast and a restorer. I restore vacuums for a hobby, not a living.
problem that I see a lot of sharks have is a very bad brushroll, euro pro doesn't seem to care about carpet cleaning as much as hard floor cleaning
This is a fake review I know for a fact the shark vacuum is a beast!!!
It isn't.
This test is biased AF. 😂
How?
hum that Shark sounds like it plugged up. I think this is set so makes it look like the Shark is terrible. No doubt in my mind that Shark would have picked all that up. I know the Riccar is way more premium.
It doesn't sound clogged. If it was, it would sound like a tire deflating or be even higher pitched.
You can tell by the sound that the shark sounds clogged
The Riccar reminds me of a Bugatti EB110
Edit: spelling
My Rainbow SRX vs your Riccar? I’m pretty sure we’d be tied
I’m not surprised. The Shark Navigator has mediocre performance. I currently own the Shark Apex and I can guarantee you that the Apex can vacuum those stubborn debris in one pass.
An Apex wouldn’t touch the Ricarr. I use a Vertex at work and agitation isn’t it’s strong suit with the duo clean
The apex had bristles, and the vertex uses carpet fiber for its bristles, and 2 mm rubber flaps. So yea, the apex would do better, he's right.@@DJR5280
I still pick kirby for a good reason.😅😅
Not just agitation, Riccars are like double the weight of the shark.
If it was,like that, a riccar would've been 38 lbs. Comparing to a last gen shark. Statros btw
As homes in America continue to transition from carpet to hard surfaces this becomes less relevant. A Shark Vertex or Stratos can easily be found on sale for $300 or less. They perform light years better than the Riccar on hard surfaces and well enough on rugs.
At 5x the cost what are you gaining unless your house is all carpet? 🧐
I agree. Homes are trending towards carpet only in bedrooms never in living areas and hallways leading up to them so vacuums need to cater to multiple floor types. Also rubber backed entry rugs are far harder to clean than residential pile carpet so most vacuums have a hard time cleaning sand and grit out of them.
The riccar has 2 motors, one at the top, one at the bottom.
The price of a Riccar... it looks like something from the 90's... or is it!?
Sharks blow everything else away! They’ve been consistently rated the BEST vacuum over and over for YEARS!
They aren't and they suck.
Lmao !! That shark is no where near the best or newest model !!
The fact that the Shark couldn't even agitate the rubber backed rug says A LOT. And to everyone saying the Riccar is more expensive, we know, but the point is anything with a good brushroll, even a cheap Hoover or Bissell, will clean better than the Shark.
I agree with you. But brushroll isn't everything. Airflow also helps in agitation, and debre cleaning. How? it pulls on the carpet a little and helps the brushroll get into the carpet deeper, and not only that, the riccar has 2 motors. One at the end, and one at the top for optimal airflow.
Kr u could just say with good carpet agitation.
No Shark that's a minnow 😂
$2500 vs $150. $150 did the job good enough for me
I knew for a fact that the Riccar was going to be a lot better. Just look at that speed, size of the cleaner, too!
Problem is no one is old and dumb enough to buy a 1000 dollar vacuum that looks like it’s from the 50’s and still has a bag. That’s old technology trying to be sold as new because they put a huge motor in it basically. 😂
Good enough for me.
U never heard of industrialization, have you?
Also what old technology? It has 2 motors at the top and the bottom, simultaneously working together, for optimal airflow and suction. Plus, it's brush roll's bar (not to be confused with bristles) is made of steel, so it lasts longer.
Also bagged vacuums are genuinely better.
Nice editting skills
What editing skills? It's just raw footage made in 3 mins
At that point i’d rather just buy a Bissell powerforce bagless 6582
Bissell sucks.
Test would be more useful if you also performed it on a non-carpeted surface. As many homes have a mix. Some vacuums will tend to scatter cat litter on a hard surface, where others will pick it up.
It doesn't matter, the test was ran on a carpet, it is what it is.
Yeah hmmm $2500 vacuum better fucking be bad ass
It’s $1100
@@CycleBreakersCommunity still too damn high for a vacuum 😂
@@PRETAT25people have different needs, especially companies that work in biohazard for example.
You did the shark hoover really fast but the other hoover really slow so it would pick more up.
Either way it'll suck. Because if it leaves THAT much debre, for a average pass, then it won't do any better when pushing it slow.
Mmm how about comparing a tesla vs a Bugatti Chiron?
I do recommend shark for people who prefer bagless
i like there riccar vacuums because of how well they clean but id perfer a belt drive brush roller instead of a electric brush roller
They're both the same. One is just more reliable than the pther
@@Captain_Eggnog nope not the same
Make one at the same cost of course a 2 thousand dollar vacuum is going to be better
If it was the Apex Duo Clean that Riccar is toast. Or a Dyson V11 Outsize
Welp… Riccar for the win
What about riccar and Kirby
Yea but what's the price differences, my madre has a 3000 dollar vac and it's awesome but are we comparing apples to apples no
first of all you took a basic model of sharks but you got one of the top of the line models from riccar that costs thousands of dollars more. and pass the riccar of the sand at the same speed of the shark and see what happens.
It's just a base model tandem air.
Also nothing would happen, because if the shark vacuum left that much debre, no way it will pick it up even when going slower.
$1600 for a vacuum hahaha
That’s twice the price of a Dyson.
Probably last 20 years though. If not longer
Not $1,600. That's the other model.
@@panasonicvac40361600 for the luxury, and 800 for basic I think.
Let’s see the same test done on normal residential carpet 🤔
Also, let’s compare handle weight, cost to own, And Reliability (Riccars tandem air model is a joke for this)
I’ve taken apart so many tandem air units it’s literally unreal 😂 also shark is made in the same country the components are for the Riccar. It’s just not assembled here 🙄
Riccar was made for people and companies who care about power and cleaning performance. Sharks are for household use. How do I know? Check for the,label on each vac.
Also shark vacuums are built to literally fail.
iguess he needs to sell these over price commercial grade vacuum to regular household.
Riccar was made for big companies, household needs, and people who prioritize cleaning performance.
1) you went half the speed with the riccar, giving it way more time. How ever I still believe it would have done better.
2) the riccar is literally 10x the price of the shark you are using. It better have also come with Bluetooth.
Just because he pushed it forward faster doesn't mean the performance loss should be that gray
@@Captain_Eggnog it wouldn't be as big as the difference shown, but it does make a difference as it gives the brushes more time to agitate and more time to suck up debris. It would be similar to giving it another pass.
@@LoyalDW have u seen the brushroll motors they use in shark vacuums, and the fact in this test was a rubber backed carpet also means it wouldn't do anything
@@Captain_Eggnog considering I vacuum a rubber backed carpet everyday, and used to use a shop vacuum with no brush, and now use a turbo brush head for it, I can tell you that dirt still gets stuck in fibers and needs agitation to be dislodged.
I don't actually understand why this is a conversation to be honest. The reality is neither of us seem to be interested in budging on this, so it's a waste of time.
😅
That is a low end quality Shark vacuum….
It's a flagship from 2018.
If its low quality, then shark must suck.
The shark may not have missed as much if you went slower. A newer model would have done much better. Heck even an Nv352 would.
Sharks have a puny brushroll motor, plus a belt having to be spun on a thick rubber backed carpet wouldn't be so great for agitation.
Newer models suck, compare the powerhouse to the stratosm
Riccar wins
try with a shark vertex or the stratos now
Shark stratos sucks. From experience.
Well which Shark model is that? It seems clear that you're bias towards the Riccar which is already a red flag as far as trying to research.
It's the zero m apex without the soft roller I'm pretty sure
My Dyson Up34 would kick that thing's butt
why, because " No bag, no loss of suction."
Wdym? Bagless vacs and bagged have the same performance. It matters which one has a hepa filter or not.
@Captain_Eggnog bags clog and lose airflow, a properly designed cyclone can last ages with no filter cleaning. You just need to make sure you're not overfilling the bin.
@@redtoadengineering9226 who sad bags clog??? They only clog if they are full
It brought out the sand the shark left behind 😱
All vacuums will leave something. Regardless of what type of vacuum you’re using, no matter how many times you go over a spot with it, you’re always going to get up something with another. No machine will ever extract every bit of dirt from the carpet, not even tandem air units.
@@zmanifest I get that, but it made it look like the shark didn't even go over the spot. It's agitation really loosened up the embedded sand.
@@ZaneWulftrue, especially when you look at a sharks brushroll motor.
@@Captain_Eggnog is it small?
Funny thing, I tested a Shark and compared it to a Eureka Maxima from 05, Maxima won.
Post this test... Also vacuum wars does this all the time and the sharks regularly come on top... Again sounds like a lie
Vacuum Wars's tests are SO misleading, example is that it's really impossible to get a perfect 100% score on pickup tests.
@@panasonicvac4036 sounds like a cop out discredit everyone else without actually presenting any evidence
@@hillre14 I literally have the videos posted
If any of his machines did picked up 100% of everything the dirt he spreaded, then tell me why did the Sanitaire SC886 he did a video on picked up WAY over 100% of the dirt he spreaded on his test carpet? If you ask me, sounds like his results from his previous tests provided incorrect results. As a person who understands how physics work, NO vacuum is going to get everything off the carpets. You'd be surprised by how much dirt you'd find underneath the carpets if you were to rip them out and replace it with either newer carpet or barefloors. No wonder it's one of the reasons why alot of homes don't use carpets anymore.
So this is a case of buy bagged over bagless
That’s very biased. Not every bagged machine is superior to every bagless machine.
@@zmanifest I like either one
I would buy bagged. I have a Shark and cleaning it is a mess. The bin alone gets so cacked up with dirt, not to mention the filters. Dyson is superior in this way because their cyclonic tech leaves the machine and filters cleaner
Bro, at least go slow with the shark vacuum as you did with the Riccar. Come on! Stop upselling expensive equipment with these "Sh!tty" side by side comparison.
Not a fair test at all he was rapid with the shark and he went so slowly with the second I have a shark and couldn't fault it
Dude, if it was the case, the shark wouldn't have THAT much sand there.
You're using 2 different types of vacuums with 2 different types of motors to prove something 🤔that makes no sense.
If you're going to try to prove something, at least use two vacuums of the same caliber and similar as close as possible motors.🧐
It doesn't matter which vacuum u use, tests like this are for people who want to see which is better, and if so, by how much? And which carpet type is it good for?
They always do these stupid test that’s what got me to buy a shark then I realized shark can’t get the most simple stuff right. Use the hose on a shark and the entire vacuum tips over. Use the hose on a shark and it clogs so easily. I’m not sucking up anything different than I’ve done with 5 different vacuums in the past yet I find myself trying to unclog these shark hoses every time I use it. I feel like sharks should be for EV drivers they type of people who ignore the inconvenience or truly don’t care.
Yea, it really sucks for build quality and above floor cleaning. When attached to the floor nozzle.
Speed not fair assessment
I know cheaper vacuums that beat shark vacuums. This isn't a test of price or which vacuum you should choose, its a test to show how much dirt shark vacuums leave behind despite how they market their product as the creme de la creme on the market.
True. Especially the filtration and build quality.
Aka.....Shark is killing our business, please buy a $1,500 vacuum.
Wdym? Riccar was made for stuff like construction, and biohazard eaning.
Hey I Noticed You Cheated Because You Didn't Ground That Sand In!
They look the same.
That blue vacuum have 2 motors
No shit Sherlock
What???
@@RyanSellman1I don't think the average person who doesn't know about the riccar air tandem would know it has 2 motors.
this is waaaaaaaay to pointless! Of course the riccar is going to win! ITS $1,010 MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE SHARK AND IT HAS 2 MOTORS! TWO MOTORS!!!!!!!!
The shark sucks on rubber backed carpets.
Compare it to a apex zero m shark. Strongest suction even more than the Dyson animal 2.
Sounds like you're just parroting Shark's claims like a fanboy.
@@RyanSellman1true.
You are comparing a newer tandem air vs a much older model shark. Compare too a new flag ship shark. The new tandem air is the new flagship. Compare top of line to top of line and quit suckering ppl.
Why? The top of the line Shars are even worse with Duo Clean and Power Fins that don’t agitate worth a damn
@@DJR5280actually my stratos left alot
And another thing, when you are using the $1600 Riccar Tandem Air, you need to make sure your floors are clear of any debris like coins and gravel, otherwise you’ll ruin the fan in the lower dirty air motor and replacing Direct Air motor costs $193.78 in addition to the fan being $17.99 to replace. Together that’s $211.77 to service a damaged Direct Air Motor.
With the $200 Shark, being a clean air Design, if you suck up coins or gravel with your not going to ruin any fan or any dirty air motor components, it will just go into the bin so there is no damaged parts to replace. You can also reclaim the coin which is a big advantage to bagless.
I would be better off using the $200s to buy a Shark, than I would to service a Damaged Riccar Direct Air Motor.
Hope that straightens things up.
Are you aware that the Shark doesn't have repair parts available? If something ever did broke on that Shark, even if it's just one little part, you're basically screwed. You'd have to buy a new vacuum. Plus they're not meant to last, $200 says nothing to me. Cheaply made with motors that don't have many hours of life in them. I don't like that at all. The Shark at my office is about to die and it's not even that old. Riccars are built better, they have replacement parts available, and they're proven to last longer. I'd rather buy the Riccar over the Shark, $1200 is more promising.
@@panasonicvac4036 okay so spend 6 times the amount on a vacuum for just to spend more money to have replacement parts.... Kind of stupid especially since other UA-camrs have proven that the shark can be just as effective also don't these vacuums do really shitty on hard surfaces. Btw I've had my vacuum six years just replacing filters and it's works great just saying
6 years is not impressive. I dare you to come back here in 20 years and tell me that your vacuum still runs. Or if you're up for the challenge, do it in 25-30 years even. I'd bet you wouldn't have it anymore by then. In fact, I just picked up a 20 year old Riccar recently from a second hand store and it still works! Because Riccars are built and engineered to last longer than any Shark so it's technically better for the environment. Plus alot if not all the parts to replace are still cheaper to get than buying a brand new Shark. Also what other UA-camrs say that the Shark can work just as well as the Riccar? You've clearly saw in this video that the Riccar out cleaned the Shark, doesn't look like an unbiased test to me. The Riccar CAN do a very well job on bare floors, they even offer an excellent floor brush that's even better than any of Shark's.
@@panasonicvac4036 lol so let's assume that I have to replace a vacuum every 5 years at 200 dollars per vacuum... In 20 years Idve still spent less than one riccar with no maintenance no having to find a dealer or order special parts literally no different in outcome and riccars sebos and Kirby's are great vacuums just severely over priced motors don't cost that much neither do metal roller brushes... Everytime you hear about someone who owns a riccar they have some speel about how your wasting your money and you need to come to their side... Never heard anyone do that for a shark or Dyson they just buy it and move on... Point being shit is over rated like an bmw
There are vacuums that you don't HAVE to spend a fortune on like Sanitaire for example. Replacement parts like the motors are less than $60 and the metal brushrolls are like $20. And way easier to fix. If you're really concerned about the maintenance cost on vacuums, ever head of Vacuflo's true cyclonic central vacuums? No bags or filters required, lifetime bumper to bumper warranty, and quality made like it could outlast either of us. Unlike some people, they don't like having to keep upgrading vacuums alot. They'd rather buy something that'd likely be the last vacuum they'd ever purchase.