Cutting through the misleading, half-truth marketing spin and giving a full-truth review. Overall: A decent enough low-end cordless stickvac Dyson clone, but the bags are a scam and impair performance.
Perhaps you're referring to the 3:31 mark when the 'bag' in question (a bin liner, for the more intelligent readers) has the vacuum bag dumped into it. This additional bag is specific to the vacuum cleaner, as the video makes clear, that constitutes unnecessary additional and wholly avoidable waste. The idea that you'd wilfully equate a disposable vacuum bag with a household bin liner demonstrates a level of troll-stupidity that I only ever see come from the rabid vacuum enthusiast community.
I prefer bagged machines, they take much less time to maintain. Cleaning out the filters and all the parts on a bagless machine is time consuming, very few people actually do it which is why their machines don't work as well or conk out completely, they then buy a new one.
There is plenty of evidence of bagged machines dumped at the curb as well. The problem, as you have noticed but not actually noticed, is people's behaviour. I dispute that the best bagless machine available takes longer to maintain than a bagged machine. Emptying is quicker and you don't have to waste time ordering, getting, inserting, and throwing away a bag. It's also mess free now unless you're an idiot. Filter rinsing is not really necessary for months on the latest machines and takes 1 minute. You are simlpy out of touch with modern technology. And then there's literally everything else wrong with bagged machines you've glossed over, conveniently, evidenced in so many of my videos. There's no case here.
@@VacuumFacts I've used a Dyson, there's is no getting away from the dust when emptying it. You have to clean the filter and replace them eventually. Dyson's filters are made using PTFE chemicals, which never break down and are bad for the environment. Many bagged machines use paper or cotton bags and filters. Calling someone an idiot on your channel says a lot about you.
Of course it's messless if the user isn't an idiot. Pointing this out doesn't invalidate a fact and simply exposes those who fail to see facts for cosmetics. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E_ik6qScs0o.html. Dysons filters are made of glass (borosilicate microfibers)-again, your knowledge appears to be far, far behind where it should be for the nature of comments you're making. All Dyson's products are supposed to be recycled, and, as with literally any other product you can mention, if the user doesn't, that's their fault. There's copious evidence on my channel that your comments are misleading and that the 'paper/cotton' bags you speak of are actually laden with loads of plastic, so let's get the full truth out, shall we. Unlike the Dyson machines you criticise, the bags, with their plastic, are literally tossed away, not recycled. Oops.
Not sure. It's faded because of microscopic surface damage from hard particle impact causing light scattering. The microsurface would need to be smoothed (or effectively smoothed) to fix that. It's generally not recommended attempting that because of the risk of damage to other components (e.g. seals from the chemistry of polishes or high temperature melting causing warping etc.). Give it a wipe with a damp cloth and learn to live with it. It's still far more transparent than an old-fashioned vacuum bag. Future filtration technology being researched should hopefully eliminate bin clouding by minimising dust disturbance in the bin.
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that I'm paid to sponsor a specific brand? Why would I spend my own money to poo-poo another product when I could have just bought more products from the 'better' brand? How do you explain the receipt on the Dyson machines? Apparently you've ignored all the evidence supporting claims made in the videos. Have you considered I simply reveal the full truth and some crybaby trolls don't like facts that conflict with their wonky worldview?
Thanks for the insight buyimg extra stuff everytime is a scam I say like you said can you do a review of the vax onepwr blade 5 I'm thinking of getting one
I'm unlikely to review that model because there's no interesting or novel technology in there. The specifications provided and the technology are clearly substantially inferior to the best products on the market. It's therefore not competing in the same market space and is clearly intending to be a lower cost knock-off. It'll work, just not anything like as well.
Probably. Not sure whether a home double-remortgage or a bank heist is the best way to fund it first. I've run out of kidneys to sell. But it's a surprisingly impressive machine (the motor in particular) considering it isn't where I wanted it to be technologically at this stage.
I think you could sell your liver, a eye or two and a leg to maybe mach the price. :) What Most impresses me about it is the filtration going down to 0.01 microns :0 I just wonder if washing will be able to clean filter from those particles or if they’ll be stuck where water can’t reach them/won’t remove them. Also the Parisian blue looks very nice where where you expecting it to be technologically by now? :D
I can confirm from the V15 testing-which might be a video, I'm not sure-that the performance of the filter does not degrade over time. I have the numbers to confirm it because I measured output volumetric airflow when it was new (see this video above actually at 10:14) and again yesterday a year later after plenty of fine dust. Even I suspected it degraded, but I was wrong. So the myths by the rabid vacuum enthusiasts are utterly false-at least they're consistent. Yes, the Gen5 filter is astounding and anihilates anything the competition provide by a staggering amount. Next up is their battery technology. They're building a giga factory in Singapore (www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/03/dyson-to-build-new-factory-in-singapore-and-expand-in-uk-and-philippines). Their new solid state batteries will utterly revolutionise their products in a genuine quantum leap, leaving the competitors years behind (again).
yeah I'm super excited to see what solid state battery's can do and I'm glad your testing debunks filter myths. ill miss the trigger mechanism from the previous vacuums but I guess the gen 5 battery wont be affected as much as older versions when leaving it on while moving furniture around :)
@@jamesmck896 Yup, before I got my V10, I was reading reviews where they slammed having to keep your finger on the trigger while vacuuming. I was a little leery about getting it specifically because of that. Once I got it, I realized it was an intelligent design that helped prolong battery life. You just kind of naturally hold it down. No bit deal!
Testing in a lab is all well and good but if own and use these things regularly over a long time you get the real picture. Mr Henry has never let me down and he's always smiling and that's good enough for me.
Representative lab testing has value. I test in my home and get a similarly real picture. Everything pointed out in this video is what you get when using it in the home. I believe you when you say your Henry has never let you down. But then there's literally everything else raised in the Henry product review videos to consider beyond reliability alone. If it's still good enough for you, that's great. But the point of my channel is to point out the whole picture that is otherwise hidden behind half-truths so innocent people are not misled and know the full truth before making their own independent decisions.
A pod lasts 3 or 4 weeks, that's a big difference in costs to your 1 a week calculations. The smelly discs don't cost a tenner either. They're £10 for 10, but you don't really need them. I don't use them. Can't trust your review when you've got 2 of the most important costs so wrong. You speak of half truths yet here you are. I'm glad I didn't see this before I bought mine. It replaced a Dyson and in my opinion the Henry is far superior.
Some people have reported different rates of filling a pod and suggested 1 week and less in some cases. Obviously this is a variable and so costs scale proportionally. If you took it literally and failed to recognise it was a variable, it's pretty stupid to come on here attacking and criticising me for your error. "Can't trust" your comment when you've misunderstood the most basic things. And then you've missed the point entirely, anyhow. Regardless of rate, it's a wholly avoidable ongoing running cost and environmental impact. How did you miss this? It was spelled out very meticulously. If you like product A more than product B, that's fine. But what's objectively superior is evidenced in the video, whether you like it or not. Your subjective opinion is not important on matters of objective fact. There's literally everything else you glossed over raised in the review you apparently didn't take issue with-like its attrocious performance, mess, clogging etc. I'm sorry you're offended by facts and reality, but I don't think there's much anyone can do for you.
I was just thinking the same thing about your style over substance interpretation. When you've got nothing left to go on, play the 'I'm offended' card to try to reclaim some ground. Nuff said...
Same here, been using my Henry quick for couple of months now, I'm glad I haven't seen this video before, I would probably not buy this great hoover. Very biased review
@@jack_3.5mm Being contented with a product you bought is not justification for suggesting bias at a collection of evidenced facts. Everything said in the video is true because there's data to show it. If those facts don't bother you, that's fine, but they're still true. Which statements made in the video do you think are false and where is the evidence to confirm? What important facts do you feel are missing from the video, and again, where is the evidence? To misinterpret facts stated in a video that paint a full picture, rather than half of it, that ends up not being favourable for a particular product, even though the data is right there in front of you to see, such as to unthinkingly conclude "bias", demonstrates a level of disturbing intellectual incapability that's frightening to think exists in the public domain.
It seems a bit toy like for $330US. Plus, I could easily fill two bags in one use. The best budget cordless vacs I have used are shark's. They have good filtration and great performance for their price.
A 'budget cordless' is an oxymoron. If someone's on a budget, they get a cheap machine, which isn't likely a stickvac clone. If they can afford to shell out for a cordless, then an older Dyson is a better option than a knockoff clone.
Amazed and delighted at the performance of my V12. Battery is apparently limited. But it seems sized to do a whole small house on one charge. I love the manoeuvrable heads.
I was going to get one of these but was concerned over having to put a new bag in every time you emptied it. I have to empty mine every time i hoover. I've 5 dogs so this would work out expensive for me to get
Hi mate, I've just sat and binged most of your videos. I like your style of reviews and the fact you're actually based in the UK! I currently have a Dyson small ball allergy, works wonders for me, only issue is the cable. I recently bought a Vax Blade 4 Pet and quickly handed it over to my mother and continued using the Dyson. My issues with it were that the motor was really high pitched and annoying + the motorised brush head was terrible at picking anything up, I'd have to take it apart once a week to unwrap all the hair off it and if you tried to pick anything larger than sugar up it'd just snowplough it. Anyway, I've been enjoying your videos and I'd love to see you do a review of the Vax Blade 4 as it seems to be quite popular at the moment. Keep up the good work 👍
You only need to take a closer look at the limited information Vax provides to see there's nothing technologically impressive about it compared to what can be achieved. It claims it's "Proven to clean carpets better than the UK’s top 3 best-selling cordless vacuum cleaners" but provide no data to confirm this. Filtration is poor, battery run times are poor and they hide its capacity, no information about the motor. No reason to give this serious attention.
Sadly, there's a wholly avoidable cost to that, both to the customer and the environment, which is huge when scaled up. By way of correction, you don't actually need to "clean a filthy plastic container". You empty it in all of 5 seconds (at least on the latest Dyson machiens), and that's it, as demonstrated in many videos on my channel. The other issue with bags is you need to make sure you have some in stock, go and get a new one every time, there's odours to contend with as dirt festers in there, added running costs for perfumes to mask those disgusting festering smells, reduced performance with dust loading, and so on, as outlined in this very video. That's a lot more hassle, ironically, and objectively less good overall for something that isn't as big a benefit as it might seem at first glance. But each to their own, of course. Some people prefer using candles rather than flipping a filthy switch. Some people prefer horses and carts rather than a filthy car.
@@VacuumFactsOh I don’t disagree that bagless is better for environment and no after sales purchases are necessary and yes, they do indeed smell after a week or so, especially if you have an animal. As I say, personally, I don’t like having to clean out the bins on them is all I was really saying, it is easier for me to just take out the bag and bin it, it may not bother some people. What seems inconvenient for one person may not be for another. The bagless cleaners I have had in the past including Dysons, do smell after a while if you don’t keep them clean inside. It is inevitable I suppose, they all pick up stinky dust and dirt.
@@Thesweaterfactory Most emptying sessions of the Dyson Gen5Detect, I just empty the bin in about 5 seconds before plonking it back on the wall. If something has left a mark in there on rare occasions and I decide to clean it, usually a dry cloth wipe in all of 20 seconds fixes it, otherwise a damp cloth in under a minute. But these are relatively rare events for me. I'm sure tossing a bag into landfill might seem easier at the point of emptying, but finding them online and ordering them in at cost, waiting for them to be delivered (they don't fit through the letter box), going and getting one out of the cupboard, all adds up to comparable time and hassle relative to a simple, rare bagless bin wipe (which technically isn't even necessary). I've never been convinced reflecting on all that, that bagged is as convenient as made out. But each to their own. Bagged cleaners constitute a small portion of the market share nowadays since more impressive companies showed how to do things better about 30 years ago with genuinely superior products.
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, e.g. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ptN0kkOtGSM.html . Can you cite any evidence to support your claim, because it seems at odds with reality and the large body of evidence to the contrary, and I've no reason to believe you? Before you cite the old misleading trope of 'bagless cleaners make a mess when emptying', which is only true for nasty knock-off clones, it is not true for the original bagless models. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E_ik6qScs0o.html
People like myself have 3 vacuum cleaners 1 bagles and 2 bagged vacuum cleaners everything proven bagged vacuum cleaners are more self on people's health everything proven cleaning out bagles causes problem's on people's health now days
That's ok with me bagged vacuum cleaners are greater then your video is now days everything proven people like myself knows bagged vacuum cleaners are not the problem at all it's the people who don't want you to stay self
People like y'all are trying to get your money your not looking at bagged vacuum cleaners are more self on people's health y'all don't care about health only your money
The cleaners that use bags have filters too. The bags are filters themselves. What you're advocating here is a throwaway, disposable, polluting, and a costly way of working that's wholly avoidable. If it wasn't that the machine cost more money than bags, you'd probably just throw the entire machine into landfill and get another when it was full. The best cyclonic bagless machines (namely the patented original design), if treated correctly, rarely need to have their filters washed because they're a last line of defense that hardly sees any of the dirt. Plenty of evidence for this, e.g. here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T3prXR-aeOg.html . What you're revealing here is either that most bagless clones are terrible and sully the original idea, as discussed here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U_qS2i6HQRY.html, or you are unable to muster the small effort to rinse a filter once in a blue moon, which is made easy as discussed here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QTSadOm6WsI.html . And then there's literally every other problem and drawback of bagged machines you've glossed over, as discussed here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ptN0kkOtGSM.html and evidenced in this very video seemingly ignored (or you were incapable of appreciating) that you think an ultra rare filter rinse is worse than. None of this makes you look good.
@@VacuumFacts I am going with my experience with a Dyson, got so fed up with it suddenly stopping because of the filter it just wasn't worth it. Numatic cleaners last much longer and if you are really worried about the environment you can also stick your finger in the bag and empty it.
I don't believe it suddenly stopped because of the filter. That makes no sense. The only way it would 'suddenly stop' because of a filter is if it's completely blocked. The only way it would block to that extent on a Dyson is through complete neglect, as evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt in basic testing ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uuF0Q0x3P8E.html ), let alone an understanding of the associated science. Plenty of evidence filters don't block e.g. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T3prXR-aeOg.html . A bag is the exact same as a filter (except in the original cyclonic system, it's a last line of defense that sees virtually nothing under correct usage). So, if a Dyson 'suddenly stops', then a bag will 'suddenly stop' too since it's the same thing. And arguing Numatic cleaners last much longer is nonsense and unsupported by any reputable evidence. The idea you can empty a bag by sticking your finger in there is silly, since it doesn't remove the blocking micro particles, as evidenced here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QTSadOm6WsI.html and in performance testing in this video. None of this makes any sense and then there's literally every other problem and drawback of bagged machines you've glossed over, as discussed here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ptN0kkOtGSM.html and evidenced in this very video. I've seen all this before. You like Numatic and dislike Dyson at a cosmetic, subjective level. That's fine. But nonsensical factual claims will be called out here.
I would cut off my arm to keep my miele bagged vacuum vs going to a Dyson. It takes 3 seconds to throw out a bag... Vs Dyson where you have to take a heavy canister to the garbage and bash it and then clean it. Miele are 2400watts the suction is fine. Bags are a million times faster and easier.
Sadly, there's everything else you've missed constituting the full picture, including the actual truth about modern Dyson cordless bin emptying. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ptN0kkOtGSM.html
@@VacuumFacts none of the points you made in that video counter the benefits i mentioned. It is easier to pull a bag out and put it in my indoor bin than have to walk outside with the vacuum and empty dust into a bin and then clean seals etc. The miele system leaves no dust on seals at all.
Unfortunately, you again demonstrate ignorance of facts. Your claim that you "have to walk outside with the vacuum and empty dust into a bin and then clean seals etc." is demonstrably false. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E_ik6qScs0o.html I suggest increasing knowledge before making factual claims which are false. It is now easier and quicker to empty a bagless machine, managed correctly, without mess or cost or the hassle of replacing a bag. And then there's literally everything else in the video linked to in the first response so far ignored.
@@LL-wc4wn "Dyson are all about form over function... Bulky plastic pieces for Moms who want to be trendy.. over efficiency and ease" This claim is demonstrated false in the reviews of the modern machines. I suggest increasing your knowledge before making further factual claims that are already evidenced to be false.
I think that was almost an intelligible sentence. If I've translated it correctly, you're suggesting either the lifetime of cordless cleaners is poor, or you don't think they'll be around in future. Well, in both cases, evidence available shows neither comment is true. Cordless is the future and a superior formfactor.
could not have said it better. I was pointing out on another channel how wasteful the bag is but the channel defended the Henry. if one happens to vacuum enough fine dust or flour on a fresh bag, the dust bag is done for. Or maybe, daily vacuuming will clog the dust bag in just a week. The cheapest Chinese vacuums, cordless or not, don't even use dust bags. This Henry is cringy.
The choice to use bags is a cynical ploy to create a false economy to scam the customer out of more money after the upfront cost of what is a naff clone. It's capitalism gone wrong. It also comes at the expense of the environment. They know this and so try to mislead by advertising their "climate positive" approach, which is deeply misleading. The whole thing stinks, but people just can't see through it because they instantly get distracted by a silly face paint job. It's deeply disturbing people can be so thick.
Some cordless cleaners are designed to last 10 years at the very least with responsible usage-just like some mains cleaners. And while a corded cleaner does everything a cordless does, the cordless formfactor does it with greater practicality. This is well established now, even though it was obvious from their inception. Almost every manufacturer has now jumped on Dyson's cordless stickvac bandwagon with an inferior, knock-off clone, showing they agree as well, and want to try to profit out of the idea at their customers' expense.
And did you publish a reliable method to independently reproduce your 'findings'? If so, send it along so there's good reason to believe what is otherwise nonsense that contradicts reality. Premature battery failure is almost exclusively down to abuse and neglect (using boost mode all the time against the instructions). I should add that poor design and low quality battery management in knock-off clone products also reduces service life, but even the worst and most pathetic manufacturers claim 80% of original battery life is retained after 5 years (the best manufacturers achieving this capacity for 15 years).
And yet many of the so-called 'vacuum enthusiasts' out there were *raving* about this machine when it was first released a few months ago, precisely because it used bags, as though that was a good thing! After all these years, that a company would still release a machine purposefully designed around disposable bags is truly astounding. They're taking mugs for a ride. Watching how badly the performance drops when you get a bit of dust in there and reflecting on how many of the bagged machine supporters completely ignore this cold fact reveals a level of either corruption or shameful ignorance that should make people totally shun the vacuum enthusiast community going forward.
Tell that to the rabid vacuum enthusiasts. They'll spray you in bile and falsehoods. They're so quiet these days. It's because they lost the argument long ago.
Absolutely. I changed to a stick one, precisely the Black and decker powerseries extreme Pet vac. Best change i could ever made. Of course there must be better, but at its price range just wow... night and day difference.
@Ryan Sharp: >>"You’re using a bag no matter what whether it goes in the vacuum or the car" By "bag", this clown means "bin liner", which is not the same thing. The vacuum cleaner bags are extra and go into the bin liner at the end. The pods are wholly unnecessary and avoidable extra landfill pollution. That you would draw a false equivalence between a vacuum bag and a bin liner is absurd and the kind of wilfully misleading stupidity that I've only ever seen come from the rabid vacuum enthusiast community.
You don't sound like a very nice person. People are allowed to disagree with you without being called stupid. Dyson are crap, you're just trying to convince yourself they're good 😂 or you have shares in dyson 🧐
Of course people can disagree. Except on factual matters, which are true or false, on which there's evidence bearing, if people disagree with what's shown to be true, then they ARE stupid. Something you failed to recognise. I recognise you think Dyson machines are crap. I disagree, relative to other machines. And unless you can evidence why convincingly, in a way that doesn't show you are at odds with reality, then you won't change any minds here. You're also falling victim to the stupidity of confusing between stating facts that suggest something positive about a company's product and being some kind of tribal fanboy.
