Search results

He tested a Sebo Felix and found it very hard to disparage the actual cleaning results. But found plenty of what he may claim as "objective" issues with the machine, including calling it "junk."

What makes @Vacuum Facts and @frickhelm testing methods more representative than many of the other tests we see on the web? Please note I am not attempting to disparaging either of these tests. There are two parts here to my question: 1. I don't know where the exact details of either's...

Well it’s nice you’ve finally come to terms with yourself. Acknowledgement is step 1!

Why don’t you follow your own advice, both here and all the other threads?

Except @Vacuum Facts when your “claims” are unequivocally shown are not “objective, independently verifiable. Queue your response of “what claims, name calling, berating, etc.” (again for the countless time, if you want specifics you can simply search the history here or in your YouTube channel…)

Sounds like maybe someone is in fact motivated by “clicks and profits,” Explaining it again for you: You continually link your own material to dodge others questions. Often you could easily respond with a sentence or two in good faith versus sending someone down a wild goose chase that...

So why do you continue to argue with me otherwise?!?

@Vacuum Facts There is no strong evidence of Dyson durability issues?!? I beg you to go on Reddit’s sub dyson and explain to all the people there with their issues and how they are not true! Or better yet ignoring all the feedback from your very own YouTube channel? (Canned response from...

Exhibit “(I lost count)”

Yes you are correct. I don’t get your stance at all. Because per these other reviews it’s an amazingly expensive machine that struggles with the core task it’s meant for.

Your responses are the cookie cutter ones. That’s the whole freaking point here. When you are challenged to provide actual evidence on these matters you simply post circular links back to the same exact materials that are being questioned. Want evidence? Look at your own posts.

This is all actually pretty simple. The reviews show that the v16 has some deficiencies compared to prior models in the reviews. You choose to belittle and discount these reviews for ‘reasons’ that do not actually discredit their observations and opinions. Again you’re here attempting to...

It means circular references to your own un-cited, often incomplete and/or inaccurate claims does not “settle” anything.

If you were aware of them, as I and everyone else knew you were, why the question? As predicted, discounted and berating of the reviews on your behalf. The whole point of their reviews is to (drumroll please) review the machines! It’s not to explain them to your personal fancies and discuss...

Yea there plenty of reviews, I mean even you and your infinite knowledge has noted issues on this very thread. I don’t know the point in posting this as you’ll simply discount their findings and berate the reviewers, but here you go. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dyson+v16+reviews Of course...

While I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise (properly measuring airflow is difficult) Your “resource” is not the ultimate authority on the matter. Airflow is very important by definition of how vacuums work. No airflow = no cleaning ability. The rub is the airflow only truly matters at...

“What it should be” is an interesting qualifier. One could apply that to anything, where that anything can be the best thing ever. The limited reviews available seem to show its actual cleaning performance subpar to their own older models. To go a step further the old models’ actual cleaning...

Otto Benz isn’t the only one with patents regarding the automobile. The Wright Brothers aren’t the only ones with patents regarding airplanes.

Your poll isn't about "perfecting" cyclonic filtration in vacuums, it was who "invented" cyclonic filtration for vacuums. Those are two entirely separate matters. I don't think anybody would claim Dyson hasn't drastically improved the cyclonic filtration from Newcombe's 1926 patent, in terms...

Yes, in review the correct answer isn't even listed, unless the OP considers Newcombe & Rexair to be one in the same.