Dyson Piston

[herbicide]

This is inaccurate again. Like a common AI, your output is fraught with mistakes. My testing is not laboratory grade whatsoever and I've been very clear about this from the start. What it is, though, is free of the more ridiculous flaws seen in amateur testing polluting the internet.

Well this is refreshing, the first part anyway.

Yet we are supposed to ignore others 'amatuer testing' but put full faith in your 'amatuer testing.'

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

This is inaccurate again. Like a common AI, your output is fraught with mistakes. My testing is not laboratory grade whatsoever and I've been very clear about this from the start. What it is, though, is free of the more ridiculous flaws seen in amateur testing polluting the internet.

@Vacuum Facts more misunderstanding again, sorry. This is not like AI, is not really fraught with mistakes. You took my words out of context - fitting for an arrogant guy with all the knowledge but little understanding (no offense though). Lab-like and laboratory-grade are not the same.

I can still agree that your testing procedure is free of the worst flaws of the kind YOU think I champions, when I have watched your videos. Surely, you're thinking that I never watched your videos. I am not an AI and my answers are far better than those generative AI. @Vacuum Facts, you just misunderstood me again, just as you thought I did you.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Vacuumfacts, how is absolute rainbow an AI. I just don't understand.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I am trying to find the thread that vacuumfacts says that all his reviews have the testing procedures. I tried to find what post it was on. Then I looked on vacuum facts account for what post it was on. Then I found out that I am unable to view his account because he restricted my access to it. Anyway, I want to appologise if this is on the wrong thread, there is so many Dyson based threads and I can never remember what one I need to post on. I will watch all your reviews vacuumfacts and tell you all the errors I see in your testing. Evenly spread, how is that specific enough. Brush over twice, what brush and how stiff is it, how hard are you pressing down on it, is the back and forth motion consistent. 0.5 meters per second, how do you measure that. How is Dyson zorb exactly a replacement to real dirt. Dyson zorb has to be slightly damp meaning it is not going to work properly. I notice the nozzle is not being guided perfectly straight, how does this effect results. I could go on and on, however I know that it is not worth it.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Also, I have never, ever seen someone vacuum the same spot 10 times. That is not realistic. Most people don't even vacuum in lines.

 

[cheesewonton]

Also, I have never, ever seen someone vacuum the same spot 10 times. That is not realistic. Most people don't even vacuum in lines.

The ATSM test procedure for removal of embedded dirt in carpet ( F608 ) specifies the kind of dirt to embed in the carpet, the quantity, the area that quantity has to be spread over and how many passes to make. It also specifies four different types of carpet to be tested as dirt removal will vary by carpet type. The procedure also requires the test use three or more examples of the same machine and averaging their results to normalize for the usual production variances among machines. This is why labs like Intertek charge over $1 million per vacuum type to perform these tests. Just obtaining copies of the test standards from ATSM costs a pile of money. What I know about the test procedure comes from several lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. Court records are public and free and the testimony and evidence is included. Lots of good insights into the test procedure from these publicly available documents where adherence to the test procedure was disputed between the litigants.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

Vacuumfacts, how is absolute rainbow an AI. I just don't understand.

@Vacuum Facts thinks I completely misunderstands EVERYTHING he stated/said/explained/whatever.

The ATSM test procedure for removal of embedded dirt in carpet ( F608 ) specifies the kind of dirt to embed in the carpet, the quantity, the area that quantity has to be spread over and how many passes to make. It also specifies four different types of carpet to be tested as dirt removal will vary by carpet type. The procedure also requires the test use three or more examples of the same machine and averaging their results to normalize for the usual production variances among machines. This is why labs like Intertek charge over $1 million per vacuum type to perform these tests. Just obtaining copies of the test standards from ATSM costs a pile of money. What I know about the test procedure comes from several lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. Court records are public and free and the testimony and evidence is included. Lots of good insights into the test procedure from these publicly available documents where adherence to the test procedure was disputed between the litigants.

@cheesewonton we would appreciate it if you can recap the entire test procedure (the methods, the environment, the results, etc.) for us right here publicly at VacuumLand.org? Heck, I would've liked to compare the ATSM with Vacuum Facts' own home testing!

 

[cheesewonton]

@Vacuum Facts thinks I completely misunderstands EVERYTHING he stated/said/explained/whatever.

@cheesewonton we would appreciate it if you can recap the entire test procedure (the methods, the environment, the results, etc.) for us right here publicly at VacuumLand.org? Heck, I would've liked to compare the ATSM with Vacuum Facts' own home testing!

ATSM wants you to pay them for a copy of the complete procedure. What I was able to learn about the test came from public testimony in two lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. The transcripts of the trials are public information. There were significant disputes whether the testing used by each company to support their claims were accomplished in accordance with the ATSM procedure and that testimony was my window into how the test is conducted, but it is not the same as having the actual test procedure manual in hand. I don't have the money to buy that.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

ATSM wants you to pay them for a copy of the complete procedure. What I was able to learn about the test came from public testimony in two lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. The transcripts of the trials are public information. There were significant disputes whether the testing used by each company to support their claims were accomplished in accordance with the ATSM procedure and that testimony was my window into how the test is conducted, but it is not the same as having the actual test procedure manual in hand. I don't have the money to buy that.

Oh ok.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I can imagine it is extraordinarily expense too.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

There are so many reviews now of the V16 but no one's really discussing the new technologies in them in any meaningful detail. I find that just amazing. Worse, the things people are criticising are so facile and genuine non-issues, yet they seem oblivious to the actual issues worth criticising. I'm just in awe how badly people are dropping the ball on this one. They're actually outshining Dyson's failings with the machine tenfold. My review next year is going to be as much a criticism of the internet reviews as it is of some of Dyson's stunningly poor choices.

Having said that, the V16 is actually a really nice product and I'm enjoying it a lot more now. I much prefer it over the Gen5, and I've got it to clean extremely well in real-world conditions. The improvements are very impressive but no one has mentioned a thing online about them. I find that so astonishing. You really can see where Dyson are going and why, but you'd never know if you only relied on the lay internet.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Well, 2026 is on it's way so maybe we can stop waiting. There was less suspense awaiting the release of anything than this. The whole dyson launch event had less buildup than this one review.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

There are so many reviews now of the V16 but no one's really discussing the new technologies in them in any meaningful detail. I find that just amazing. Worse, the things people are criticising are so facile and genuine non-issues, yet they seem oblivious to the actual issues worth criticising. I'm just in awe how badly people are dropping the ball on this one. They're actually outshining Dyson's failings with the machine tenfold. My review next year is going to be as much a criticism of the internet reviews as it is of some of Dyson's stunningly poor choices.

Having said that, the V16 is actually a really nice product and I'm enjoying it a lot more now. I much prefer it over the Gen5, and I've got it to clean extremely well in real-world conditions. The improvements are very impressive but no one has mentioned a thing online about them. I find that so astonishing. You really can see where Dyson are going and why, but you'd never know if you only relied on the lay internet.

Well, 2026 is on it's way so maybe we can stop waiting. There was less suspense awaiting the release of anything than this. The whole dyson launch event had less buildup than this one review.

@Vacuum Facts great! How about you finally tell us about the mod that fixed the V16! TechRadar was so close to figuring the whole thing out but not only they ended up failed (they mis-blamed the floorhead), they didn't even bother double-checking or re-testing it again. Sad.

V16 is a tragic machine - a superior mains-equivalent crippled by some stupid design choices Dyson ended up making. Bruh

 

[cheesewonton]

There are so many reviews now of the V16 but no one's really discussing the new technologies in them in any meaningful detail. I find that just amazing. Worse, the things people are criticising are so facile and genuine non-issues, yet they seem oblivious to the actual issues worth criticising. I'm just in awe how badly people are dropping the ball on this one. They're actually outshining Dyson's failings with the machine tenfold. My review next year is going to be as much a criticism of the internet reviews as it is of some of Dyson's stunningly poor choices.

Having said that, the V16 is actually a really nice product and I'm enjoying it a lot more now. I much prefer it over the Gen5, and I've got it to clean extremely well in real-world conditions. The improvements are very impressive but no one has mentioned a thing online about them. I find that so astonishing. You really can see where Dyson are going and why, but you'd never know if you only relied on the lay internet.

Some of us are not impressed by, cough cough, "new technology". For me the tech just gets in the way. I just want something that is simple, basic, easy to use, cleans well enough and will last a couple of decades with no big failures or need for overhaul. The fancy tech is just bs I don't want to deal with. It's just something to clean my home, not a lifestyle statement.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I just want something that is simple, basic, easy to use, cleans well enough and will last a couple of decades with no big failures or need for overhaul.

You've just described the V16 (or what it should be out of the box) more than any other machine I've ever used.

 

[herbicide]

“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 performance is already subpar compared to many other makes (ones frequently discussed here). Proof you ask? Empirical evidence is plentiful on the internet.