Your responses are the cookie cutter ones. That’s the whole freaking point here.
Exhibit “(I lost count)”
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 frequently doesn’t answer the question anyway.
So we should only measure suction?
When have I ever measured suction on my channel? No, cleaning performance, obviously.
Okay... So did anyone (else) try to properly measure actual cleaning performance?
You need suction, airflow and agitation. One alone won't clean your house. A good vacuum has a balance of all three.
I still recall when I was a kid agitation came from arm muscles. We had a 1957 ( I believe ) Lewyt Big Wheel and I remember my mom scrubbing the carpets with that suction only floor nozzle like she was scrubbing a really dirty floor with a bristle brush, or holy stoning the teak deck of an old warship. I mean serious hard scrubbing, not just letting the nozzle glide over the carpet. That cleaned nothing. It was hard sweaty work. Flopping the rug over the clothes line and beating it with a broom stick was almost easier. And unlike the ads from that era she sure as heck wasn't wearing a dress, earrings and high heels !
The same vacuum with a suction only floor nozzle cleans, or should I say doesn't clean, much differently than it does with an electric power nozzle on the end of the wand. Agitation matters greatly.
Only the laboratories can measure it to industry standards. As long as you have a representative and reproducible method, you can make relative comparisons, which I do. Frickhelm probably fits that bill as he shows the trends you'd expect, and his results are consistent with mine, showing independent reproduction to some degree. There are issues though with some of the new technologies in the V16 that render both our testing insufficient for that particular machine, as you'll find out in my review. That's a problem for me because I'm not quite sure what to do about it yet. I have some ideas, but I'm too busy at the moment to work on it as a hobby. The V16 is amazing though, but also a victim of itself, uniquely.
@Vacuum Facts, so your and @frickhelm 's method(s) is(/are) the best, because it's (both) consistent, reproducible and representative, similar to laboratories' standard, but accessible and doable at home, especially if you have backed carpets (not shaggy rugs as Kirby fans would've suggested). Too bad reviewers focused on doing the big mess tests which are not representative. Such reproducible-yet-representative tests like yours should be the gold standard in YouTube vacuum cleaner reviews and tests, not the afterthought it currently is.
Yep, V16 is a tragic machine. It's precisely as my hypothetical review of it would describe. Too bad you refused to give away the true problems for us. But we do know the cause of all its sudden deficiency in performance as you and @frickhelm noticed: it has to do with Dyson brand's stupid recklessness. It's ridiculous and too dupe-like of them to launch the V16 in such crippling state.
Ok then, test a Sebo G4 or BS36, Lux D820 and something from Lindhause like a Healthcare Pro or Diamante. Compare them to the bagless vacuums. Test a modern Miele too. Don't be afraid.
-Another example of larger material is breakfast cereal. Anyone with children will understand this one.
He tested a Sebo Felix and found it very hard to disparage the actual cleaning results.
Too bad no one has deduced it for themselves. The information needed is freely out there now. Very disheartening for me. I've explained why I'm tight-lipped several times already. It's not a secret as such, it's just a tool I'll use to expose everything wrong with the internet, social media, and 'reviewers' out there come my review. It would have been out day 1 if Dyson hadn't decided to drag the V16's release out, globally, over a year.
I've tested many machines, including Sebos and Henrys and Kirbys, and plenty of others people just like you said should be tested. Most machines can easily brute force good performance. That's not the issue. The issue is that Dyson are achieving incredible performance under real world conditions using ever less energy. The V16 is amazing in this regard...not that you can tell due to their simultaneous mistakes that completely mask any of this.
Four fairly simple reasons. Firstly, the tests are fairly real-world representative—not stupid exaggerated building site tests which fall victim to the faulty logic that if a machine can clean the bulk of a big mess well, it can clean the remainder of a relatively smaller residual, more real-world mess well (and the converse)...just not true for reasons discussed in my lecture no one watched. This amongst other representative steps taken. Secondly, the testing quantifies dirt removal trends and shows their behaviour is in line with expectations of first order systems. Thirdly, the test result trends are reproducible and consistent, allowing fair testing. Finally, they don't suffer from obvious experimental weaknesses to the limits of what can be achieved outside a laboratory that anyone barely out of their PhD could spot. The V16 creates some new weaknesses with the methods I've seen (and use), which are tough to address without throwing away old data for comparison...more in my eventual review...
With the 'big mess tests' I pretty much agree. Where I don't agree is using that 'certified dust' alone is representative of real world use either. I do think there is value in some of the other testing what I will call "little mess testing" where (relatively) small amounts of various materials are spread out to demonstrate/test how well they pick them up. (note I am not claiming these are done scientifically, or are in anyway superior to other methods of testing such as yours. In fact I would claim the opposite, these "little mess tests" are simple demonstrations but can still provide information on cleaning performance.)
Me too. I don't use certified dust (because it's expensive). But you understand why certified dust exists, though, right? If not, go read up on it, understand what it represents and why, and understand why that's important for a vacuum cleaner.
Conclusions from such testing don't reliably tell you much about real-world performance. Because of that, I don't value such clueless internet bedroom testing, since it can mislead.
The specific test isn't important since we're not following inustry standards (because we can't because we don't have a lab or millions to spend). What's important is the quantified trends that result and their relative comparison under the same conditions, whatever they might be. I'm amazed there's even another person who seems to recognise that, although I'm uncertain to what degree, and thus produces such trends. It's the relative trends which are consistent. When I saw Frickhelm's trend data for the V16, I knew he was doing things reasonably right because it showed the same completely unexpected and totally counterintuitive results I'd observed that I just couldn't believe at first. Not a single one of those other 'reviews' out there has done anything like this. At best they've vaguely shown, albeit not necessarily for good reason and likely by accident, that it doesn't perform as well. But it's so vague. Yet other reviews claim, without convincing evidence, it's a great performer. No data, no sale; bad service.
Not sure about that. When said trends are reproducible and representative from fair testing, they allow meaningful relative comparison between machines for real-world conditions. That's the whole point of doing semi-professional home testing, it allows for an apples-to-apples comparison between different machines.
You mock, but you'll just look silly once my review is out and it's revealed. Doubly so that no one figured it out for themselves. It's so f*cking obvious if you understand the basic science of these machines—especially given that someone kindly produced an accessible description out there for people.
Yes, shouldn't that be evident in the response? I do not claim its unimportant... I claim its not 'wholly representative' of general household debris.
Example: If a machine consistently struggles to pick up a certain kind of debris (ie cat litter) in these tests, you might not find that valuable information, but I sure do.. (again... Not claiming its scientific, there may be other factors involved, but practically speaking such test would discourage myself from recommending said unit for that said case use...)
Yes, but the issue here is "you" are the only one that can make the comparison under the same conditions, therefore it is not widely repeatable. (again, this limitation is understandable) My point here is no one can, so it is not 'fair' to criticize others' testing methods if they are consistent across the testing (most are not as yours are). But to use your own words, "we're not following industry standards."
If we take this statement at face value, there is still issues as all of these 'at home tests' are not comprehensive. That is my point, examples of each below:
Fair enough, to each their own... Personally I would prefer whatever machine gets the floors the cleanest in the shortest amount of time/least amount of effort.
Whether or not the V16 can be a 'mains replacement' is debatable at best.
Just wait until my Shark® Navigator™ review comes out and I reveal the simple fix. It's so obvious, I don't know how anyone isn't talking about it yet. It would only take a moment to describe, but I'm just too busy. Trust me though. Shark is truly at the top of the game—the peak of vacuum cleaner innovation and efficiency.
Great, now you've summed up what I feel about VF's deliberately-delayed review of the V16. We know the data, but not the method. He's still the best vacuum cleaner reviewer ever, precisely because he's objective and relies on actual representative data. That guy also have proper bedroom testing (much closer to laboratories' standard) as opposed to unrepresentative tests such as big messes or other exaggerated ones.
