Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
This is just wrong
Dyson Piston
- Thread starter Vacuum Facts
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Last edited:
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Still, if you guys are going to complain that the (initial batch of) V16 cleans only half as well as it's supposed to be (and being even worse than some of the best dupes out there), which I actually recommend EVERY SINGLE DYSON USERS doing ASAP and constantly, please complain about it on social media, for me and @Vacuum Facts! Get this issue viral so Dyson would notice! community.dyson.com isn't working anymore, otherwise I would've also do the complaint there as well!
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
@Vacuum Facts I'm going to view the Dyson V16 (or at least the initial batch with the optimization mistake) as a tragic cordless machine.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
First big review: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/recommended/home/reviews/dyson-v16-piston-animal-vacuum-review/
Does that check any boxes, or is this review actually dumb in @Vacuum Facts eyes? I myself didn't find much direct, objective data... except for the lighter handheld weight (2.1kg, down from 2.3kg), that is.
Does that check any boxes, or is this review actually dumb in @Vacuum Facts eyes? I myself didn't find much direct, objective data... except for the lighter handheld weight (2.1kg, down from 2.3kg), that is.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
And here's one preliminary review: https://www.techradar.com/home/vacuums/dyson-v16-piston-animal-cordless-vacuum-review
These guys are not done reviewing the machine yet. It seems TechRadar hasn't yet found the optimization mistake @Vacuum Facts and @frickhelm noticed...
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
And here's the second big review: https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/dyson-v16-piston-animal
Trusted Review posted, and their V16 apparently doesn't have the mistake that halves the max power consumption as "optimization", the same problem that made us fear the V16. @Vacuum Facts will dismiss this particular review for understandable and obvious reasons, so I'll just...
Trusted Review posted, and their V16 apparently doesn't have the mistake that halves the max power consumption as "optimization", the same problem that made us fear the V16. @Vacuum Facts will dismiss this particular review for understandable and obvious reasons, so I'll just...
Note that the Boost mode is claimed to be 315AW. 900 W motor wrongly optimized to 450 W would gimp it down to no more than 160AW (in Boost mode, DAMMIT!)
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
The dupe competition have kept this old format afloat, which is working in Dyson's favour. They polish up the old version a bit and keep it on top. It's old technology though to me, so I've little interest in it.
And those three article reviews are all cookie cutter sponsored-like reviews. No real details, just regurgitating the marketing, and drawing conclusions from poor 'testing'. They slip in the odd opinion which reveals idiocy (the lack of flat front edge), as I'll reveal in my review. Not worth people's time as people come away with a half truth which could have been summarised in a single short paragraph.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
1) Okay.
2) Told ya!
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Not sure. I'm still only at the planning stage really.
Trusted reviews says though that Shark Power detect creates 314Aw while it has a 380W motor. So a bit odd, wonder how they measured it since Shark doesn't specify AW anywhere.
And like I said before, they also show that Shark power detect apparently cleans carpets better than Gen5.
Don't know where they got 401Aw on Piston though.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
It's just their testing process. Different from even the labs.
Either way, 900W (450W when gimped, like some have to complain) with 35% efficiency, giving 315AW in Boost mode, does sound powerful.
I think I remember when I asked about the suction power of Gen5 outside of the Boost mode, but so far I could only make educated guess-timate: 28AW Eco, and 55AW Med (Auto). RIP community.dyson.com
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I noticed that too. They just make crap up and hope people are too stupid to notice.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
@shattered I think I can guess the suction of V16!
- Boost: 315AW (the official claim)
- Boost (broken design): ~160AW (900W down to 450W)
- Med: ~70AW (look at the test AW and the claimed improvement over Gen5)
- Med (broken design): <50AW (when mistaken, V16 do worse than Dreame Z30 Auto mode, but when fixed the V16 is far superior)
- Eco: ~32AW (again, based on test and claimed improvement)
In comparison, Gen5 is likely 28AW Eco, 55AW normal Medium, and finally the claimed 280AW on Boost mode.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Now that issues are correctable (that they're going to get criticised for), I'm actually really enjoying the V16. I'm really starting to appreciate the power consumption optimisations. I used to get about 23 minutes in auto with the Gen5, which was enough for me, but now I get over 40 minutes. This is way more than the extra battery capacity they added, and is mostly from the power optimisations. Less is more afterall. The new technologies are great. The unswept line in the middle, while not ideal, is actually not something that affects performance significantly, and in fact acts as a guideline for the next overlapping pass.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
You're progressing as much as the previous 4 generations of that cleaner, all dupes which are near market dominant, and only slightly more than with a wider head if you're cleaning properly with it and understanding how to get the best deep clean without much additional time or effort. A wider head doesn't mean a better clean either. If you're so bent on saving time at the expense of everything else, only push it forward like a wheelbarrow and skip the back pull.
I'll that that as a 'yes'. That's gotta take a while to clean any moderately sized space at that rate.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Well, others seem to manage. I guess get good.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
In other words, clean methodologically.
- Push and pull slow and steady.
- Overlap well, but not necessarily too much.
- Keep track of your floor and carpet. (The laser's got the hard floors covered)
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
V16 <- Gen5 <- V12/V15 <- V11 <- V10
But Dyson's superior handstick form factor dates back to DC35, so should be... <- V10 <- V7/V8 <- V6 <- DC35. That's 7 generations, if you make the lineage continuous!
That kinda explains why no normal-sized Dyson cordless has the XL roller heads. The Outsize models (from V11 and Gen5) have the XL heads because they're meant to be used as cordless uprights that has the shape of handhelds, owing to them being larger versions of the normal-sized flagships of their respective time.
Also, if you clean method(olog)ically, you get the best clean. Simple, as @Vacuum Facts recommended.
1) I told y'all V16 is amazing when the issues are fixed. @Vacuum Facts
2) I see the V-shaped front of the new dual-cone head (which is normal-sized, not XL, if you were asking) as more of an issue than the little unswept path. This is because of the edge cleaning, particularly on carpets, as it means the frontal cleaning is even worse than the previous head (XL or not), especially at the sides, forcing us to use the edges of the new head to clean the edge. Also, since @Vacuum Facts chose to call the soft roller as redundant because of the gates in the main heads - both old and new - when in fact said front of each snowploughs some of the biggest of messes (I don't mean the whole big mess test though, partly because it's not representative) even with the front gate opened all the way. So instead of adapting the normal soft roller for the V16, why not adapt the Vis Nav's multi-action roller into a separate head for the V16 itself, complete with a(n even) brighter version of the same old laser from said normal soft roller? That why, the dual-cone head would serve as the main brush bar roller, while the Vis Nav multi-action bar would become the soft roller instead. Sounds like a V11 to me, only because Dyson chose to go through with only the main head, hence why the soft roller looked like the afterthought compared to the perpetually de-tangling dual-cone head we got.
FYI the Stylized just means they have a picture of the logo. I checked and any trademark with a logo has it. So it's just the regular Piston trademark.
It is true about the hair wrapping around small wheels though. I've seen same happening on pencilvac head too sadly.
I think you're missing the point. An average user wont give a dam about technology if they can't really "see" it. New cyclones etc, average user won't care.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
It's so minor in general and there'll always be some basic maintenance. Would be nice to be solved though.
This is exactly my point. No one cares. What a shame.
Fwiw I have a PencilVac and haven't seen any hair tangles. Even when I remove the fluffy rollers there's no dirt underneath on the motor spindles. (Not sure the correct word to use there)
Occasionally some light built up dust on the clear screen, thankfully you can remove them now.
Honestly really enjoying the PencilVac. It's been amazing on my hard floors. Don't even use the v15 laser head anymore.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Careful, you'll get adult children attacking you for not having any experience with a REAL and high quality vacuum from 1723.
Similar threads
