Dyson Piston

[Absolute Rainbow]

Exaggerated initial mess levels indicate nothing about real-world performance. Such videos are 'entertainment' at best and not informative of any machine's capabilities, even though there's the appearance of loose correlation. It's unfortunate that despite everything out there to understand this, it's still underappreciated. Extreme initial mess concentrations need higher energies to remove quickly. We're moving to lower energies, meaning this kind of 'demonstration' will never yield good apparent results in the future. Real-world mess levels most respectable people would have in their homes can be exceptionally cleaned with very little energy. No one starts with a house full of stones and rocks, or tries to capture 30 days' worth of fine dust in 3 seconds that completely overwhelms separation systems. These videos simply represent someone 'playing in the dirt'.

It's precisely what it is, @Vacuum Facts, you're right. It's just as you said.

To be honest, even Dyson's demos across each and every major... bruh, also have relative modest messes used to demonstrate their vacuums. On both hard floors and carpets, but especially the carpets. It's completely unlike the extreme initial those stupid videos used. Really, the latter is literally someone 'playing with the dirt' - just watch the videos and see how much of a mess said people forced the machines in question to cope. Who in their right mind actively do all that daily?

The actual real-world failures of the V16 are not accurately captured from these videos. These videos are also contradictory: the first suggested good filtration, the second suggested bad (not that anyone noticed...). I'll show how the Gen5's performance can still be achieved with the V16 and, more importantly, why, for real-world mess levels. For the wrong reason, admittedly, it's nevertheless true Dyson shouldn't have released the V16 as they did. The problem seems to be suit-driven rather than the engineering.

@Vacuum Facts yes, it's true, V16's launch is really sloppy, especially for a machine this performant and advanced.

https://vacuumland.org/threads/the-hack-that-can-save-pre-release-version-of-dyson-v16.46693

Also, yeah, it's true that all of this can be traced back to suits. The suits, but not in a kind you can wear - rather, it's what's slowly rotting the internal management. That explains the one big mistake in question. That above thread I linked? @Vacuum Facts it's for you! We want to know what to fix the (initial batch of) V16 like the one you're using nowadays.

 

[Hatsuwr]

The V16 has the horrible unswept path, shoots dust out the back and generally just looks like extremely poor pick up and suction/agitation. The hard floor test also is atrociously bad.

But @Vacuum Facts assures me that the unswept path is more like a feature that helps you overlap your passes, and that not wanting to vacuum 4" at a time is a skill issue or something like that.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

But @Vacuum Facts assures me that the unswept path is more like a feature that helps you overlap your passes, and that not wanting to vacuum 4" at a time is a skill issue or something like that.

An unintended feature, actually. And also, it's not nearly as bad as those belts on old brush bars.

My proposed redesign of the dual-cone head addresses it.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

But @Vacuum Facts assures me that the unswept path is more like a feature that helps you overlap your passes, and that not wanting to vacuum 4" at a time is a skill issue or something like that.

The V16 definitely doesn't shoot dust out of the back. It shoots rocks out when someone tries to pick up an entire driveway laid out on their floor and it gets overwhelmed. High power usage on machines that waste a lot of energy by today's standards might cope, but low energy, efficient models don't, since they're designed for representative, real-world situations.

The unswept path is visually ugly but isn't a significant factor of its out-of-box poor performance. It only appears that way, again, in ridiculous, unrepresenative garbage disposal unit usage that exaggerates the line and makes it look like a practical problem when it isn't. I didn't say it was a feature, I said you can use it as a visual guide to overlap strokes, which should be done for deep cleaning anyway. Interesting how you misunderstood that and portrayed it misleadingly.

I know you want to vacuum quickly, but, as explained in the lecture video I made, deep cleaning is achieved by the amount of time a given area of carpet is subjected to high air speed whilst agitated to prevent entrapment. If the air speed is low, or you move over too quickly, or don't spend enough total time in a given unit area of flooring, the cleaning results will be lower. Having a wider path can help cover the area faster, but doesn't automatically mean it's as clean. This has to be measured directly. I've already provided examples of what good data looks like earlier in this thread, and there's plenty more on my channel for a wide range of machines.

 

[Hatsuwr]

It's pretty comical to see the defense of being forced to inch along as you vacuum.

If only there were some technology to have a continuous brush roller...

Although you do have a great point about a wider path not necessarily meaning the path is cleaned sufficiently. All things equal, wider path means lower relevant air speeds and longer dwell times needed. If only there were ways to make all things not equal and... I dunno, increase the power of the device to maintain the desired air speeds.

 

[vac14012]

The V16 definitely doesn't shoot dust out of the back. It shoots rocks out when someone tries to pick up an entire driveway laid out on their floor and it gets overwhelmed. High power usage on machines that waste a lot of energy by today's standards might cope, but low energy, efficient models don't, since they're designed for representative, real-world situations.

The unswept path is visually ugly but isn't a significant factor of its out-of-box poor performance. It only appears that way, again, in ridiculous, unrepresenative garbage disposal unit usage that exaggerates the line and makes it look like a practical problem when it isn't. I didn't say it was a feature, I said you can use it as a visual guide to overlap strokes, which should be done for deep cleaning anyway. Interesting how you misunderstood that and portrayed it misleadingly.

I know you want to vacuum quickly, but, as explained in the lecture video I made, deep cleaning is achieved by the amount of time a given area of carpet is subjected to high air speed whilst agitated to prevent entrapment. If the air speed is low, or you move over too quickly, or don't spend enough total time in a given unit area of flooring, the cleaning results will be lower. Having a wider path can help cover the area faster, but doesn't automatically mean it's as clean. This has to be measured directly. I've already provided examples of what good data looks like earlier in this thread, and there's plenty more on my channel for a wide range of machines.

I agree with all of this in theory but your own data showed it cleaned way worse than the Gen5. Don't get me wrong I was actually excited about this vacuum but I'm seeing zero reason to upgrade from the Gen5 or even V15 at this rate.

All the extra bells and whistles are meaningless if it can't function as an actual vacuum well. And i've yet to see any explanation as to why Frickhelm had dust all over inside they didn't reach the filters. I've never ever seen that in a Dyson product before, at least not to that extent. That's atrocious.

And Dyson knows it's bad as they're including a fluffy roller now defeating the point of the new head...

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

I agree with all of this in theory but your own data showed it cleaned way worse than the Gen5. Don't get me wrong I was actually excited about this vacuum but I'm seeing zero reason to upgrade from the Gen5 or even V15 at this rate.

All the extra bells and whistles are meaningless if it can't function as an actual vacuum well. And i've yet to see any explanation as to why Frickhelm had dust all over inside they didn't reach the filters. I've never ever seen that in a Dyson product before, at least not to that extent. That's atrocious.

And Dyson knows it's bad as they're including a fluffy roller now defeating the point of the new head...

See my thread. It's asking for the fix needed.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

It's pretty comical to see the defense of being forced to inch along as you vacuum.

Only ever the facts. If the facts look defensive, then the problem lies with the original claims.

If only there were some technology to have a continuous brush roller...

There is, but it is inferior for hair wrapping, which is a problem for a large number of users. The gap really bothered me at first, but I've now realised it's not an issue and doesn't bother me.

Although you do have a great point about a wider path not necessarily meaning the path is cleaned sufficiently. All things equal, wider path means lower relevant air speeds and longer dwell times needed. If only there were ways to make all things not equal and... I dunno, increase the power of the device to maintain the desired air speeds.

If you increase power, you undermine the technological advancements which are always reducing wastage energy to achieve the same or better goal. They could and do engineer larger heads (the outsize models) for larger homes to make it that bit quicker. I'm becoming more impressed the more I use the V16 at how well it cleans real-world mess levels—once you've modified it, which makes it all the more stupid Dyson suits dropped the ball.

I agree with all of this in theory but your own data showed it cleaned way worse than the Gen5. Don't get me wrong I was actually excited about this vacuum but I'm seeing zero reason to upgrade from the Gen5 or even V15 at this rate. All the extra bells and whistles are meaningless if it can't function as an actual vacuum well.

Out of the box, it's terrible. Dyson suits are idiots for releasing it like this. But I've modded it and it's better than the Gen5. But yet, if hair tangling isn't an issue for you, the gen5 is also still fine.

And i've yet to see any explanation as to why Frickhelm had dust all over inside they didn't reach the filters. I've never ever seen that in a Dyson product before, at least not to that extent. That's atrocious.

I understand now and it'll be in my review. This is again, apparently a stupid suit decision.

And Dyson knows it's bad as they're including a fluffy roller now defeating the point of the new head...

In the UK, the fluffy isn't currently shown in the advertising or for purchase on this machine.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

Only ever the facts. If the facts loko defensive, then the problem lies with the original claims.

There is, but it is inferior for hair wrapping, which is a problem for a large number of users. The gap really bothered me at first, but I've now realised it's not an issue and doesn't bother me.

If you increase power, you undermine the technological advancements which are always reducing wastage energy to achieve the same or better goal. They could and do engineer larger heads (the outsize models) for larger homes to make it that bit quicker. I'm becoming more impressed the more I use the V16 at how well it cleans real-world mess levels—once you've modified it, which makes it all the more stupid Dyson suits dropped the ball.


Out of the box, it's terrible. Dyson suits are idiots for releasing it like this. But I've modded it and it's better than the Gen5. But yet, if hair tangling isn't an issue for you, the gen5 is also still fine.

I understand now and it'll be in my review. This is again, apparently a stupid suit decision.


In the UK, the fluffy isn't currently shown in the advertising or for purchase on this machine.

Oh yeah, sure.

Also, I wonder if TechRadar's new testing has something to do with the initial bad-for-level out-of-the-box performance. We want to know what mod you used to, well, fix the V16.

@Vacuum Facts however, I agree that the unswept strip isn't too bothersome. You can just overlap a bit more. I do agree that Dyson is stupid for releasing an un-fixed flagship though, because it is a metaphorical wrench thrown on an otherwise excellent cleaner. Honestly, V16 is a pretty tragic machine, and Dyson really should be ashame - or actually, given the grander scheme of things, HORRIFIED - for releasing it like that. Fucking stupid of them.

Dyson's current suits need to be attacked for ruining the V16 in the long run. Also, I have chosen to propose a redesign that significantly minimize the unswept path to the bare minuscule minimum. That proposal also includes none other than the multi-action roller that should've originated from later releases of the Gen5 (or should I say, V15 Advanced and V15 Outsize).

 

[vac14012]

Only ever the facts. If the facts look defensive, then the problem lies with the original claims.

There is, but it is inferior for hair wrapping, which is a problem for a large number of users. The gap really bothered me at first, but I've now realised it's not an issue and doesn't bother me.

If you increase power, you undermine the technological advancements which are always reducing wastage energy to achieve the same or better goal. They could and do engineer larger heads (the outsize models) for larger homes to make it that bit quicker. I'm becoming more impressed the more I use the V16 at how well it cleans real-world mess levels—once you've modified it, which makes it all the more stupid Dyson suits dropped the ball.


Out of the box, it's terrible. Dyson suits are idiots for releasing it like this. But I've modded it and it's better than the Gen5. But yet, if hair tangling isn't an issue for you, the gen5 is also still fine.

I understand now and it'll be in my review. This is again, apparently a stupid suit decision.


In the UK, the fluffy isn't currently shown in the advertising or for purchase on this machine.

Modding the vacuum would just ruin the warranty though. I'm not going to spend money on an expensive product if I have to "hack" or "mod" it. I like jerry rigging stuff but a product should work out of the box. Maybe your mod does make it better than the Gen5, but you can't seriously recommend the product to people if you have to hack it. And the filter issue is absolutely indefensible if it ends up being an actual common problem.

 

[vac14012]

Oh yeah, sure.

Also, I wonder if TechRadar's new testing has something to do with the initial bad-for-level out-of-the-box performance. We want to know what mod you used to, well, fix the V16.

@Vacuum Facts however, I agree that the unswept strip isn't too bothersome. You can just overlap a bit more. I do agree that Dyson is stupid for releasing an un-fixed flagship though, because it is a metaphorical wrench thrown on an otherwise excellent cleaner. Honestly, V16 is a pretty tragic machine, and Dyson really should be ashame - or actually, given the grander scheme of things, HORRIFIED - for releasing it like that. Fucking stupid of them.

Dyson's current suits need to be attacked for ruining the V16 in the long run. Also, I have chosen to propose a redesign that significantly minimize the unswept path to the bare minuscule minimum. That proposal also includes none other than the multi-action roller that should've originated from later releases of the Gen5 (or should I say, V15 Advanced and V15 Outsize).

Yikes those videos were not good. I bet if you modded the the Gen5 or V15 carpet heads on the V16 it would clean that mess fine. If even TechRadar is shitting on the vacuum, then this thing is truly DOA. I guarantee the V16 will be discontinued or modified in some way by the end of next year, this new cleaner head is just atrocious.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

You should wait to reserve judgement on that. Utterly ridiculous it's needed. And no, I wouldn't automatically recommend the V16 because of that. First time that's been the case. So much for the 'I'm a Dyson fanboy' idiocy from the rabid vacuum enthusiasts, who are remarkably quiet about my disliking of elements of the V16...but what would you expect from idiots. If you like the latest tech and have money to burn, or already have it, then it might be for you after a few tweaks. I enjoy mine now I've 'fixed' it and feel mostly like it's the product it should have been...almost. Those 'tests' on that website are a bit misleading, like they deliberately do exaggerated messes, deliberately dont overlap strokes as normal cleaning would, and despite being generally right, they incorrectly conclude the reasons why. They also haven't figured out the chevron shaped front isn't a real issue. This is exactly what I was expecting and is exactly why I'm waiting until everyone has finished their 'reviews' before discussing. The internet is ful of people who just don't understand enough to listen to. So don't.

In other words: don't jump into conclusions.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

https://www.techradar.com/home/vacu...adapts-to-save-you-battery-heres-how-it-works

Interesting...

 

[Hatsuwr]

https://www.techradar.com/home/vacu...adapts-to-save-you-battery-heres-how-it-works

Interesting...

I just noticed how pointy the front is. Don't think I've ever seen that before. Doesn't seem very good for cleaning close to walls in places where you can't just run parallel to the wall.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I just noticed how pointy the front is. Don't think I've ever seen that before. Doesn't seem very good for cleaning close to walls in places where you can't just run parallel to the wall.

See https://vacuumland.org/threads/dyson-piston.46427/post-481082

 

[Hatsuwr]

See https://vacuumland.org/threads/dyson-piston.46427/post-481082

So your response is 'nuh uh'?

 

[vac14012]

You should wait to reserve judgement on that. Utterly ridiculous it's needed. And no, I wouldn't automatically recommend the V16 because of that. First time that's been the case. So much for the 'I'm a Dyson fanboy' idiocy from the rabid vacuum enthusiasts, who are remarkably quiet about my disliking of elements of the V16...but what would you expect from idiots. If you like the latest tech and have money to burn, or already have it, then it might be for you after a few tweaks. I enjoy mine now I've 'fixed' it and feel mostly like it's the product it should have been...almost. Those 'tests' on that website are a bit misleading, like they deliberately do exaggerated messes, deliberately dont overlap strokes as normal cleaning would, and despite being generally right, they incorrectly conclude the reasons why. They also haven't figured out the chevron shaped front isn't a real issue. This is exactly what I was expecting and is exactly why I'm waiting until everyone has finished their 'reviews' before discussing. The internet is ful of people who just don't understand enough to listen to. So don't.

I personally wouldn't call that mess test very exaggerated. It seemed like a pretty fair amount of stuff. It wasn't complete chaos like Parwaz does.

I really think the cleaner head is going to be discontinued and changed massively by next year if not the entire vacuum. Most consumers aren't going to do a hack so they'll just have a worse performing vacuum.

Given the current poor state of the company though they may just hope no one notices.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I really think the cleaner head is going to be discontinued and changed massively by next year if not the entire vacuum. Most consumers aren't going to do a hack so they'll just have a worse performing vacuum.

There needs to be a change of leadership so the more senior engineers that understand things get more power and say over what to release. I still can't believe the decision making on display, as I'll go through in the review.

 

[shattered]

I highly doubt they would discontinue it that quickly. I'm not expecting any huge changes too.

When it comes to usage though, all seem to be hating it, some who haven't actually used it, but people's reviews are generally very positive soo. Really don't think Dyson sees that there's any problem.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

There needs to be a change of leadership so the more senior engineers that understand things get more power and say over what to release. I still can't believe the decision making on display, as I'll go through in the review.

I highly doubt they would discontinue it that quickly. I'm not expecting any huge changes too.

When it comes to usage though, all seem to be hating it, some who haven't actually used it, but people's reviews are generally very positive soo. Really don't think Dyson sees that there's any problem.

Personally, it needs a very specific revision.

 

[vac14012]

This guy was sent the Dyson for review, and he complained to them about the lack of Fluffy Head cause in his opinion it makes the vacuum less "complete" (It is translated from Polish so not sure on 100% accuracy) and they told him it was being included in the set in the future. So at least in Poland it seems like the Fluffy Head is going to be included as well soon. Probably everywhere at this rate.

He also claims the black rubber part of the cleaner head is great for carpets but pushes debris away on a backwards past on hard floor.

 

[shattered]

This guy was sent the Dyson for review, and he complained to them about the lack of Fluffy Head cause in his opinion it makes the vacuum less "complete" (It is translated from Polish so not sure on 100% accuracy) and they told him it was being included in the set in the future. So at least in Poland it seems like the Fluffy Head is going to be included as well soon. Probably everywhere at this rate.

He also claims the black rubber part of the cleaner head is great for carpets but pushes debris away on a backwards past on hard floor.

All cordless Dysons push debris away on a backwards stroke on hard floors

 

[vac14012]

All cordless Dysons push debris away on a backwards stroke on hard floors

I haven't noticed that on the Fluffy Heads, unless it's a large piece of debris like dog food or something.

 

[Hatsuwr]

I like his test with the board with slots of increasing depth. Seems like a very repeatable and measurable way to compare cleaning-relevant performance without tying the test to a specific floor type. But if he standardized the speed, made the board wider and vacuumed in the middle to reduce edge effects, increased the distance between slots so that only once slot is vacuumed at a time, and measured out the debris added and debris left, then it would be much better.

 

[vac14012]

Yeah it's actually not a bad testing method. I think Project Farm and Vacuum Wars do something similar with crevices.

I find their tests on Shark Vacuums dubious though as they never mention how awful the filters are and how truly disgusting it is to try and empty a Shark bin. They just do an initial test when the vacuum is brand new and suction is perfect.

Same for most bagless machines though. At least in the US. I've seen a few "Vax" branded vacuums on YouTube from the UK that use old Dyson cyclone parents and actually seem to clean reasonably well.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

"JuSt LoOk At ThE AgItAtIoN oN ThAt BrUsH rOll 11!11!2"
If you were to only ever believe the rabid vacuum enthusiast deceptions, you'd come away thinking this was a great performer. If you listen to reason, you'd understand why particle bouncing outside of the head is misleading.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

All cordless Dysons push debris away on a backwards stroke on hard floors

Yeah, none of these reviews are going into the important details and are mostly cosmetic. I'm sure that's fine for most people, but it doesn't tell them all they need to know.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I like his test with the board with slots of increasing depth. Seems like a very repeatable and measurable way to compare cleaning-relevant performance without tying the test to a specific floor type. But if he standardized the speed, made the board wider and vacuumed in the middle to reduce edge effects, increased the distance between slots so that only once slot is vacuumed at a time, and measured out the debris added and debris left, then it would be much better.

Interesting how he noticed it doesn't perform as well as the Gen5 but didn't accurately explain why. You do have to be careful interpreting a test like that. Crevices should be deeper than typically found in a home, but they werent' quantified. People that do these tests also don't really explain what real-world value they have or what they're really showing about the machine.

 

[Hatsuwr]

Interesting how he noticed it doesn't perform as well as the Gen5 but didn't accurately explain why. You do have to be careful interpreting a test like that. Crevices should be deeper than typically found in a home, but they werent' quantified. People that do these tests also don't really explain what real-world value they have or what they're really showing about the machine.

Quantifying them doesn't matter a whole lot for comparative testing. The test slots and debris won't match the vast majority of actual use cases, but if one vacuum removes the test debris from larger slots than another, then you can expect that the former will perform better at removing real world debris from real world crevices and cavities.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Quantifying them doesn't matter a whole lot for comparative testing. The test slots and debris won't match the vast majority of actual use cases, but if one vacuum removes the test debris from larger slots than another, then you can expect that the former will perform better at removing real world debris from real world crevices and cavities.

I understand the test. It's just poorly defined and interpreted by many YT bedroom testers.