Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
The real problem only benefits battery life, @Vacuum Facts. (Please don't make me repeat what I just said again
)
Dyson Piston
- Thread starter Vacuum Facts
- Start date
)
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I wonder if it would be possible to make something like a old Electrolux machine with a battery pack and a 36-72 volt 5.7 inch motor. It could have up to 1.5 hour run times across 2 batteries. Enough money and anything is possible I suppose.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Sad. If only you became more popular...
Besides, feel free to reveal the mod needed for the (launch iteration of the) V16 Piston, maybe as part of your myth-busting anthology leading to your full review which could still comes later. It's a win-win scenario: people will know the true problems first (so hopefully no more misinformation), while you can confidently wait things up you want as you have told us, @Vacuum Facts.
Also, that reduced motor power usage benefits battery life, but so far that's about it. At least as far as I know, that is.
Oof, that's some pretty rough cleaning of even surface-level debris. And only 16 minutes on it's highest setting? Seems like this is a tool only really suited for small apartments without any carpets.
Tbf all Dyson cordless models only have like 8 to 10 minutes or so on the "Boost" setting.
That being said that performance in the video is pretty atrocious. I feel like even an older V8 model would perform better....
That being said that performance in the video is pretty atrocious. I feel like even an older V8 model would perform better....
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Intended or not, Dyson have revealed something very interesting about bedroom youtube 'testers' out there that I'll cover in my review.
That's a runtime upgrade. Also, 'highest setting' lacks quantativeness and you can't directly compare 'boost' mode between products by label alone. It's amazing how the same misunderstandings continue to crop up. Too many people think brute force and massive power consumption are the way to go, and the ability to gobble up a mountain in one pass is representative of real world performance. That kind of thinking shows complete misunderstanding.
I can confirm the V16 is a mains replacement (with a fix), just as the V10, V11, V15 and Gen5 were. It simultaneously impresses me and disgusts me with its design—the bad elements being wholly avoidable. Nevertheless, I can see what Dyson are doing, where they're going, and the difficulties of getting there. Unfortunately, no one seems to notice, understand, or be talking about it in detail. Anywhere. I find that genuinely amazing and disheartening because it shows a level of ignorance not becomming of people who desire to be respected. I plan to compensate for the gaping omissions in the review I'll produce next year and discuss a lot of the interesting advancements about this machine, and its ridiculous flaws.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I'm able to get it to leave no debris behind running in a much lower power mode on real-world representative mess levels. Anyone who tries to clean up a building site should be immediately disregarded as they are clearly clueless. No one has a building site in their house. Building sites require high power consumption to remove; real-world mess levels do not.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
No one's house is like that bottom picture. 'tests' like this that then extrapolate to real-world conditions should be disregarded and the V16 really shows why. Not that anyone is talking about it because they don't understand—but that doesn't stop them from acting like they do with absurd sweeping statements from unevidenced extrapolations rooted in serious ignorance. This is a stupid test that shows nothing of real-world relevance. I'll explain why in my review, if it's not already apparent.
As for the top image. Shaggy rugs with non porous backing are tough to clean and need high power for reasons fully explained in my lecture video I've seen little evidence people understand. A basic fact check of history reveals little difference when judging as pathetically as visually alone, as done in that video. That bedroom tester doesn't quantify anything reputably and we should instantly disregard everything produced by this source after seeing that. I mentioned this video because it was a great example of misleading weakness that appeals to those who care little for truth and fall back on primitive tribal worldviews.
The genuine weakness of the V16 isn't discussed in detail anywhere. The means to do so is available, revealing there's simply no understanding out there. This is how I know what is worth listening to and what isn't.
As for the top image. Shaggy rugs with non porous backing are tough to clean and need high power for reasons fully explained in my lecture video I've seen little evidence people understand. A basic fact check of history reveals little difference when judging as pathetically as visually alone, as done in that video. That bedroom tester doesn't quantify anything reputably and we should instantly disregard everything produced by this source after seeing that. I mentioned this video because it was a great example of misleading weakness that appeals to those who care little for truth and fall back on primitive tribal worldviews.
The genuine weakness of the V16 isn't discussed in detail anywhere. The means to do so is available, revealing there's simply no understanding out there. This is how I know what is worth listening to and what isn't.
Last edited:
You can go on and on ironically ignoring facts and insulting random people on the internet that have so angered you, but that's not going to make the thing vacuum any better.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
And straight to name calling instead of the topic of discussion. This usually means there's no defence. No one is being insulted. I'm just stating facts. Those tests are weak for well understood reasons, are not representative of anything real-world, and can't be used to draw meaningful conclusions. The V16, after a fix due to a stupid design choice, is the most efficient real-world mess cleaner I've used. It doesn't cope well, for various reasons I'll go into that no one else has, with unrealistic building site messes, but if you're stupid enough to try to test with such a situation, then you don't deserve to be acknowledged.
Couldn't even keep it out of the same comment lol.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
OK, so you're conflating name calling with conclusions about outputting misleading nonsense. It IS stupid to draw conclusions from those 'tests'. Pointing that out isn't name calling. That's just ridiculous hypersensitivity. Name calling is a personally directed attack to a specific individual in an unjustified manner. Examples of this are the treatment I've received on this forum since joining. Quite why you are personally taking offense from something not even directed to you is another matter, but I recommend just focussing on the important points being made.
I don't have to be personally insulted to call out uncivil behavior. Most of the negative responses you have received here are a response to that behavior, not to your Dyson fanaticism that you seem to attribute it to. It would be an interesting experiment for you to go for a few weeks without being rude, aggressive, or insulting in your comments and see if that changes how you are received.
As you alluded to — if you can't get your point across without calling someone stupid (or doing something similar), then you probably don't have a very good point. If you can get your point across without calling someone stupid and choose to do so anyway, well...
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Sorry, I just don't buy this. Emotional sensitivity seems to be being deliberately used to deflect from inconvenient truths and discussion. And again, I haven't called any individual stupid. I've identified and observed behaviour that is stupid, which is quite different. Pointing that out freely isn't uncivil. You seem to want to make everyone walk on eggshells. Until you learn these basic distinctions, you'll always be 'offended' to shut down discussion. You can't credibly argue Dyson fanaticism when I simultaneously criticise the exact same products in a consistent manner—namely based on evidence and observation. Deliberately focussing on emotional appeal and completely ignoring the factual side of the discussion tells me you've nothing relevant to add.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Oh well... At least I'm not willing to fall for the misinformations.
@Vacuum Facts we thought these was obvious already. Why can't bedroom YouTube testers get things straight?
Dyson V16 Piston Animal review: powerful vacuum let down by a poorly designed floorhead
According to this video the big black squeegee bit just pushes debris away on hard floors, big yikes. And they're not wrong that the anti tangle combs already worked very effectively. So it's not a huge selling point over the previous cleaner head.
It doesn't seem like anyone is really completely satisfied with this cleaner head, I expect a big redesign at some point.
It's rather shocking if they didn't notice all this stuff in their internal testing. Either they did and released it anyway, maybe cause they were too far along and hoped no one noticed... Or they didn't notice at all?
Last edited:
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
I don't think the head is at fault. The stupid design decision is elsewhere in the machine, and that @Vacuum Facts so far refused to elaborate on currently.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
This ‘review’ is a perfect example of why I'm waiting to produce mine. Where to start… (and why am I the only one seemingly noticing these things)
The lack of straightness to the front edge isn't an issue at all and doesn't significantly affect performance—something they, naturally, failed to evidence. Talk about cosmetic reasoning. There appeared to be an absence of IQ to recognise the advantages it brings and I now prefer it. I went back to the Gen5 recently and it felt weird and poor in comparison with a flat front edge.
When it comes to power modes, they didn’t notice or apparently understand the difference beyond name alone, which is awful. And while hair detangling was effective with combs, it came with serious drawbacks and limitations the review seemed to be completely ignorant of. Quite the disservice.
The tests they do will come back to bite them when I release my review because it shows they simply don't understand anything and aren't testing anything real-world. The machine uses much less power, for important reasons they don't seem to understand enough, and so won't visually perform well in exaggerated, unrepresentative 'visually illustrative' tests, aka building site testing with contrived piles of dirt, which require high energies. People who don't understand anything tend to champion this unrepresentative non-testing. This combined with an unrecognised genuine problem with the machine means they come to wrong conclusions—flawed testing and ignorance are a bad mix I’m seeing all too often. The irony is, they even point out that when testing in their own homes in actual real-world situations, it had no trouble picking up "impressive amounts of dust, dirt, and hair". I mean, they don't even notice their own contradiction and ignorance.
The back flexible pad has been on every machine for several generations, so should be completely obvious even to a halfwit that it isn't the cause of alleged problems on hard floors. The issues they mention are a direct result of building site testing and simply aren’t there in real-world usage. They wrongly concluded poor pickup on carpet is because of the unswept central path, but no appropriate testing was done to confirm this, naturally. I've already confirmed this is not the issue and quantified the influence of the unswept central path in REAL-WORLD usage. If I can do it, why can’t they?
Sources like this are misleading because of their own clear ignorance. This is the problem with genuinely ignorant bedroom testers that cosmetically come across as ‘professional’. True review professionalism stems from understanding and knowledge, not cosmetics. The adage ‘lipstick on a pig’ comes to mind. This is exactly why I'm waiting to give my review, as I want to expose the problems with other reviewers as well by showing what they're all doing completely wrong. I hope it will help people learn to spot and be very critical of the nonsense.
The irony is that this review didn't recognise the real problems with this machine or understand exactly why the V16 performs worse than its predecessor out of the box (or how to fix). They came to the right conclusion but for entirely the wrong reason, which is massively misleading, exactly as predicted. Ignorance of any basic science or knowledge of the real world undermines the worth of the output out there on the lay internet. It's very frustrating seeing such weakness because we're all worse off because of it. I suspect all eventual reviews from US sources will be as flawed as this one. The V16 has genuinely unforgivable issues that deserve heavy criticism, but no one is talking about them! All but one can actually be ‘fixed’, giving you an otherwise really nice tool that I do prefer over the Gen5, showing how nice the new technologies are within an otherwise flawed product. But we shouldn’t have to be ‘fixing’ anything. Dyson do deserve some heavy criticism for elements of this product, and I’m going to go to town on them, but none of these reviews are doing even that job properly, undermining things for the rest of us and letting Dyson off the hook. Pathetic, everywhere you look.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
And just to add insult to injury, the ignorance expressed in the comments on that video is just disheartening... my favourites:
* "How did they mess this up? That floor head seems terrible."
The floor head is actually amazing, but various issues with the product prevent it from being realised. The subjectivity and ignorance of this review has genuinely misled those susceptible to nonsense. Very sad.
* "There is a Chinese clone on Amazon (same place Dyson is made) right now for $139 and it's awesome. Just goes to show you how much they actually cost to make. Dyson products (like the fans and hair dryers) are out of control priced. Pure greed."
This stunning genius doesn't realise that the R&D costs a lot of money. Patents only protect so much, and those clones literally steal in exactly the same way that pirates steal music and film etc., bypassing the cost of development of new ideas, and churning out weaker products that don't work as well. I did an entire video on this.
* "How did they mess this up? That floor head seems terrible."
The floor head is actually amazing, but various issues with the product prevent it from being realised. The subjectivity and ignorance of this review has genuinely misled those susceptible to nonsense. Very sad.
* "There is a Chinese clone on Amazon (same place Dyson is made) right now for $139 and it's awesome. Just goes to show you how much they actually cost to make. Dyson products (like the fans and hair dryers) are out of control priced. Pure greed."
This stunning genius doesn't realise that the R&D costs a lot of money. Patents only protect so much, and those clones literally steal in exactly the same way that pirates steal music and film etc., bypassing the cost of development of new ideas, and churning out weaker products that don't work as well. I did an entire video on this.
It seems to me like they really wanted to lean into the cone shaped brushes, maybe just an attempt to stand out or something. There's no way they weren't at least partially aware of its performance issues.
But I agree, they probably will move away from them soon. I wouldn't be surprised if the conical brushes perform better in regard to tangling in benchmark testing, but there are plenty of other cleaning heads that don't have tangling issues in the first place. The unrealized gain from the conical shape doesn't seem to be worth the downsides - much worse edge cleaning, big uncleaned strip in the middle, uneven brush speeds against the floor...
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Your comment is mostly riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods that are unsupported by evidence. Sadly, I too commonly observe this.
The conical brushbars bring clear advantages. The V16's performance issues are unrelated to that technology. The only thing you've said I agree with is that there's no way they couldn't be aware of the performance issues, and that's why I'm unhappy with them this generation. But there's no evidence or reason why they'll move away from conical brushbars. They've been using them since the V15 and there are already copycats (Panasonic). There are no cleaning heads I'm aware of that offer effective detangling without drawbacks or weaknesses, and I've evidenced as much in my reviews. Edge cleaning is excellent on the V16 in real world situations. The central unswept path has no significant impact in real-world conditions and I've quantified this directly, unlike others. Not sure what uneven brush speeds against the floor even means, and I'm aware of no evidence of any issues here, or I'd be all over it.
It's amazing how genuine weaknesses in a product are unidentified and thus ignored but their negative effects that are apparent to those who don't appear to understand are used to peddle myths and nonsense to mystically fill in the knowledge gap. It's amazing watching the disease memetically spread in real time. Bad actors are also easily identifiable as superspreaders of nonsense.
Not sure why you're referring to these tests as "building site" messes as if they're giant piles of drywall or plaster dust.
Obviously you're not supposed to use a home cleaner for messes like that. Those require commercial shop vac machines.
But these are nowhere near anything like that. The lady said she used oats and dried tea. That's not outrageous in anyway as far as I'm concerned.
Based on your logic if you accidentally spilled some dry cereal for example on the floor and wanted to quickly vacuum it up with the floor head you wouldn't be able to cause it's not a "real world" test....
I guess you could probably use the crevice tool to do it but that's not as convenient. And would be annoying to bend down or awkwardly sweep the crevice tool with the wand back and forth where on the v15 you would have been done already with the motorhead or even the fluffy.
I will say the red shag carpet up above reminds me of my bathroom mat which I've never been able to clean with any vacuum. So I'm not gonna dock points for that but even in bare floor tests it's struggling...
And the techradar video looked like a pretty normal carpet.
I'm on your side I wish this thing was amazing but when everyone I see has problems with their cleaner head there's a lot more than just user error at that point.
Obviously you're not supposed to use a home cleaner for messes like that. Those require commercial shop vac machines.
But these are nowhere near anything like that. The lady said she used oats and dried tea. That's not outrageous in anyway as far as I'm concerned.
Based on your logic if you accidentally spilled some dry cereal for example on the floor and wanted to quickly vacuum it up with the floor head you wouldn't be able to cause it's not a "real world" test....
I guess you could probably use the crevice tool to do it but that's not as convenient. And would be annoying to bend down or awkwardly sweep the crevice tool with the wand back and forth where on the v15 you would have been done already with the motorhead or even the fluffy.
I will say the red shag carpet up above reminds me of my bathroom mat which I've never been able to clean with any vacuum. So I'm not gonna dock points for that but even in bare floor tests it's struggling...
And the techradar video looked like a pretty normal carpet.
I'm on your side I wish this thing was amazing but when everyone I see has problems with their cleaner head there's a lot more than just user error at that point.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Really? I mean excess dirt density deviating from real-world representative that introduces differences in machine behaviour that wouldn't otherwise occur. I did mention it. I'm not talking about a patch of tealeaves on a carpet, I'm talking about an entire box of cereal on the hard floor, spread around in a contrived way. No one would ever have that, even with a spillage. Yet they use that and conclude behaviour in that extreme situation is representative of behaviour in normal, real-world conditions that are present 99.9% of the time. That is misleading because it compares apples and assumes oranges. As I've said repeatedly before, a machine that does well with big messes doesn't necessarily do well with real-world mess levels, because more than brute force is required to remove low concentrations of embedded dirt in carpet for well understood reasons associated with this kind of system. Likewise, cleaners that are really good with real-world mess levels can sometimes struggle with big messes, particularly as high power consumption needed for fast removal of extreme messes is not there by default now, since it's mostly wasted in real-world conditions.
You'd think it was obvious, but there are entire channels specialising in 'building site testing'. Most reviews only show data from building site initial conditions.
No they don't need commercial shop vacs. They need higher power. Nominal power consumption is being reduced in the best cleaners now. This extends battery life whilst achieving comparably good performance under real-world conditions when designed well. But, it also means they visually fail in comparative buiding site testing. Thus most reviews mislead because they don't understand anything.
The dirt concentration was massively higher than in real world testing on hard floor. I've explained all this. That reviewer drew the right conclusion but for the wrong reason because they missed the real problem with the V16. The reason why performance (visually) was worse on carpet is because of certain design issues with the machine that affect key physical properties discussed in my lecture. But they didn't investigate properly and did contrived testing. See above. I've confirmed that even for heavy spot messes, you can get excellent performance in real world usage with the modified V16, showing it can work, is nothing to do with being weaker in 'auto low', or any of the reasoning they gave.
I've already linked to video showing their conclusions are ridiculous because they even show other machines struggling. But they didn't point this out. It was misleading and worthy of scorn and heavy criticism. There are good reasons fully available for people to understand now (my lecture) explaining why this behaviour occurs.
The V16 is great if you fix the actual issue with it. These reviewers are terrible because they don't understand anything, can't identify the actual problems, and in this case, happen to reach the right conclusion (because it's obvious) but for *entirely* the wrong reason. This leads to nonsense and mystical thinking filling in the knowledge gaps, as we've seen in a comment above, which does a disservice to those that want to be informed.
I have most of what I need now for an accurate review (except the time...). I just want to wait for all the loud US reviews to finish with their predicted misleading, ignorance-ridden nonsense, consistent with everything I've seen so far, before I go last. Usually I go first, and the rest copy.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
@Vacuum Facts, I did not fall for the reviews' misleading craps. Shouldn't anyone know the actual fix for the actual problem itself, as I asked in an entire thread I made?
"Ignorance is bliss" mentality hidden within is very dangerous. Why can't anybody try finding out the true problem of the launch-day V16?
"Ignorance is bliss" mentality hidden within is very dangerous. Why can't anybody try finding out the true problem of the launch-day V16?
Yup. Obviously there is some point at which you should be precleaning an area before using a regular residential-use vacuum on it (mostly just large pieces), but if that point is a bit of oats and tea leaves...
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Pity you didn't finish the sentence because you'd realise the answer and undermine your implication that what's shown in the exaggerated 'testing' is representative of real world. Large groups of larger particles (like an entire pile of oats put down for visual effect) cause them to pile up, sheer amongst themselves as they vertically stack, and lift the head off the ground when running over it, resulting in the observed 'missing' of particles and being pushed behind the skirt etc. This effect is exaggerated when using lower power consumption we're now seeing, which results in said build up from dense messes and the more ready appearance of 'failure'. This stacked interparticle sheering doesn't occur under real world conditions, where even lower power consumption can effectively get everything encountered. This is all very easy to demonstrate (and already plenty of evidence out there if anyone bothers to look). The problem is testing in a way that isn't what you'd actually experience most of the time that creates new problems that wouldn't otherwise happen. People don't seem to understand and draw the wrong conclusions, misleading people in the process. This is (partially) what is meant by the logical fallacy explained above and seemingly underappreciated.
I'll just agree to disagree. With the exception of Parwaz video obviously , I don't feel like any of the tests i've seen are super outrageous. And if you have to modify the cleaner head or vacuum in some way for it to work properly then that's a huge failure. I guarantee the cleaner head design will be changed in some way, and if Dyson wanted some good PR when they do, they should apologize and offer a new head free of charge for people who bought the V16 early.
Sadly the way the company is going lately they might just dig in their heels. Or just silently discontinue it like the Cinetic Uprights.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cats Create Vacuum Cleaner Needs - Trying To Find Fairfax Manual
- Latest: centralsweeper63