Dyson Piston

[Vacuum Facts]

If you take the 315AW unquestioned the 900w might just be a marketing "comparison indicator" how much power would be needed with the older v15 to achieve 315 AW. It is pretty close if you take the 230 AW Hepa version of the v15. 230 / 660 * 900 = 313,14.
It is also the same for the "first" AW rating of the gen5 of 262 AW (later changed to 280) : 262 / 752 * 900 = 313,56.

Possibly. Your calculations are just taking the ratio of air power to the power rating on the label, which is an efficiency rating, giving about 35% in all cases.

After some reading and digging—something you won’t find on cesspools like reddit, I think those labels represent the nominal power rating of the machine. Many countries require appliances to list a power rating on the label, often based on standardised tests (e.g., IEC 60335 for household appliances). For cordless vacuums, this might represent the maximum power draw under a specific load (e.g., Boost mode with a standard attachment, not necessarily the 100 W head).

I realised I’d cocked up the numbers earlier, so I’ve reattached. The powers are the estimated (so not accurate) drained by the machine from the battery in the specified usage mode and situation. The values for when on carpet include the 100 W power head, so the motor power (and other machine losses) will be 100 W lower. The run times are likely a bit higher than the machine reports, so these powers may also be slightly overestimated in all cases, particularly the highest values in Boost mode.

What’s generally true is that the nominal or peak power label rating is comparable to the peak power measured in Boost mode on all three machines—including the V16. Since the V16 lists a surprisingly lower nominal power rating of 450 W, this does indicate it has been reduced deliberately over the earlier versions. If it’s not the case that there’s some firmware cap currently there (e.g. by accident) and it has been designed with significantly reduced power in all modes like this deliberately, then it would suggest Dyson’s priority has shifted from performance to stopping customers complaining about runtimes, since this extends it. If that’s true, and I’ve no evidence there’s a software issue, then that’s just terrible and I’m going to absolutely hammer Dyson in the review. It would also suggest that 900 W motor thing is meaningless marketing, and in fact, I’m not even sure what it means in terms of real-world use. Dyson don’t usually market misleading crap. Maybe things have changed…I don’t know for sure yet, but I'm starting to smell some rot from all this data (note: not concluded from the rabid vacuum enthusiasts' wishful bile spitting).

You won’t get a straight answer out of Dyson customer services, who are just robot guard dogs, and the engineers who understand things are probably under a gagging contract so couldn’t speak freely and chime in with clarification, so we just have to take what we see as it is. This thing can’t clean for shit and is vastly outperformed by both the v15 and gen5. So, I’m back to my initial reaction: I can’t believe Dyson did this and if they genuinely did, I hope they get all the hate in the world from V16 customers who return them in disgust. From the moronic user reviews I’ve seen so far, I doubt most of them would even notice they’ve got a Dyson machine in their hand over any other product and are just thrilled it's shiny. What a way for Dyson to seemingly undermine its pioneering and genuinely amazingly interesting constituent technologies. For the first time ever, I'm geninely contemplating returning a Dyson product. I still believe they can software modify the power cap in auto mode though, so we'll see what happens in the next week or so.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

What I find interesting is the promo head image shows what looks like a central position on the front flaps. All the ones I've seen so far have only two positions with the left and right position of the switch. It will be interesting to see what videos pop up over the next few days to see what people get.

 

[Hatsuwr]

Wait, does that thing have a conical shape to its roller brush? Odd decision if so.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

And the presumably paid for reviews are oozing out with many errors and omissions. Some claim it has amazing cleaning performance...but fail to evidence it, naturally, thereby missing a fairly key observation. Yet, they claiming it's bad because the head isn't straight, which is demonstrably a non-issue. Figures. And of course, total obliviousness to the new separator beyond the most trivial cosmetically apparent features. So right on par with expectations then...

Wait, does that thing have a conical shape to its roller brush? Odd decision if so.

It's the only head that fully solves hair tangling (except the panasonic dupe they got to market first using Dyson's idea, as patent history clearly evidences).

 

[Hatsuwr]

Never had any hair tangling issues with my Wessel-Werk EBK 360. Seems like it has a pretty sensible design in that regard. Then again, it's operating with a much higher internal air velocity which must be helping it a bit in that regard.

 

[cheesewonton]

Wait, does that thing have a conical shape to its roller brush? Odd decision if so.

It is something Panasonic came up with for a canister vacuum power nozzle on one of their Japanese market vacuums they have subsequently applied to their stick vacs. The idea is that threads or hair caught on the brush roll will move from the larger diameter to the smaller diameter region of the brush roll then fall off the end and be sucked up into the nozzle. Panasonic orients the brushes the opposite of this Diesoon however. Their brushes are widest at the outer edges of the nozzle and taper inward with a small gap between them.
The Japanese vacuum manufacturers have a lot of clever machines never sold outside of Japan. Japan is this parallel universe of interesting and innovative home appliances.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

It is something Panasonic came up with for a canister vacuum power nozzle on one of their Japanese market vacuums they have subsequently applied to their stick vacs. The idea is that threads or hair caught on the brush roll will move from the larger diameter to the smaller diameter region of the brush roll then fall off the end and be sucked up into the nozzle. Panasonic orients the brushes the opposite of this Diesoon however. Their brushes are widest at the outer edges of the nozzle and taper inward with a small gap between them.

This has been fully debunked long ago (note the correction in the description). Dyson invented the concept, Panasonic seemingly nicked the idea and patented it where it wasn't covered and released to market first. Their design suffers from the additional problem of massive unswept edges where their motors sit. Poor design.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Never had any hair tangling issues with my Wessel-Werk EBK 360. Seems like it has a pretty sensible design in that regard. Then again, it's operating with a much higher internal air velocity which must be helping it a bit in that regard.

Pity there's little evidence to support your claims that can be judged by way of relative comparison.

 

[cheesewonton]

Never had any hair tangling issues with my Wessel-Werk EBK 360. Seems like it has a pretty sensible design in that regard. Then again, it's operating with a much higher internal air velocity which must be helping it a bit in that regard.

Probably because they are miserable for pulling up pet hair. I have three of them, two that came with Miele canister vacuums and a third that came with my Vortech XR3000. Two of the three are literally as new. One was new in the box and has been used for maybe 8 full bags max. The other was only used for two full bags. None of them can remove pet hair from my area rugs. They move the hair back and leave it in a nice neat line at the back of the cleaning stroke. I can clean north-south, east-west and every way in between and the nozzle leaves the hair. Sebo, Lindhaus and Kenmore power nozzle have no problem removing all the pet hair from these same rugs. It is only the Wessel-Werk nozzles that can't do it. A Miele SEB236 takes a lot of passes but will eventually remove the hair. Lindhaus, Sebo and Kenmore remove the hair in two passes max. Even my little Japanese market Panasonic MC-PJ23G does a better job. Fortunately for me the hose handle on the Vortech XR3000 is identical to the hose handle on my Lindhaus Aria so I can use the Vortech with a Lindhaus power nozzle and no frustration.

 

[Hatsuwr]

It is something Panasonic came up with for a canister vacuum power nozzle on one of their Japanese market vacuums they have subsequently applied to their stick vacs. The idea is that threads or hair caught on the brush roll will move from the larger diameter to the smaller diameter region of the brush roll then fall off the end and be sucked up into the nozzle. Panasonic orients the brushes the opposite of this Diesoon however. Their brushes are widest at the outer edges of the nozzle and taper inward with a small gap between them.
The Japanese vacuum manufacturers have a lot of clever machines never sold outside of Japan. Japan is this parallel universe of interesting and innovative home appliances.

Interesting that the alignment is opposite between the Dyson and Panasonic. Either way, I can't say I like the range of brush-ground interface speed you will get from that when there are other solutions available.

Pity there's little evidence to support your claims that can be judged by way of relative comparison.

Well you can't really get better than no hair tangling when it comes to hair tangling lol. The only significant variable would be in air velocity, but I would just recommend avoiding underpowered machines.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Well you can't really get better than no hair tangling when it comes to hair tangling lol. The only significant variable would be in air velocity, but I would just recommend avoiding underpowered machines.

That's pretty unconvincing. If you have any reputable, objective evidence for the kind of use cases the Dyson approach can handle—that has also been independently verified—please send it along. Otherwise, I conclude there's absolutely nothing to go on and I don't believe for a second the machine you refer to is capable of universally achieving hair detangling.

 

[Hatsuwr]

That's pretty unconvincing. If you have any reputable, objective evidence for the kind of use cases the Dyson approach can handle—that has also been independently verified—please send it along. Otherwise, I conclude there's absolutely nothing to go on and I don't believe for a second the machine you refer to is capable of universally achieving hair detangling.

Thankfully reality doesn't depend upon you believing me!

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Thankfully reality doesn't depend upon you believing me!

Correct, it depends on evidence...which hasn't been provided, so no one worth their weight in salt should believe what's been said on that point. I'm sure it works for you, but not convinced it works universally.

 

[cheesewonton]

This has been fully debunked long ago (note the correction in the description). Dyson invented the concept, Panasonic seemingly nicked the idea and patented it where it wasn't covered and released to market first. Their design suffers from the additional problem of massive unswept edges where their motors sit. Poor design.

I respectfully disagree. I have had one of these Japanese Panasonics in my own collection for many years before Diesoon introduced their Fluffy Cone design. It has been on the market in Japan for seven or eight years, which means it was developed in the years preceding introduction. Panasonic is the innovator here. Dyson is a copy cat.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Then I leave you to provide sufficient evidence to support that. Let's see how well you do. So far you've just decreed by fiat what you say is true. Really simple: show the machine and the relevant features of its design, its model number, and provide evidence of its manufacturing date. You apparently have this so it should take you no time at all. Then we can cross reference to patent literature associated with using conical brushbars to remove hair.

 

[shattered]

I respectfully disagree. I have had one of these Japanese Panasonics in my own collection for many years before Diesoon introduced their Fluffy Cone design. It has been on the market in Japan for seven or eight years, which means it was developed in the years preceding introduction. Panasonic is the innovator here. Dyson is a copy cat.

You're forgetting here that Dyson released hair screw tool with their V15 in 2021.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

You're forgetting here that Dyson released hair screw tool with their V15 in 2021.

No no, let's let him defend his claim. I'm genuinely intrigued and the Dyson patents date back years before 2021.

 

[cheesewonton]

Then I leave you to provide sufficient evidence to support that. Let's see how well you do. So far you've just decreed by fiat what you say is true. Really simple: show the machine and the relevant features of its design, its model number, and provide evidence of its manufacturing date. You apparently have this so it should take you no time at all. Then we can cross reference to patent literature associated with using conical brushbars to remove hair.

I had the Panasonic nozzle in my collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. I bought it soon after they came out in Japan.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I had the Panasonic nozzle in my collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. I bought it soon after they came out in Japan.

Unfortunately, that's not what was asked for, which was the minimum necessary to support the claim convincingly in a fact-checkable way. Do you think you'll be able to provide the evidence required? To be clear, that's an image of the machine and the relevant features of its design in question (conical brush bars), its model number, and evidence of its manufacture date (or that allows it to be determined).

 

[shattered]

Unfortunately, that's not what was asked for, which was the minimum necessary to support the claim convincingly in a fact-checkable way. Do you think you'll be able to provide the evidence required? To be clear, that's an image of the machine and the relevant features of its design in question (conical brush bars), its model number, and evidence of its manufacture date (or that allows it to be determined).

Love, that's his evidence: He had the Panasonic nozzle in his collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. He bought it soon after they came out in Japan.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I believe he has it. I'm genuinely interested. Maybe Panasonic did invent it. I'm not convinced and I'm trying to find out. If there's evidence of the product coming out before the first Dyson patents, then that's all I'll need to change my mind. I've often found, though, that getting evidence out of people to support their claims is like getting blood out of a stone. But maybe things will be different for the first time.

 

[cheesewonton]

Love, that's his evidence: He had the Panasonic nozzle in his collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. He bought it soon after they came out in Japan.

What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.

 

[Hatsuwr]

What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.

We're going to need a notarized declaration of facts, as well as images of the original packaging and receipt, plus GPS tracking showing your trip to the store when you purchased it, and a detailed 3D scan of both the interior and exterior. Go ahead and get it MRI'd while you're at it, then we might believe you.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.

No, you made a factual claim that's either true or false and on which there's evidence bearing. I've seen no evidence to support your claim that Dyson stole the idea. You've been asked on two occasions (1 and 2) for the evidence that can be fact-checked to support your claim after you claimed you have it in your collection to simply get the evidence from easily and post. Now you ask again what is wanted? It now doesn't look like you can defend your position, which means I'll continue not to believe it and suggest your statement is a falsehood given the evidence to the contrary already available. Did I really need to spell this out again? Do you think you can provide the evidence to support your claim or is this a write-off as predicted and the guy above is going to continue attempt to pettily mock people who simply want to establish what's true in a fact-checkable way? I provide all the evidence for my claims; it's not that hard if the claim is true—because that's how you know to make the claim in the first place. Pulling teeth here...

 

[solsburian]

No, you made a factual claim that's either true or false and on which there's evidence bearing. I've seen no evidence to support your claim that Dyson stole the idea. You've been asked on two occasions (1 and 2) for the evidence that can be fact-checked to support your claim after you claimed you have it in your collection to simply get the evidence from easily and post. Now you ask again what is wanted? It now doesn't look like you can defend your position, which means I'll continue not to believe it and suggest your statement is a falsehood given the evidence to the contrary already available. Did I really need to spell this out again? Do you think you can provide the evidence to support your claim or is this a write-off as predicted and the guy above is going to continue attempt to pettily mock people who simply want to establish what's true in a fact-checkable way? I provide all the evidence for my claims; it's not that hard if the claim is true—because that's how you know to make the claim in the first place. Pulling teeth here...

With all due respect, I admire your passion for Dyson - but their labs feature Numatics for the cleanup and dealing with fine dust. Their employee perks like free gourmet pizza were great, but it was clear the brand was always style over substance. They never believed in bagless, and now are focussed on Fans, Earphones or whatever James is into right now. If you are truly into bagless, see what others are doing to innovate.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Now the expected deafening silence and plethora of passive aggressive emojis of desperation have revealed all we need to know, let's move on from this cul de sac.

I've been testing the new separator a bit more and have learned where it's better and worse than the original design. I can see why their next revisions of it are the way they are. I also realised you can get quite a lot of power out of the machine under certain situations and they probably reduced its power in all modes deliberately, especially boost. I think this was to prevent premature loss of battery service life seeing as many people out there constantly used boost unnecessarily. Still need to get a lot more experience with this machine before reviewing it so it's not as superficial and pointless as every other review I've seen so far.

I also see their promo vid is being released at 2pm today.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I mean, just look at reviews like this. They're so unbelievably cosmetic and don't tell you any of the really important things that have been discovered so far. This cosmetic review comes across as freeby kiss ass. You read lines like this and realise you're dealing with a complete lack of thoroughness "The V16 Piston Animal could well be the best Dyson vacuum based on specs alone." The technology 'experts' apparently.

 

[madaboutsebo]

Yes there is a live today! No doubt recorded from yesterday launch.

Nothing mentioned of the self emptying dok for the V16 as yet from leaked pictures. Sure that will come in time.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

What it did show, is that all the silly rumour idiots were wrong. It doesn't use bags. And it was obvious to a half-wit it wouldn't—because bags are stupid and represent the most ignorant and primitively tribal. It's the first cyclonic docking station. I still think it's a stupid waste of time as there's nothing difficult about emptying dust free in 5 seconds. I guess people can't even manage that successfully...

 

[shattered]

I don't like the idea of self emptying dok really. You're gonna have to clean vacuum and then docking station too.
Bags maybe would be a better as you'd just throw it away but then it's a bit silly, getting bagless vacuum to empty it into bags