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
Help Support VacuumLand:
)
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.
Similar threads
