Dyson Piston

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

I assume you had a point but it's just trolling nonsense. There's nothing wrong with my behaviour. You just don't like being at the receiving end of a spade being called a spade. And you're off topic, yet again. If you've nothing to add directly to the original thread topic, please don't comment again.
 
Last edited:
I assume you had a point but it's just trolling nonsense. There's nothing wrong with my behaviour. You just don't like being at the receiving end of a spade being called a spade. And you're off topic, yet again. If you've nothing to add directly to the original thread topic, please don't comment again.
You just can’t help yourself.

But I’ll make a deal with you. If you show actual receipts for your claims and conclusions, I won’t challenge you to do so.
 
This is a common troll tactic. Say something elsewhere that's antaonistic, logically inconsistent, and ridiculous, wait for a free response that calls a spade a spade, then cherrypick that person pointing this out to misleadingly suggest constitutes 'poor behaviour'. It's crude goading and the best of us are very familiar with it. This is yet more off-topic witch-hunting that has no place here. I appreciate you're stung @herbicide and @Hatsuwr, but if you don't like having your comments responded to openly on my channel, then don't comment there. You've wilfully gone off topic here to attack in a contrived and deceitful way multiple times now without adding any value to the thread topic. Second request to please stay on topic and can the faux witch-hunting.@
The hits keep coming!

Let’s not forget you asked for examples of this behavior. You asked in this very thread.

So, now both asking for evidence on your claims and also directly answering (ahem providing evidence) gets one called a troll amongst many other things.
I assume you had a point but it's just trolling nonsense. There's nothing wrong with my behaviour. You just don't like being at the receiving end of a spade being called a spade. And you're off topic, yet again. If you've nothing to add directly to the original thread topic, please don't comment again.
You just can’t help yourself.

But I’ll make a deal with you. If you show actual receipts for your claims and conclusions, I won’t challenge you to do so.
I guess I should remember the advice from forums of old: don't feed the troll. Welcome to the ignore list. Population: you.
@herbicide now you know what happens when one managed to feed the troll. Your unhelpful take p1553d people like @Vacuum Facts off.

If anyone are still owning a V16 Piston Animal (whether it be normal model or the Submarine one with that rolling mop head), tell me and @Vacuum Facts himself. Also:
 

Attachments

  • 18581.jpg
    18581.jpg
    521 KB
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).
Why is anybody supposed to guess why a new product performs worse and why would they try to fix it? That sounds like something a QA team could investigate.
The V16 is great if you fix the actual issue with it.
So are many products that release with critical issues lol
 
Why is anybody supposed to guess why a new product performs worse and why would they try to fix it? That sounds like something a QA team could investigate.
The reviewers should have smartly figured it all out, but none have, which to me shows they don't really know what they're talking about, they don't understand things, and can only give a cosmetic review at best, which isn't really valuable. The V16, the new technologies within it, and its cock-ups, are a rare opportunity to quantify the value of the reviews out there.
 
The reviewers should have smartly figured it all out, but none have, which to me shows they don't really know what they're talking about, they don't understand things, and can only give a cosmetic review at best, which isn't really valuable. The V16, the new technologies within it, and its cock-ups, are a rare opportunity to quantify the value of the reviews out there.
But I don't really care about why it performs worse, I (and most people) only care about its performance out of the box.

Knowing why that happens can be a nice addon but, ultimately, Dyson should have fixed whatever the issue is, the conclusion most of these reviews have remains correct, the v16 performs worse out of the box.

I personally don't think reviewers need to explain why the performance is worse, they review the product as it is and expose the results they get. I follow some tech channels that try to go into further level of detail with GPUs, CPUs or cases, however, that is not the standard and those videos are just a 'nerd' show, most people don't care about the details.
 
But I don't really care about why it performs worse, I (and most people) only care about its performance out of the box.
I suspect you're right. In which case, as shown early on in this thread a few weeks ago, know the V16 is much poorer out of the box for avoidable reasons that ruin all the advancements otherwise made.
the conclusion most of these reviews have remains correct, the v16 performs worse out of the box.... I personally don't think reviewers need to explain why the performance is worse,
Yes, but it's a trivial one any reviewer can conclude. The problem is, they DO attempt to explain why and get it completely wrong. That's misleading and ends up doing a disservice to viewers. This important point is missed too often. That failure should be called out.
 
Why is anybody supposed to guess why a new product performs worse and why would they try to fix it? That sounds like something a QA team could investigate.

So are many products that release with critical issues lol
The reviewers should have smartly figured it all out, but none have, which to me shows they don't really know what they're talking about, they don't understand things, and can only give a cosmetic review at best, which isn't really valuable. The V16, the new technologies within it, and its cock-ups, are a rare opportunity to quantify the value of the reviews out there.
But I don't really care about why it performs worse, I (and most people) only care about its performance out of the box.

Knowing why that happens can be a nice addon but, ultimately, Dyson should have fixed whatever the issue is, the conclusion most of these reviews have remains correct, the v16 performs worse out of the box.

I personally don't think reviewers need to explain why the performance is worse, they review the product as it is and expose the results they get. I follow some tech channels that try to go into further level of detail with GPUs, CPUs or cases, however, that is not the standard and those videos are just a 'nerd' show, most people don't care about the details.
I suspect you're right. In which case, as shown early on in this thread a few weeks ago, know the V16 is much poorer out of the box for avoidable reasons that ruin all the advancements otherwise made.

Yes, but it's a trivial one any reviewer can conclude. The problem is, they DO attempt to explain why and get it completely wrong. That's misleading and ends up doing a disservice to viewers. This important point is missed too often. That failure should be called out.
It's better to try the hardest to find out the true shortcomings than to either leave the sh1t out and take the resulting downfalls as is or (worse yet) pointing out the wrong cause.

I wonder why TechRadar rejected my initial new reply regarding the OOTB performance of the first batches of the V16...
 
Last edited:
@Vacuum Facts @cheesewonton @vac14012 well, TechRadar forbids links in comment. I finally got the actual comment going, and here it is:
18591.jpg
The fact that V16 is crippled have been caught on already, but the why has not only not been found, but has been ruined with overall half-hearted attempts to explain the real problem - instead reviewers chose to blame the new dual-cone floorhead which performs admirably despite angled front wall and unswept center line (and yes, it de-tangles flawlessly, with no extra wear or noise). Why can't anyone properly try to give deeper?

Also, TechRadar too thought the unswept center line meant even less pick-up... but they've been using a lesser version of big mess (yep, the type of tests like what Parwaz tends to do) that isn't representative of actual home cleaning - that pick-up at that line won't be too bad, and you can even get away by overlapping a bit more, and you still get all the remaining benefits.

(The misinformations and the fact that @Vacuum Facts isn't grateful for my honest help frustrates me.)
 
The problem you're creating is that some of what you say is not fully accurate and there's far more to it and much nuance. Your output is indistinct from a generative AI which takes dribs and drabs of existing input, not all of which is known to you, and generates an output that isn't always right. This is misleading and causing confusion and lack of clarity about the situation. At least AI output comes with the disclaimer that it can make mistakes and should be fact-checked. If you want to help in your public arguments with others that you continually cite me in with claims I don't necessarily agree with, you'd do better to fully understand all the background science, advance knowledge on this topic independently and support it with evidence, correctly identify the problems and interpret them within the much bigger picture, and outline all this thoroughly and clearly. This is what I intend to do eventually. You'll notice I'm not having these kinds of public arguments with other reviewers out there yet, or making too many detailed factual claims, since I haven't evidenced them yet. There's much more to the V16 than I've discussed here and don't intend to until the review next year. All those that have spouted nonsense out there in the meantime (including that yet to come when released in the US) will get their time from me eventually, in usual fashion.

The V16 is simultaneously good and bad, and how and why I'll give my thoughts on at a later date. I've said this right from the start.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone measured the opening on the floor head yet? The double conical design looks like it results in a larger opening than the old gen5detect floor head, which would reduce the effective suction even with the same air watts.

I haven't seen a review with water lift yet either.
 
Has anyone measured the opening on the floor head yet? The double conical design looks like it results in a larger opening than the old gen5detect floor head, which would reduce the effective suction even with the same air watts.

I haven't seen a review with water lift yet either.
Nozzle design is more complex than just the size of the opening. Miele and Wessel-Werk power nozzles have openings that are very close to the rotating brush and in my home they clean miserably. Kenmore and Sebo power nozzles used with the same vacuums both do a better job and the Kenmore nozzles especially have larger openings around the brush roll. Suction is one part of what cleans a carpet. You need to get some air moving under the brush roll and up into the nozzle to get the dirt moving. That weird Harold Electrolux Ze3 power nozzle has a nice unobstructed V shaped air path from the nozzle opening back to the neck where it attaches to the wand. The brush drive motor is up above the air path right behind the headlight instead of on the base like most power nozzles.
 
This is the air path on an Electrolux Ze3. Despite the wimpy little brush roll and complete lack of wheels it is one of my better power nozzles. There is space between the bottom plate and drive motor housing for air to flow and as a result it cleans really well, but you can only use it on carpet or rugs.
Yes, that's a standard Eureka stretch belt. A bit wider and longer lasting than the OEM part.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0779.JPG
    IMG_0779.JPG
    849.2 KB
  • IMG_0780.JPG
    IMG_0780.JPG
    761.5 KB
This is the air path on an Electrolux Ze3. Despite the wimpy little brush roll and complete lack of wheels it is one of my better power nozzles. There is space between the bottom plate and drive motor housing for air to flow and as a result it cleans really well, but you can only use it on carpet or rugs.
Yes, that's a standard Eureka stretch belt. A bit wider and longer lasting than the OEM part.
Does the metal tray have additional baffles or is the 'inside' profile a simple stamping (what you can deduce from the picture)
 
My ze3's have bad belts and I haven't ordered new ones yet. I will have to do that soon though. However, they are nice to use anyway. I hate it when a machine needs something as simple as a belt or a bag and it is expense to get because of shipping. Then I have to wait before I can buy it , then the brush roll doesn't spin properly so it doesn't work. Oh well.
 
The problem you're creating is that some of what you say is not fully accurate and there's far more to it and much nuance. Your output is indistinct from a generative AI which takes dribs and drabs of existing input, not all of which is known to you, and generates an output that isn't always right. This is misleading and causing confusion and lack of clarity about the situation. At least AI output comes with the disclaimer that it can make mistakes and should be fact-checked. If you want to help in your public arguments with others that you continually cite me in with claims I don't necessarily agree with, you'd do better to fully understand all the background science, advance knowledge on this topic independently and support it with evidence, correctly identify the problems and interpret them within the much bigger picture, and outline all this thoroughly and clearly. This is what I intend to do eventually. You'll notice I'm not having these kinds of public arguments with other reviewers out there yet, or making too many detailed factual claims, since I haven't evidenced them yet. There's much more to the V16 than I've discussed here and don't intend to until the review next year. All those that have spouted nonsense out there in the meantime (including that yet to come when released in the US) will get their time from me eventually, in usual fashion.

The V16 is simultaneously good and bad, and how and why I'll give my thoughts on at a later date. I've said this right from the start.
@Vacuum Facts, my comments are never AI-generated at all. It's all my honest opinions, and I agreed with you in the first place because you're objective.

In fact, these reviewers are even less distinct from generative AI than my words ever could've been. Unfortunately, while advanced knowledge and background science you gave us is useful, the way you presented it is hard to understand and swallow. There's a good reason why not everyone can understand you, but I can.

@Vacuum Facts, I agree that the full review can wait, but did you ever think about releasing a guide on how to make the mod to fix the batch of V16 that you got and tested. This tragic machine will be ridden with misinformations even WORSE than its true design flaws, and you're taking a risk by refusing to discuss most things until through your review that's now designed to only be released in 2026. You have plenty of time to evidence your things first, but while the full review can wait, the required modification cannot. As for those who chose to spout actual nonsense... shame on them still.
Has anyone measured the opening on the floor head yet? The double conical design looks like it results in a larger opening than the old gen5detect floor head, which would reduce the effective suction even with the same air watts.

I haven't seen a review with water lift yet either.
Nozzle design is more complex than just the size of the opening. Miele and Wessel-Werk power nozzles have openings that are very close to the rotating brush and in my home they clean miserably. Kenmore and Sebo power nozzles used with the same vacuums both do a better job and the Kenmore nozzles especially have larger openings around the brush roll. Suction is one part of what cleans a carpet. You need to get some air moving under the brush roll and up into the nozzle to get the dirt moving. That weird Harold Electrolux Ze3 power nozzle has a nice unobstructed V shaped air path from the nozzle opening back to the neck where it attaches to the wand. The brush drive motor is up above the air path right behind the headlight instead of on the base like most power nozzles.
This is the air path on an Electrolux Ze3. Despite the wimpy little brush roll and complete lack of wheels it is one of my better power nozzles. There is space between the bottom plate and drive motor housing for air to flow and as a result it cleans really well, but you can only use it on carpet or rugs.
Yes, that's a standard Eureka stretch belt. A bit wider and longer lasting than the OEM part.
See
 
As I have have said before and will say again, science and theory cannot defeat actual testing. Also, there is always a way to make one machine look better and one look worse. Therefore anyone that makes claims that are quite out there, well, I have a hard time believing them. Also, vacuumfacts. The reason why cyclones clog up is as follows, the discharge channels are very small and get clogged, then dirt starts to pile up in them and it eventually reaches the cyclones. The cyclones are then clogged. I know that overfilling the bin is technically "abuse". I know that the full line should be respected, however it can be very hard to look at the bin constantly when you are vacuum and paying attention to other things. If that is abuse then my Electrolux d338 was put through, well, whatever you can describe filling the bag to a brick and still using it, sucking up small amounts of water, getting literally thorwn and many,many other things. That Electrolux never gives up or throws a fit, it just works. I timed how long it takes to unplug and rewind the cable, shake out the bag and put it away. ! minute and 15 seconds. Pretty good for a corded vacuum. and as for these "dangerous, . I have noticed in your Kirby review that you demonstrate it without the tech drive on and go on complaining about it being "impossible to push".I would rather a simple two position switch for techdrive then battery's running out of charge and everything else. I agree with your points about the belts needing replacement and the fan potentially getting damaged, although I have never seen a broken fan on any of my 7 kirbys. You were lifting from the top of the handle instead of the carrying handle at 3:11. Is winding a cable really that hard. At 4:50 you complained about it being hard to use and push. Techdrive is very simple to use, flicking a pedal to turn techdrive off is really quite simple. Manually adjusting height is very simple, I never have a problem with it. I agree that the tools can be a bit fiddly, although I must say that you had the height adjustment on the lowest setting making it almost impossible to use. Kirby's use a low moisture foam based shampoo system. Dyson zorb and Kirby foam work almost exactly the same. One gets a pass and one is terrible though, I see. I agree that the handheld machine was not a good idea... However I just use the hose. I can convert a Kirby to tool mode in less than a minute, it just takes some practice. I am sure that any Dyson is a learning curve just the same. I like headlights as I can clean down a hallway without having to stop and turn the lights on. A V10 is quieter I know, although it has an ear pearcing whine. I showed my uncle the Kirby and he said that it was a wonderful vacuum and that it sound terrific. I also showed it to my school friend who said that he has to have one and that it is the best vacuum he has ever seen. If the Kirby is unable to be sold in the eu because of noise, what about the avalir 2 still being sold. They have fixed that problem already. Bags that stink. I have used many, many vacuums in many environments. I have never seen a smelly Kirby. Kirby's don't really need that much servicing. People just want to make a quick buck. I have never seen a Kirby that was not repairable. In New Zealand you rarely see glued down carpet unless it is in a commercial environment or garage carpeting. At 16:10 you use a Kirby in upright mode on hard floors. That is why they sell a hard floor pad. at 16:35 you simply need to put the height adjustment up a notch. You show Dyson videos showing a statement that dyson's are designed to last 10 years. Meanwhile you are using a 25+ year old Kirby and complaining about durability.I am in middle school and have never had a single problem understanding or managing a Kirby.
 
As I have have said before and will say again, science and theory cannot defeat actual testing.
Also, vacuumfacts. The reason why cyclones clog up is as follows, the discharge channels are very small and get clogged, then dirt starts to pile up in them and it eventually reaches the cyclones. The cyclones are then clogged.
So, you claim to champion "actual testing" rather than theory. You've just spouted a wild claim. Let's judge your future worthiness to be heard by seeing you present your testing that unequivocally evidences this 'theory'. To be convincing, you should explain the conditions associated with your clogging and characterise cyclone clogging efficiency as a function of key parameters you've identified with evidence.

Same for the rest of your claims.
I have noticed in your Kirby review that you demonstrate it without the tech drive on and go on complaining about it being "impossible to push".
You seemed to completely misunderstand the point of that part of the review. I recommend rewatching and listening to everything that's said. The rest of the Kirby defence you provided isn't likely to convince unhappy users of those old dinosaurs. This has nothing to do with this thread.
Dyson zorb and Kirby foam work almost exactly the same.
Again, I'll leave you to formally quantify and evidence this convincingly to retain respect. This has nothing to do with this thread.

...at 16:35 you simply need to put the height adjustment up a notch.
You understand the consequences of that don't you? You understand the theory? You've quantified the physical effects of the theory in practice? This has nothing to do with this thread.
You show Dyson videos showing a statement that dyson's are designed to last 10 years. Meanwhile you are using a 25+ year old Kirby and complaining about durability.I am in middle school and have never had a single problem understanding or managing a Kirby.
You've misunderstood what was meant by durability. This is particularly spectacular since it was explicitly discussed. I can only recommend you rewatch the video and listen this time. You've already contradicted yourself by agreeing about belts etc. This has nothing to do with this thread.
 
So, you claim to champion "actual testing" rather than theory. You've just spouted a wild claim. Let's judge your future worthiness to be heard by seeing you present your testing that unequivocally evidences this 'theory'. To be convincing, you should explain the conditions associated with your clogging and characterise cyclone clogging efficiency as a function of key parameters you've identified with evidence.

Same for the rest of your claims.

You seemed to completely misunderstand the point of that part of the review. I recommend rewatching and listening to everything that's said. The rest of the Kirby defence you provided isn't likely to convince unhappy users of those old dinosaurs. This has nothing to do with this thread.

Again, I'll leave you to formally quantify and evidence this convincingly to retain respect. This has nothing to do with this thread.


You understand the consequences of that don't you? You understand the theory? You've quantified the physical effects of the theory in practice? This has nothing to do with this thread.

You've misunderstood what was meant by durability. This is particularly spectacular since it was explicitly discussed. I can only recommend you rewatch the video and listen this time. You've already contradicted yourself by agreeing about belts etc. This has nothing to do with this thread.
@centralsweeper63 do the testing properly, and you'll win.
 
So, you claim to champion "actual testing" rather than theory

I just retired from a career in the weapons development world. Theory is all fine and dandy but until you test you really know nothing. I have seen what on paper looked like fabulous designs with all kinds of eye watering physics and engineering behind them only to fail miserably when tested under realistic field / combat conditions. Consider we have been working on perfecting the ducted rocket ramjet since the 1950s. The US Navy invented the design but you have never seen that kind of propulsion on any operational weapon yet. We made them work for certain applications like the GQM-163 Coyote supersonic target, but they are temperamental beasts that are exquisitely sensitive to intake airflow, and that is affected by any maneuvers the air vehicle makes. We know the theory but applying it is where the rubber meets the road. If you ever wondered why you don't see air breathing air to air or surface to air missiles in the US inventory, that is why. They stall out too often in hard turns due to the disruption in airflow. There have been ramjet missile programs over the years that went nowhere in part due to this, and due to cost. Making a ramjet is frighteningly expensive compared to a solid fuel rocket. We made our rocket tech, which on paper is supposedly inferior to the ramjet, work better in the real world by dint of constant development and lots and lots of testing. This is real life.
A vacuum isn't an air to air missile but the same idea applies. What might look good on paper and might have a bunch of tricky looking math behind it is all fine and dandy but what does it do when you try to clean with it? And is this eye watering design producible at a cost that will allow the manufacturer to make a profit at the intended price point? And does the product stay together in the hands of the typical neglectful and abusive user? That is what matters, not all the tricky math.
 
So, you claim to champion "actual testing" rather than theory

I just retired from a career in the weapons development world. Theory is all fine and dandy but until you test you really know nothing. I have seen what on paper looked like fabulous designs with all kinds of eye watering physics and engineering behind them only to fail miserably when tested under realistic field / combat conditions. Consider we have been working on perfecting the ducted rocket ramjet since the 1950s. The US Navy invented the design but you have never seen that kind of propulsion on any operational weapon yet. We made them work for certain applications like the GQM-163 Coyote supersonic target, but they are temperamental beasts that are exquisitely sensitive to intake airflow, and that is affected by any maneuvers the air vehicle makes. We know the theory but applying it is where the rubber meets the road. If you ever wondered why you don't see air breathing air to air missiles in the US inventory, that is why. They stall out too often in hard turns due to the disruption in airflow. There have been ramjet missile programs over the years that went nowhere in part due to this, and due to cost. Making a ramjet is frighteningly expensive compared to a solid fuel rocket. We made our rocket tech, which on paper is supposedly inferior to the ramjet, work better in the real world by dint of constant development and lots and lots of testing. This is real life.
A vacuum isn't an air to air missile but the same idea applies. What might look good on paper and might have a bunch of tricky looking math behind it is all fine and dandy but what does it do when you try to clean with it? And is this eye watering design producible at a cost that will allow the manufacturer to make a profit at the intended price point? And does the product stay together in the hands of the typical neglectful and abusive user? That is what matters, not all the tricky math.
Meanwhile, @Vacuum Facts keeps trying lab-like testing procedure in his home...
 
@centralsweeper63 do the testing properly, and you'll win.
None of us can afford the labs and test equipment used by the likes of Intertek so any testing we do it casual at best and our results anecdotal. None of us can afford to buy three to five examples of each kind of vacuum we might want to test to perform the tests according to the international standards that define how each test is to be conducted. You need to test several examples of any given vacuum to normalize for the expected variations in production examples. Unless one is extremely wealthy and has the time and resources to invest in a lab comparable to what Intertek has any testing us mere mortals do give anecdotal results at best. Getting into a urinating competition over this is kind of pointless.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top