herbicide
Well-known member
Well this is refreshing, the first part anyway.
Yet we are supposed to ignore others 'amatuer testing' but put full faith in your 'amatuer testing.'
Dyson Piston
- Thread starter Vacuum Facts
- Start date
Yet we are supposed to ignore others 'amatuer testing' but put full faith in your 'amatuer testing.'
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
@Vacuum Facts more misunderstanding again, sorry. This is not like AI, is not really fraught with mistakes. You took my words out of context - fitting for an arrogant guy with all the knowledge but little understanding (no offense though). Lab-like and laboratory-grade are not the same.
I can still agree that your testing procedure is free of the worst flaws of the kind YOU think I champions, when I have watched your videos. Surely, you're thinking that I never watched your videos. I am not an AI and my answers are far better than those generative AI. @Vacuum Facts, you just misunderstood me again, just as you thought I did you.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
Vacuumfacts, how is absolute rainbow an AI. I just don't understand.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I am trying to find the thread that vacuumfacts says that all his reviews have the testing procedures. I tried to find what post it was on. Then I looked on vacuum facts account for what post it was on. Then I found out that I am unable to view his account because he restricted my access to it. Anyway, I want to appologise if this is on the wrong thread, there is so many Dyson based threads and I can never remember what one I need to post on. I will watch all your reviews vacuumfacts and tell you all the errors I see in your testing. Evenly spread, how is that specific enough. Brush over twice, what brush and how stiff is it, how hard are you pressing down on it, is the back and forth motion consistent. 0.5 meters per second, how do you measure that. How is Dyson zorb exactly a replacement to real dirt. Dyson zorb has to be slightly damp meaning it is not going to work properly. I notice the nozzle is not being guided perfectly straight, how does this effect results. I could go on and on, however I know that it is not worth it.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
Also, I have never, ever seen someone vacuum the same spot 10 times. That is not realistic. Most people don't even vacuum in lines.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
The ATSM test procedure for removal of embedded dirt in carpet ( F608 ) specifies the kind of dirt to embed in the carpet, the quantity, the area that quantity has to be spread over and how many passes to make. It also specifies four different types of carpet to be tested as dirt removal will vary by carpet type. The procedure also requires the test use three or more examples of the same machine and averaging their results to normalize for the usual production variances among machines. This is why labs like Intertek charge over $1 million per vacuum type to perform these tests. Just obtaining copies of the test standards from ATSM costs a pile of money. What I know about the test procedure comes from several lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. Court records are public and free and the testimony and evidence is included. Lots of good insights into the test procedure from these publicly available documents where adherence to the test procedure was disputed between the litigants.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
@Vacuum Facts thinks I completely misunderstands EVERYTHING he stated/said/explained/whatever.
@cheesewonton we would appreciate it if you can recap the entire test procedure (the methods, the environment, the results, etc.) for us right here publicly at VacuumLand.org? Heck, I would've liked to compare the ATSM with Vacuum Facts' own home testing!
cheesewonton
Well-known member
ATSM wants you to pay them for a copy of the complete procedure. What I was able to learn about the test came from public testimony in two lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. The transcripts of the trials are public information. There were significant disputes whether the testing used by each company to support their claims were accomplished in accordance with the ATSM procedure and that testimony was my window into how the test is conducted, but it is not the same as having the actual test procedure manual in hand. I don't have the money to buy that.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Oh ok.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I can imagine it is extraordinarily expense too.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
There are so many reviews now of the V16 but no one's really discussing the new technologies in them in any meaningful detail. I find that just amazing. Worse, the things people are criticising are so facile and genuine non-issues, yet they seem oblivious to the actual issues worth criticising. I'm just in awe how badly people are dropping the ball on this one. They're actually outshining Dyson's failings with the machine tenfold. My review next year is going to be as much a criticism of the internet reviews as it is of some of Dyson's stunningly poor choices.
Having said that, the V16 is actually a really nice product and I'm enjoying it a lot more now. I much prefer it over the Gen5, and I've got it to clean extremely well in real-world conditions. The improvements are very impressive but no one has mentioned a thing online about them. I find that so astonishing. You really can see where Dyson are going and why, but you'd never know if you only relied on the lay internet.
Having said that, the V16 is actually a really nice product and I'm enjoying it a lot more now. I much prefer it over the Gen5, and I've got it to clean extremely well in real-world conditions. The improvements are very impressive but no one has mentioned a thing online about them. I find that so astonishing. You really can see where Dyson are going and why, but you'd never know if you only relied on the lay internet.
Last edited:
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
Well, 2026 is on it's way so maybe we can stop waiting. There was less suspense awaiting the release of anything than this. The whole dyson launch event had less buildup than this one review.
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
@Vacuum Facts great! How about you finally tell us about the mod that fixed the V16! TechRadar was so close to figuring the whole thing out but not only they ended up failed (they mis-blamed the floorhead), they didn't even bother double-checking or re-testing it again. Sad.
V16 is a tragic machine - a superior mains-equivalent crippled by some stupid design choices Dyson ended up making. Bruh
cheesewonton
Well-known member
Some of us are not impressed by, cough cough, "new technology". For me the tech just gets in the way. I just want something that is simple, basic, easy to use, cleans well enough and will last a couple of decades with no big failures or need for overhaul. The fancy tech is just bs I don't want to deal with. It's just something to clean my home, not a lifestyle statement.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
You've just described the V16 (or what it should be out of the box) more than any other machine I've ever used.
herbicide
Well-known member
“What it should be” is an interesting qualifier. One could apply that to anything, where that anything can be the best thing ever.
The limited reviews available seem to show its actual cleaning performance subpar to their own older models. To go a step further the old models’ actual cleaning performance is already subpar compared to many other makes (ones frequently discussed here). Proof you ask? Empirical evidence is plentiful on the internet.
The limited reviews available seem to show its actual cleaning performance subpar to their own older models. To go a step further the old models’ actual cleaning performance is already subpar compared to many other makes (ones frequently discussed here). Proof you ask? Empirical evidence is plentiful on the internet.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
There are many reviews. Despite all that, you didn't cite a single source which clearly and intelligently showed why. Oops. Any moron with half a brain can tell it doesn't clean as well out of the box (although many failed even this...). Only 2 sources I'm aware of have shown it convincingly; the rest of the cattle seem to attempt to show it by building site 'testing'. That, sadly, is a hallmark of serious intelligence deficiency and where to never look again. And not a single source has deduced why the performance is lower when it doesn't need to be, despite it being blindingly obvious if you understand how vacuum cleaners work at a fundamental level. That's the single biggest shame of all and deeply disheartening for me, since the knowledge is freely out there now. The V16 is a great opportunity for me to expose everything wrong with the internet and social media. And it's coming.
Last edited:
herbicide
Well-known member
Yea there plenty of reviews, I mean even you and your infinite knowledge has noted issues on this very thread. I don’t know the point in posting this as you’ll simply discount their findings and berate the reviewers, but here you go.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dyson+v16+reviews
Of course you can also simply refer to the previously linked reviews in this very thread.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I'm aware of the reviews (obviously...). I've already berated them above. They're facile and don't discuss anything important. They pointed out the obvious but didn't explain anything. The viewer is left poverty stricken from having watched their cosmetic review. It's clear they don't understand anything and their motivation was exploiting the viewer for their clicks profit...
herbicide
Well-known member
If you were aware of them, as I and everyone else knew you were, why the question?
As predicted, discounted and berating of the reviews on your behalf.
The whole point of their reviews is to (drumroll please) review the machines! It’s not to explain them to your personal fancies and discuss potential solutions to shortcomings. They review them with the intent of informing potential buyers of their features and performance.
Side note, but since your state these reviewers are motivated by “clicks and profit,” (obviously)Do you honestly believe the reason for all of Dyson’s marketing efforts are not motivated by their desire for sales and profits?
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I'm not quite sure why you made a prediction about something apparent before you responded. My comment was to berate the reviews and for the reasons outlined. You missed this, somehow? It was literally spelled out for you. Incredible.
And they've done a very poor job, which was the point you seemed to have missed, despite it being spelled out clearly, even before your 'prediction' of the apparent.
The worst are motivated by clicks and profit on social media. It doesn't have to be this way. This was the point you apparently missed. Not quite sure of your warped logic between the exploitative and weak reviewers out there, misleading and doing a very poor job, and a cherry-picked global manufacturer with different intentions. If it was a weak segway into the corruption of marketing, then there's plenty of discussion of that in the last 3 Dyson reviews I've done—just in case you fancied another one of your predictions of something already completely apparent.
herbicide
Well-known member
This is all actually pretty simple. The reviews show that the v16 has some deficiencies compared to prior models in the reviews. You choose to belittle and discount these reviews for ‘reasons’ that do not actually discredit their observations and opinions.
Again you’re here attempting to convince us to believe your observations, methods, etc, but ignore all the other empirical evidence counter to your claims, whilst not providing a scrap of evidence counter to these claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/thefilter/2025/oct/29/dyson-v16-piston-animal-vacuum-cleaner-review
In the cat litter test, I was left with more uncollected cat litter after a single forward pass and backward pull than I was with the Gen5detect, both on carpet and hard floor. The V16 was good at picking up pet hair, but no better than its predecessors, which are also excellent at this job.
Flour was the most disappointing test. On both carpet and hard floor, the V16 Piston Animal failed to transfer about 30% of my test spillages into the collection bin. Some of this was left on the floor, particularly in a central smear where there’s a gap between the two rollers. I also found flour in various nooks and crannies around the floor head, including a surprising amount inside the rollers themselves.
At the end of the day, based on most reviews, including this newer one from the Guardian. The V16 takes longer to clean areas than the previous model. Is it possible there's some sort of user error going on? Maybe. But when basically every review is saying the same thing, (Vacuum has good features but the cleaner head is poor), then I'm inclined to believe them.
Could you make more passes and still achieve the same results? Maybe. Most people make many passes regardless, BUT, the reviews still shows this cleaner head is essentially a straight up downgrade.
A family member had their hair cut in our kitchen yesterday, and there was a very LARGE amount of hair on the floor. Even more than what was seen in the test on the Guardian. I used the V15 Motorbar (which has the anti tangle combs), and it picked everything up and did not tangle a single strain. So I fail to see the benefit in the current design, seemed like a solution in search of a problem that didn't really exist. Seems like they just decided to implement the Hair Screw Tool idea into a larger format without thinking about any potential issues.
In the cat litter test, I was left with more uncollected cat litter after a single forward pass and backward pull than I was with the Gen5detect, both on carpet and hard floor. The V16 was good at picking up pet hair, but no better than its predecessors, which are also excellent at this job.
Flour was the most disappointing test. On both carpet and hard floor, the V16 Piston Animal failed to transfer about 30% of my test spillages into the collection bin. Some of this was left on the floor, particularly in a central smear where there’s a gap between the two rollers. I also found flour in various nooks and crannies around the floor head, including a surprising amount inside the rollers themselves.
At the end of the day, based on most reviews, including this newer one from the Guardian. The V16 takes longer to clean areas than the previous model. Is it possible there's some sort of user error going on? Maybe. But when basically every review is saying the same thing, (Vacuum has good features but the cleaner head is poor), then I'm inclined to believe them.
Could you make more passes and still achieve the same results? Maybe. Most people make many passes regardless, BUT, the reviews still shows this cleaner head is essentially a straight up downgrade.
A family member had their hair cut in our kitchen yesterday, and there was a very LARGE amount of hair on the floor. Even more than what was seen in the test on the Guardian. I used the V15 Motorbar (which has the anti tangle combs), and it picked everything up and did not tangle a single strain. So I fail to see the benefit in the current design, seemed like a solution in search of a problem that didn't really exist. Seems like they just decided to implement the Hair Screw Tool idea into a larger format without thinking about any potential issues.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
You appear to just not get it. Their tests aren't detailed for the most part, and when you do see them, they're absurd and unrepresentative of real world use. I spelled this out before, but you missed it again.
This doesn't really capture the point. Of course it's a performance downgrade. I said as much before most reviews were out and showed it, as did frickhelm. But don't you want to know why? This is suposed to be a Dyson! Those Guardian tests are in some cases utterly contrived, in others completely undefined, and may be unrepresentative—so they might get the right answer, coincidentally, but for the wrong reason, which is still misleading for readers. I've never had a single issue with the V16 not picking up rice and bits off hard floors in my real world use, so I'm completely unconvinced by whatever mystery test the guardian genius did that wasn't detailed respectably. There ARE performance issues out of the box (on carpet), and that review didn't even investigate or explain why. That's why it's a poor disservice. It was riddled with pathetic levels of ignorance. Dyson deserve to be both heavily praised and criticised for the V16, but these reviewers are total failures at doing even that, since they've overlooked so much and the key aspects that aren't skin deep. They are useless, and need to be called out and exposed.
Worse, why aren't people even equipped to ask the question why what these reviewers show even happens? The irony is, with a simple mod, the V16 is truly amazing and such an advancement, but exposes other weaknesses in its technology as a result. Not a single person has talked about any of this in detail and it's really important if you want to make an informed buying choice. The US release and reviews just can't come soon enough so I can expose the lot of them. The V16 has such a great story to tell.
herbicide
Well-known member
Yes you are correct. I don’t get your stance at all. Because per these other reviews it’s an amazingly expensive machine that struggles with the core task it’s meant for.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
I went into Harvey Norman and had my dad blind test (eyes closed) a few stick vacs. He tried in the following order and with these comments. Samsung Jet 75- that is nice although a bit heavy, Dyson V8 cyclone- that sounds like it is scraping and I can feel the vibrations, Dyson V9- that is quite light, Dyson V16-that is very heavy and difficult to use and it seems a bit weak, Shark Stratos- that is alright to use and fairly light, Miele HX1 Duoflex- that has a very nice and comfortable handle and it is also nice and light, LG autoempty machine- That is a lot heavier and not as nice, Dreame Z30- that has a bad swivel joint. He has very average size hands and is average height so represents an average person.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
Laughable. You can only say that because you have zero experience with actual high quality vacuums like a Swedish or American Electrolux, Sebo C3.1 with the ETC power nozzle, old steel body Eureka, Tristar, Miracle Mate, Patriot or Metrovac Evolution, even 1970s and early 80's Kenmores. Steel button lock or steel telescopic wands, wire reinforced hoses, big casters on steel axles, steel bodies, two stage motors, stuff that is made to last a long time and not wear out. You don't have the slightest idea what a great vacuum is. Go buy yourself an Electrolux Silverado on ebay, take it apart and clean it up. Lots of videos show you how. See what a durable and powerful suction motor looks like. Put it back together, put a genunie Aerus Style C synthetic dust bag and the genuine Aerus activated charcoal pre motor filter in it, clean up the power nozzle, replace the belt and brush roll so everything is fresh and working right and use that for a while.. Find out what a durable high quality vacuum feels like to use, not this creaky squeaky hard plastic kludge from Diesoon.
centralsweeper63
Well-known member
He is in the uk tough so a silverado would be the wrong voltage.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
Well if V-F is anywhere in Europe he can easily buy what might be the finest vacuum ever made, the Lux 1R D820 with the Ze3 power brush. If the Lux comes with the older hose that has the power brush power cord clipped to the outside of the hose, replace it with the K35 hose which carries the wiring internally. There is also an adapter that will let you use a Lux Intelligence or Powerprof hose on the D820. With that you can use the nicer Intelligence telescopic wand and PB-1 power brush. The D820 is silent and very powerful. The Ze3 is likewise very quiet. I have a couple I bought in Japan and the Japan market examples run fine on US household current, but V-F can buy a European one and find out what a durable top quality vacuum is all about. It doesn't get any better than the D820. Then he will understand perhaps why so many of us thing Dysons and Sharks feel so cheap and nasty.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
Laughable, eh? This is a tired piece of embarrasingly pathetic illogicality, and it's hypocritical. Figures. I've used cumbersome, heavy, awkward, plug-in mains cleaners and would never go back (including Dyson machines). I've used bagged cleaners and I'd never go back. I've used cleaners with running costs and I'd never go back. I've used cleaners which tangle hair around a single straight floor roller and I'd never go back (including the Gen5). I've used cleaners which don't auto adjust to all floor types without head changes and I'd never go back. And so on and so on. Regardless of what the product is, the problems stem from the fundamental technologies being used. I'm aware of this because, unlike you, hypocritically, I've used the latest technologies and experienced them. I've also understood their evolution at a deeper technical level.
Arguing the Dyson stick vacs aren't durable without strong evidence of a wide range of widespread failures (distinct from single isolated issues) is nonsense because all mechanical devices can have occasional issues. Real weaknesses are things like needing replacement belts, filters, or other ancilliaries. Seeing claims of lack of durability without evidence is a mindless smear by the weakly positioned. Terms like "creaky squeaky hard plastic" are hallmarks of nonissues that show incredible ignorance, as cemented by mindless and childishly moronic terms like "Diesoon". You've come across very unrespectably because of all this. Don't bring up this silly, nonsensical non-argument again; it just makes you look incredibly foolish. If you think you're right about anything you have to say, come back with the only thing that's relevant: convincing, objective, independently verifiable evidence. It's what I present in all my videos and what gives me confidence, and others can manage it. You wouldn't know because you've never apparently bothered to properly and carefully watch any of them, it seems. You've never, ever provided a dot of evidence for any of your positions, except the history of cyclonic cleaners that no one sensible even argued about. This lack of strong supporting evidence is why you carry absolutely no respect whatsoever with me in your outbursts. You've demonstrated repeatedly to be a hollow talker, like many that loiter here. It was obvious from the beginning because even when I provided the quantified scientific explanation and maths behind an airflow correction factor for vane anemometers in pipes, explaining why it has that value that you otherwise just simply looked up and auto-accepted, you just brushed it off as gobbledygook showing you just can't be helped to understand low level, relevant details, and to have better grounding for your output—which is why it's so wonky and is clearly subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. This conflicts so strongly with your repeated statements about your past history in defence and engineering. No one in my team would survive 5 minutes if they didn't independently learn to establish what's true from first principles and be superior.
I have a track record of looking at old machines people have claimed are good without good reason. They weren't, and the pathetic crybabies kicked and screamed and cried rivers when the evidence showed as much. I have a track record of investigating modern machines that manufacturers claim or imply are market-leading. They weren't and I exposed their deception quantitatively. Tribal idiots kicked and screamed and cried rivers over that too as they defecated all over my YT channel in bizarre rage. I know what's true because the evidence shows it. If anyone thinks I'm a Dyson fanboy, they're going to be spectacularly embarrassed and exposed as the pathetic, ignorant, tribal fools the best of us already know they were come my V16 review—the first real reason to heavily criticise (and praise) a Dyson product, as the evidence will show. And it'll be the same evidence, I might add, that is used to praise and criticise all other products. I'm consistent; the whiny, tribal crybabies are not. And calling a spade a spade on my channel doesn't make me "rude" or "hostile" or "insulting". These are terms used by genuine pillocks to try and cosmetically smear when they've got absolutely no substantive argument of their own, so look out for the culprits and judge accordingly, as many do I now know. Fortunately, most people are positive and respectful, even if they disagree, and they're treated as such, but there are always a few rotten eggs with bad attitudes that need putting in their place—the bin. Until I arrived, they congregated here. Now they've scuttled off back under the bridge where they came from with all the other trolls.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
I think this is vintage, a Casio Phonemate built Kenmore bagless upright
- Latest: centralsweeper63
-
Electrolux 'E4' Z300 bags no longer available? Nope. Going to start making them myself.
- Latest: centralsweeper63
-
-
-