Dyson Piston

Gather App
VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

No, we don't really buy Dyson. If a user accidentally breaks it or their normal use wears it down, the product is not fit for purpose. If I use a Dyson in the same way as a Kirby (just an example) and the Dyson lasts 4 years and the Kirby lasts 25, the Kirby is better made. Products should fit the user, not the other way around.
 
Absolute Rainbow said:
It's because you guys are not using and maintaining those machines good enough. Most of the breaking are mostly by accidents. The rest are abuse and neglect, as @Vacuum Facts called out on.
Click to expand...
There's Dysons in museums that break sitting on the pedestals. Everything is made to last the same length of time as the warranty and no more. The plastic starts rotting after 10 years. The circuit boards are made from the lowest common bidder, and have so many cycles before a capacitor or a relay fails. Same for battery packs that swell up and catch fire. Nothing on a Dyson is made to last. Most of the Dysons I have are older than you, and every single one of them has a part that fails just since the last time I turned it off. Many other collectors can tell you the same.

here's a forum from 2005;

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/forum/threads/do-dyson-vacuums-suck.83151/
 
huskyvacs said:
There's Dysons in museums that break sitting on the pedestals. Everything is made to last the same length of time as the warranty and no more. The plastic starts rotting after 10 years. The circuit boards are made from the lowest common bidder, and have so many cycles before a capacitor or a relay fails. Same for battery packs that swell up and catch fire. Nothing on a Dyson is made to last. Most of the Dysons I have are older than you, and every single one of them has a part that fails just since the last time I turned it off. Many other collectors can tell you the same.

here's a forum from 2005;

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/forum/threads/do-dyson-vacuums-suck.83151/
Click to expand...
Shall include the... you guessed it, cordless vacuums!

By the time existing flagships break down (5-10 years from purchase), you'll probably have saved enough money to buy another.
 
frickhelm said:
I tested this with 60 cm long synthetic hair with an more or less realistic amount of hair and the v16 head was not perfect (it also had this build up ath the side not beeing removed anymore and floating arround) but did much much better compared to the gen5 head with the tested hair lenght and amount (which tangles alot of the hair). I will upload some more stuff soon.
And tbh - even in this totally unrealistic scenario (i have even no barber ever seen vacuuming up this amount of hair, they always sweep it manually) used for your quoted testing (i found the video) it worked at the end but not as fast as the cutting head of the compared dreame (question of longterm wear of the cutting blades).
Click to expand...
I will always love James Dyson's continuous desire to introduce new ways of building a product, his study is sincere and passionate despite being such a famous company, but seeing that video I put where Dyson with a brush designed for hair failed and shark with a brush clearly inspired by fluffy won, for me was a very serious failure..

If you saw in the quoted video in the end the reviewer found out that the Dyson brush spit out all that tangle of hair without vacuuming it, very very bad

(Of course it's a very extreme test, but it's also for dreame who won the challenge anyway)
 
Last edited:
Absolute Rainbow said:
Well, here's an article about the ergonomics of Dyson cordless vacuums. Basically, the brand wants their products to be as ergonomic as possible without sacrificing any durability whatsoever. This is why ergonomics seem to be a mixed bag for Dyson cordless.
Click to expand...
Dyson has always preferred function over design and this is what makes it a well designed product, Dyson vacuum cleaners have never been beautiful to look at but they have always been functional and this makes them recognizable and iconic, aesthetics must always be based on usability and not vice versa, it is one of the fundamental principles in design and architecture schools, that is why many buildings have begun to be less and less decorated and opulent after the 1920s and especially after the Bauhaus and the Avant-garde;

Probably the choice to make the new brush of the v16 like an arrow was a gamble for frontal suction but it is the best solution for cliffs its function against the hair and to accommodate the conical rollers ensuring a sealed closure, nothing is left to chance but you always have to compromise in the design if you want a good product
 
Last edited:
I paid 2 dollars for a "two day pass" so I can access the rtings review. I'll report back what they think about it. They're usually fairly objective from memory.
 
Last edited:
It does an amazing job in their pet hair test, but that seems to be the only thing the cleaner head is good at. But the Gen5 picked up the same amount of hair and also didn't tangle so i'm not seeing the benefit.
 
Gen5 Pethair: https://i.rtings.com/assets/product..._Mp4_Avc_16x9_1280x720p_30Hz_6.5Mbps_qvbr.mp4

V16 Pethair: https://i.rtings.com/assets/product..._Mp4_Avc_16x9_3840x2160p_30Hz_45Mbps_qvbr.mp4

If anything the Gen5 performed better imo because it doesn't have the empty cleaning line in the middle... Technically the V16 picked up more in a first pass where the cleaning path is but, it's fairly minor.

This is a disaster imo. It seems like they designed the entire head around the anti tangling ability, which is great buut...it basically sucks at anything else. And the Gen5 didn't even tangle with the same amount of hair in each test so, what's the point? The new cleaner head seems like it would have been better as like a specialized tool for hair salons or something.
 
Last edited:
This whole situation reminds me of when they launched the dc11 with multiple innovations such as the double cyclonic tank and the wrap tube but people continued to prefer the dc08 as it is more powerful and less "technological" so Dyson not only left the dc08 for sale becoming the best-selling model and setting aside the dc11 but also updated the design with the wrap tube, I hope they do something like that for the v16 too because it has theoretical potential but not practical
Gen5 is still on the market as the same price, fortunately people can choose
 
I could refurbish an old steel body Electrolux Model 1521 and its PN5 or PN6 power nozzle and in refurbished form the old Electrolux would last decades longer than any new Diesoon or Shark made today. Innovation for the sake of innovating is spinning one's wheels. Diesoon is not making their vacuums appreciably better each year. The opposite seems to be the case.
 
I think that a manufacturer who tries to introduce novelties in a category should always be rewarded, of course you always have to pay the price to be the first, for example Dyson mounted a digital motor on a vacuum cleaners for the first time in the dc12 and it was less powerful than a brush motor, but now all vacuum cleaners have digital motors and over time they have become more and more powerful; unfortunately it is a tough game and not always the one who arrives first wins, but as far as I'm concerned studying design, these are the manufacturers who have an advantage and a plus in the market, regardless of the final result
When Dyson launched the dc15 in 2006 it was the first cordless vacuum cleaner properly design, it was a prototype and yet it created a watershed and now all vacuum cleaners are wireless after many many years, there are many valid cordless vacuum cleaners now, but without a first attempt at change would the current story be like this?
It’s always a matter of the right intuition
 
Dyson definitely has declined over the years, although they were never good. I do like the DC07 as a bagless machine, it seems to have the same quality as my Riccar Spirit. It seems like Dyson designed the earlier models (DC07 or DC14) for the user, with a few caveats. I do like that Dyson automatically puts a good length of cord on their vacuums. I will say that Dyson did not think out the use ability of the older machines, you cannot clean up to kitchen cabinets, or up to beds. On the other hand, the modern Dyson ball models feel flimsy. I really cannot get on the cordless bandwagon, I’m never satisfied. I have a V8 that has had a motor head go bad, and is now rather loose at 8 years old. If you must have bagless, I will say Dyson is the best.
 
For some reason Dyson is the only company to make Bagless Vacuums with actual Cyclones so the filters don't clog instantly like on Sharks or other budget brands.

I had a Ball Animal series upright for a year and only cleaned the pre motor filter like one time. Never even touched the post motor filter, as it only had some mild carbon dust from the motor which is unavoidable. When I sold it I cleaned the bin up and the shroud and you could barely tell it's been used. Granted I took care of it more than the average consumer maybe.

At my job we have a commercial Hoover "TaskVac" bagless upright and it's awful in comparison.
 
Last edited:
vac14012 said:
For some reason Dyson is the only company to make Bagless Vacuums with actual Cyclones so the filters don't clog instantly like on Sharks or other budget brands.

I had a Ball Animal series upright for a year and only cleaned the pre motor filter like one time. Never even touched the post motor filter, as it only had some mild carbon dust from the motor which is unavoidable. When I sold it I cleaned the bin up and the shroud and you could barely tell it's been used. Granted I took care of it more than the average consumer maybe.

At my job we have a commercial Hoover "TaskVac" bagless upright and it's awful in comparison.
Click to expand...
This is because Dyson patented even the air that James Dyson breathed haha at the end of day, unfortunately, people don’t understand the difference between a cyclone and a fake cyclone system….especially when the price is low, magically the fake cyclones become better 😂
 
I could refurbish an old steel body Electrolux Model 1521 and its PN5 or PN6 power nozzle and in refurbished form the old Electrolux would last decades longer than any new Diesoon or Shark made today. Innovation for the sake of innovating is spinning one's wheels. Diesoon is not making their vacuums appreciably better each year. The opposite seems to be the case.
Follettolover said:
I think that a manufacturer who tries to introduce novelties in a category should always be rewarded, of course you always have to pay the price to be the first, for example Dyson mounted a digital motor on a vacuum cleaners for the first time in the dc12 and it was less powerful than a brush motor, but now all vacuum cleaners have digital motors and over time they have become more and more powerful; unfortunately it is a tough game and not always the one who arrives first wins, but as far as I'm concerned studying design, these are the manufacturers who have an advantage and a plus in the market, regardless of the final result
When Dyson launched the dc15 in 2006 it was the first cordless vacuum cleaner properly design, it was a prototype and yet it created a watershed and now all vacuum cleaners are wireless after many many years, there are many valid cordless vacuum cleaners now, but without a first attempt at change would the current story be like this?
It’s always a matter of the right intuition
Click to expand...
Sigh. All vacuums do not have "digital motors" by which I am guessing you mean brushless motors, more properly called electrically commutated motors. That trend is partially true for DC battery powered cordless vacuums where a transformer rectifier is not required to convert AC to DC. I am only aware of one corded vacuum, Rainbow, that uses an electrically commutated motor. All the rest use commutated motors.

Black & Decker introduced the first battery operated vacuums in 1979. Other manufacturers soon followed. As usual the Dyson fanatics attributing to their lord savior that which others invented decades prior.
 
cheesewonton said:
I could refurbish an old steel body Electrolux Model 1521 and its PN5 or PN6 power nozzle and in refurbished form the old Electrolux would last decades longer than any new Diesoon or Shark made today. Innovation for the sake of innovating is spinning one's wheels. Diesoon is not making their vacuums appreciably better each year. The opposite seems to be the case.

Sigh. All vacuums do not have "digital motors" by which I am guessing you mean brushless motors, more properly called electrically commutated motors. That trend is partially true for DC battery powered cordless vacuums where a transformer rectifier is not required to convert AC to DC. I am only aware of one corded vacuum, Rainbow, that uses an electrically commutated motor. All the rest use commutated motors.

Black & Decker introduced the first battery operated vacuums in 1979. Other manufacturers soon followed. As usual the Dyson fanatics attributing to their lord savior that which others invented decades prior.
Click to expand...
Yea I’m intending brushless motors and my vorwerk Kobold with cable has this motor, and no, I said that Dyson in 2006 tried to make cordless vacuum efficient, not that was the first company to invented it, which was a watershed compared to portable cordless vacuum cleaners that were mediocre and childish.
I’m not a fanboy sorry you missed the point of my comment, this is not about inventing something this is about design a product with right intuition and seeing the potential of a new category
Btw the dc16 the first cordless by Dyson that I was speaking about has a brush motor, it was a partially flop product but, as i said, innovation comes with first attempts and failures
 
Last edited:
Follettolover said:
Yea I’m intending brushless motors and my vorwerk Kobold with cable has this motor, and no, I said that Dyson in 2006 tries to make cordless vacuum efficient, not that was the first company to invented it, which was a watershed compared to portable cordless vacuum cleaners that were mediocre and childish.
I’m not a fanboy sorry you missed the point of my comment, this is not about inventing something this is about design a product with right intuition and seeing the potential of a new category
Btw the dc16 the first cordless by Dyson that I was speaking about has a brush motor, it was a partially flop product but, as i said, innovation comes with first attempts and failures
Click to expand...
The VK150 was never sold in North America. I have seen them for sale in Japan ( 100 volt power there and the same Type A plug so usable in the US ) but they sell for over $1,000 USD so never mind. I have a Vorwerk Tiger 260 I bought in Japan I use in the US. In Japan it was sold as the Lux Sora. It's a good vacuum, easy to use with some really clever attachments but I don't think they are as well built or as durable as Sebo or even a Kenmore canister vacuum.

You say Diesoon designs things with the "right intuition" but for me they are overpriced brittle squeaky garbage plastic that doesn't last and like all bagless vacuums they are offensive in the extreme to empty. They do not function the way I want a vacuum to function. Clumsy and awkward, and horrible to empty and clean. There is absolutely nothing about them I like. For the $500 plus they charge for kludge I would rather spend a hundred bucks more for a Lindhaus Diamante or Sebo G4. Those will last decades, cost less to operate and are functionally superior in every possible way, especially the Diamante.
 
cheesewonton said:
The VK150 was never sold in North America. I have seen them for sale in Japan ( 100 volt power there and the same Type A plug so usable in the US ) but they sell for over $1,000 USD so never mind. I have a Vorwerk Tiger 260 I bought in Japan I use in the US. In Japan it was sold as the Lux Sora. It's a good vacuum, easy to use with some really clever attachments but I don't think they are as well built or as durable as Sebo or even a Kenmore canister vacuum.

You say Diesoon designs things with the "right intuition" but for me they are overpriced brittle squeaky garbage plastic that doesn't last and like all bagless vacuums they are offensive in the extreme to empty. They do not function the way I want a vacuum to function. Clumsy and awkward, and horrible to empty and clean. There is absolutely nothing about them I like. For the $500 plus they charge for kludge I would rather spend a hundred bucks more for a Lindhaus Diamante or Sebo G4. Those will last decades, cost less to operate and are functionally superior in every possible way, especially the Diamante.
Click to expand...
I’m not the kinda of person who judge personal preferences, so if you like these brands or products more it’s ok! But these vacuums are far far away from innovation and product design witch is the core of my Speech, some people like tradition, other innovations and it’s fair in a both ways
 
Follettolover said:
I’m not the kinda of person who judge personal preferences, so if you like these brands or products more it’s ok! But these vacuums are far far away from innovation and product design witch is the core of my Speech, some people like tradition, other innovations and it’s fair in a both ways
Click to expand...
What you see as, cough cough, "innovation" are nothing more than sales gimmicks. I want innovations that make a functionally superior, more durable and easier to maintain product, not gee-wiz bs that looks cool but does nothing to make the vacuum actually work better. Lindhaus and Sebo have innovations but they are not sexy. Being able to change brush rolls with no tools in under a minute is the kind of innovations I like to see, and patronize with my money. Bag doors that can't be closed unless a bag ( and in the case of Sebo a pre-motor filter ) are fitted. Keeping the center of mass as low as possible like you find on the G4/G5 and Diamante are what I call innovations. Makes the handle weight lower and in doing so makes the vacuum easier to use. When you get old and your knees and back hurt innovations like that matter a great deal. But these are functional innovations, not a silly digital display or fluffy cone nonsense that doesn't work on carpet.
 
cheesewonton said:
What you see as, cough cough, "innovation" are nothing more than sales gimmicks. I want innovations that make a functionally superior, more durable and easier to maintain product, not gee-wiz bs that looks cool but does nothing to make the vacuum actually work better. Lindhaus and Sebo have innovations but they are not sexy. Being able to change brush rolls with no tools in under a minute is the kind of innovations I like to see, and patronize with my money. Bag doors that can't be closed unless a bag ( and in the case of Sebo a pre-motor filter ) are fitted. Keeping the center of mass as low as possible like you find on the G4/G5 and Diamante are what I call innovations. Makes the handle weight lower and in doing so makes the vacuum easier to use. When you get old and your knees and back hurt innovations like that matter a great deal. But these are functional innovations, not a silly digital display or fluffy cone nonsense that doesn't work on carpet.
Click to expand...
certainly these products works well, but again, these are not innovation these are features that helps the user, and even Dyson had these Concerns when it comes to design their products…You can speak well of your products and be objective about other brands too, no need to make statements based on your likes 😅
By the way we studied some Dyson project in my university, I’m not a fanboy but I can tell you that sebo or Kirby or other are not very good subjects to study because they belongs to a very ancient design school that now no longer makes sense of existing for different kinds of reasons….
 

Similar threads

V
Bought A Dyson PencilVac From Japan (Review Inside)
Replies
11
Views
5K
Vacuum Facts
V
A
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Pick your poison: Main equivalency! Which one would you take?
Replies
9
Views
553
Alan
Alan
V
Thoughts on the Sebo Balance A1 Cordless Vacuum Cleaner?
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
centralsweeper63
centralsweeper63
A
  • Poll Poll
Who really invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
centralsweeper63
centralsweeper63
V
  • Locked
BrandSpark Canadian Trust Study of Vacuum Cleaners
2 3
Replies
62
Views
4K
Absolute Rainbow
A

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top