Depends on what the 'test' is. If it's a stupidly exaggerated situation that would never occur, then not really. Is it on carpet or hard floor. V16's default carpet performance is poorer than it can be (and don't worry, my review will criticise this very hard). Hard floor, I've never had any issue whatsoever with aerodynamically difficult particles. I should do a little video I suppose to counter the misleading BS out there on this point.
For fricks sake man...
Cats drag cat litter on their paws to wherever they may roam. Most sane individuals are going to prefer a vacuum picks it up wherever it might be found.
You've misunderstood. Others do as well. Frickhelm for example shows similar relative trend relationships. I gave an example earlier.
No, you misunderstand. Can you replicate his tests? Can he replicate yours? This is basic experimental design. The answer is NO unless you use the exact same methodology, including the same make carpet to test upon. Again, this is all understandable and no fault applied here. My point remains: "some" of these other "bedroom tests" that things slightly different, but also show 'relative trend relationships.' Just not in the same manner that your tests do. Yes they are much more simplistic and much less controlled, but can and do still show trends.
If you want to take a hardline about this, none of the tests are valuable since none of them are truly scientific/controlled. I choose not to take that hardline, as there is value in many of them (some have more, some have less, some have essentially none)
Except the part earlier where I said they suffer from obvious experimental flaws (lack of control over key things they should have considered, like quantifying initial conditions and establishing reproducibility etc.) Only Frickhelm has done testing that I don't think was utterly amateur and flawed.
Part of 'reproducibility' is just that, and that is my argument here. Only you can 'reproduce' your tests, others cannot verify due to aforementioned reason(s).
I've never claimed his test methods are the same. He explains what he does, and it's different to me (you clearly haven't looked in detail at his work). But the method he uses establishes relative trends which tick all the criteria above. You seem to misunderstand the distinction between a specific test and whatever quantitative output they give, and the more important relative trends. I think here, you're simply not experienced enough in scientific experimentalism, maths, trends, statistics, and the other stuff drilled into you at degree level and beyond. Not much I can do about that. Frickhelm's data is totally different to mine, but the relative trends are fairly comparable (to first order).
Again, are we talking about scientific tests here, or not...
Large particles like this aren't really an issue. It's the small ones harmful to health which are considered most relevant and what the test dust represents. I've seen no cinvincing evidence cat littler is an issue with the V16 in real-world scenarios with sensible usage. The guardian review was whining that the fluffy head collected it faster. Ok, but it takes longer to piss around with head changes. They didn't mention that part, but the gullible bought the criticism nonetheless. This is what I mean about stupid and misleading testing and conclusions from these 'reviews'.
Cat litter may not be 'harmful to health' (debatable if its filled with seeping ammonia..) but it is sure something I personally would want a vacuum to pick up, and I would wager the vast majority of people would agree...
Note 1: I make no claim on V16 and ability with cat litter. I only use this as a working example where certain machines struggle.
Note 2: I also find the fluffy head on V15 is much preferable (performance wise) to the std V15 one on hard floors, and I make the effort to switch the head. Not an issue for me personally.
Er, my cleaning data and subsequent real-world usage for months now shows quite clearly that it is. Otherwise I wouldn't use it. The V10 onwards has been mains equivalent for real-world usage. I know because I've used them all and lots of top end performing mains units.
Yes we all have different use cases:
-Overall area needing cleaned
-Dirt load (For me, one shedding dog, 3 shedding long hair females, 2 being young kids & all their associated messes)
Before when I lived alone and no pet the V7 (seemingly) did just fine as my "mains." (did need several charges to clean whole house)
Subjectivity aside, on objective matters, I welcome the evidence for careful review. Otherwise, my opinion differs, since it conflicts with yours and is informed by my objective evidence and subjective experience.
When one considers their experiences and evidence as objective, but all others as subjective, there is no point in debate.
Ah, ok, well, above still applies. I put it down to personal feelings and it didn't 'feel' right for you. Each to their own. Objectively, it cleans as well as a mains cleaner in real-world responsible situations.
Nice try, but I suppose you are right... It didn't feel right, as I personally felt and saw all the pet hair and debris the V15 was leaving behind...
Except about the objectively part, because objectively it does not perform the same as a quality corded "mains" unit, in a real-world responsible situation.
