Robot vacuum cleaners – our new overlords?

I think it all proves that the robot vacuum cleaner is not worth Which? spending much more time and resources on as it’s a solution looking for a problem. Now that Which? have built this test room I hope they have plenty of other uses for it. It could be used to test air conditioners, humidifiers, room deodorisers, useful vacuum cleaners, and so on. In fact, why don’t they just buy a typical house on a new estate and use it as a test lab for all sorts of home products under realistic conditions?

I actually don’t think that the testing of robot cleaners is wasted as I am sure the poor reviews help to prevent consumers buying them.

I can also see that for some people there might be a valid case where genuine infirmities these would be a boon.

My main concern is that Which?’s blind devotion to reducing everything to five little blobs – because it fits into the magazine, [our readers are superficial] – seems to under estimate how much room there is on the Net and that it should be used.

I continue to believe that this charity is doomed if it does not get its act together soon on its reason for being. My belief is that the serious millions spent on commercial ventures and focus that way has meant the research side has been ham-strung.

The idea of a normal house as a test-bed you would think remarkably valid given that they could have been doing serious long term testing on long-term products like doubleglazing, air heat pumps, etc etc. Or perhaps a pair of houses so the before and after effects can be checked.

Profit of course means least cost design and parts and maximum price. Which?’s role in design might be that once it stopped testing for durability to advise to subscribers it left a yawning hole for cheap goods to achieve Best Buy status.

Demonstrably true with the Logik’s steamer plus no doubt other products.

I truly believe that the Stiftung Warentest in Germany, despite having a much smaller income, has by its rigorous testing improved the quality of many German products.

What I am looking for is one robot that would use the existing vacuum cleaners properly throughout our house – which has two staircases – so that I can put my feet up once in a while. I don’t care how long it takes and I would be prepared to share its services with the neighbours on either side [whose staircases have multiple winders] in order to spread the cost. Alternatively, over the next two years at least, we could employ one of the many young people from elsewhere in the EU who offer such services in our area and perhaps that is a better solution overall [overalls provided as well].

The trouble is with our dealing with incomplete data from Which?

Basic problem has outlined above is we have a problem – hoovering houses. As far as I am concerned all solutions are in the frame so that is three types of electrical should be discussed against each other. And possibly why not the cost of a weekly cleaner to provide a context for the costs. There must be some time-stricken yuppies reading this!!

Batteries have a finite life of say 1000 cycles whereas corded can go on for decades so this aspect should and could be fully costed, and convenience factored in also.

Efficiency in cleaning is unrevealed for dust on hard floors where I am sure they can better the carpet test. I was curious to note one reputable robot had a 4% efficiency rating on carpet and was very good on hard floors which raises two unanswered questions:
1] is the machine meant for carpet?
2] is it faulty
and finally is it operator error.

I am please to note that from the current magazine that Which? may be doing some testing itself, and we have some named scientists, I thing we need some interaction. Probably the Community Forum would be ideal..

dt, I might have missed what you mention in your last paragraph unless you mean staff taking products home 🙂 but I’m not sure that counts as scientific testing.

I believe Which? should start doing some of its own testing again. Not only would they get a better insight into how products perform, but if they took them apart they might help us with quality of build and components, and repairability.

Discussing testing on the members community forum, as well as Which?’s policy, would be good. Judging by the number of contributors to the forum it would be a very compact debate.

Is it any more strange than paying for an Audi when a Skoda will do the same job and save many thousands of pounds?

I would have thought that the Roomba used in conjunction with Alexa would provide hours of entertainment for family and friends. Maybe it would be a useful aid for an elderly person who wants to maintain independence but struggles without help.

Yes, there is a market for such an expensive appliance and good luck to those who can afford one. But there are many cheaper robot vacuum cleaners [including Roomba’s] that do an adequate job. I just wonder whether Which? should be featuring such high-end products. The struggling elderly person might be better served by a home help at no greater expense and be able to enjoy more pleasant conversations than even Alexa will offer.

This isn’t an Audi among vacuum cleaners, it’s a Bentley Mulsanne [when did that last come up in the car tests?]. As I imply, the much-deplored austerity seems to have perverse outcomes.

I have long thought that Which? should avoid reviewing extremely expensive products, but equally I question the wisdom of these ‘first reviews’ of supermarket electrical goods without any evidence that they might perform reasonably well and last a reasonable length of time.

I absolutely agree about home helps, as long as they are payed more than the minimum wage.

In the same ‘Scoop’ there was a piece on an Aldi lawnmower that goes on sale tomorrow. I should be interested to know how and where Which? tested a lawnmower over the last few weeks – it’s been impossible to do anything much in the garden since before Christmas and cutting the grass is out of the question as the lawns are saturated.

John Ward says: 28 February 2020
I sometimes wonder what corner of the consumer demographic Which? feels it should be helping.

Which?’s corporate strategy over this point has changed several times over the years. In the 1980s, for example, it argued against reviewing high priced items, such as expensive TVs, saying it was not appropriate to spend money reviewing these items for only a very tiny percentage of members. It then, towards the ned of the ’80s, reviewed some extremely high priced TVs. In the 1990s, they were asked through the excellent forum they’d started about that very point, and reiterated their original point, that it wasn’t a justifiable expenditure in terms of overall membership.

It would now seem they’ve changed tack again.

In all this, it’s important to remember that Which? has always argued that it buys the items it reviews from local shops entirely anonymously, then re-sells them after testing. The sell-off of their own test laboratories means Which? is now entirely dependent on commercial facilities to do the testing.

Now, the details of exactly how the buying/testing operation is performed are not easily available and they don’t even release the names of those labs with which they have contracts. However, if nothing else, consumers need to be reassured that the same process of purchasing anonymously is still de rigueur at Which?.

Hmm. That’s an interesting question. The first look review makes it clear that the machine was tested: “We were impressed by the simplicity and superb cutting ability of Aldi’s mower. It didn’t struggle at all during cutting and was only a little let down by its mediocre grass collection. Based on our first impressions, we think you get an awful lot of bang for your buck with this mower, and we’ve been very disappointed with far more expensive mowers in our full tests. We think Aldi might be onto a winner here.”

Maybe it is a regular stock item online and is making a guest appearance in Aldi stores this week. Aldi and Lidl have developed the familiar ‘special purchase’ system to create a a weekly frenzy. I occasionally look at a forum where people list forthcoming items that could be of interest to other forum members.

In some cases it seems that they borrow expensive items. They certainly didn’t buy the astronomically expensive television reviewed a couple of months ago.

I wonder if they “borrowed” the test results from someone who had one in another consumer organisation, last summer? The “we” might not be the same as “us”. Maybe one of their lawns is indoors or maybe someone went on holiday with one.
I don’t shop at either Aldi or Lidl which are some distance from me. Generally food shopping is unique and I am not tempted by products that are not relevant to that. When I need something I go and look for it.

I didn’t realise until now that Aldi sold things on-line. I thought these sort of products [from the miscellaneous aisle] were special buys for one-off promotions on the basis of “when it’s gone it’s gone”.

I looked at the lawnmower on-line and noticed that 64 other people were also looking at it and that 75 had been sold in the last 24 hours. It was obviously a smart move on Aldi’s part to make it available for testing by Which? just in time for this promotion. Just a coincidence, of course.

Aldi and Lidl both sell online and often include a three year guarantee, something that many of the better regarded brands do not manage. I would rather buy from a UK company than one based in another country, but there is no doubt that Aldi (and to a lesser extent Lidl) are winning market share from UK-based supermarkets.

It looks like we are off-topic. I might see if I can borrow a robotic vacuum cleaner from a friend. It was an unwanted gift and might have gone to a charity shop by now.

Don’t they mark your furniture, walls or skirting boards?

I am not aware that they will do any more harm than a conventional cleaner, but maybe the brushes might dust them.

We had one for a time and it didn’t do any harm to the woodwork. It was good for doing a freshen-up of the top floor in our previous home. There were only two carpeted rooms [both used as office spaces] and a landing. There were a lot of inside corners that it couldn’t get into though, so the rooms needed a proper clean once a week.

We now have a Samsung ‘stick’ vacuum cleaner for giving a room a quick once-over but that is not much better than a robot in performance terms except there is a suction boost button and it is possible to operate it more selectively in relation to the areas that need attention.

The big drawbacks with that device [which was strongly scored highly by Which? in a quick test review when it first came out] are (a) that the machine is poorly balanced with most of the weight [the battery and dust receptacle] at the top making it tiring to use for any length of time, and (b) the inadequate capacity of the receptacle which means it needs emptying long before the battery runs down. It really is suitable only for an interim spot clean. I think better performers have come onto the market more recently.

I did think of getting a second vacuum cleaner when I moved from a bungalow to a house, though I’ve procrastinated so long I am accustomed to the cleaner being upstairs when I want to use it downstairs and vice versa. I do have duplicate extension tubes and cleaning heads, so that it’s just the ‘cylinder’ and flexible tube that is carted upstairs and down at frequent intervals.

It had not occurred to me that the dust capacity of a cordless cleaner would be a limitation, but presumably the same applies to a a robot vac.

It depends on how much dust, grit and muck are present! The new carpets in our house are still shedding fluff and there are the usual crumbs wherever people have nibbled.

We had a social gathering last week and the living rooms were spotless beforehand; afterwards a different picture – you wouldn’t think we had provided plates and cutlery. So the Henry [our downstairs machine] had to put on an extra performance the next morning.

“A robotic cleaner cannot press down or it would lift itself off the carpet”

I disagree. Were it not for the vacuum of course Newton’s 2nd law would undoubtedly apply. However, additional downward pressure could be applied by transient improvement to the flexible/spring-loaded skirt seal and a similar transient increase to the motor system to maintain the same degree of airflow. This would work particularly well on tiled/solid floors but also to some degree on short pile carpet.

“, and it would probably not know when extra cleaning power was needed.” I reckon it’s only a matter of time before these things have a self-learned memory of floor patterns do they know what is dirt and what is not.

“As with cordless cleaners, the performance is limited by the capabilities of the battery.” Amen to that. Hoover tramlines anyone?!

Let’s not get into vacuum pressure. 🙂 Anyway, the Which? reports suggest that robotic cleaners suck compared with conventional ones when assessed for dust removal.

Until Automatic Dirt Identification™ has been fully developed, the simple expedient of uniform light beige carpet might help.

Such equipment became available in the 1930’s or earlier and has held a niche corner of the cleaning market ever since. Of course, in such establishments the housemaid would operate the apparatus. One drawback was that the machine in the basement had to be emptied and the waste removed.

Another variant was a van that parked on the drive near the tradesmen’s entrance and had long flexible hoses that would reach all corners of the property and take the muck away completely. Male operatives performed those duties.

I suppose it is a solution to the debate over bag vs bagless cleaners.