Robot vacuum cleaners &#8211; our new overlords?

They don’t clean as well as manual vacuum cleaning – getting into awkward places for example. As two thirds of us need more exercise (see Convo on obesity currently in progress) perhaps we should think a bit wider than a device that lets us sit on the sofa while it does (some of) the work?

John Ward says:

Adding to what Malcolm has said, I don’t see how any of these machines can get into the corners, especially where there is furniture close to the corner. Using a vacuum cleaner with a hosepipe and tubes one can go along the tops of skirting boards, picture rails, and mouldings on furniture, between the bannister rails, behind radiators, into the spaces and crevices around media units, and in all the other gaps and cavities that a robot cleaner cannot get to. This should be the test for comparing these products with the usual alternatives, not what percentage of dust they lift from a floor [where they seem to be unimpressive anyway].

VynorHill says:

Washing machines can do a better job of cleaning than we can using our hands, dishwashers are genuinely labour-saving, vacuums also work better than humans with brushes and beaters. But, it makes me sad to see so much money and effort wasted in making a robot vacuum which neither covers the ground or picks up dirt efficiently. There seems to be little chance of inventing anything that picks up all the dust and dirt without a human directing it. There may well be useful outlets for the camera technology that directs machines round obstacles, to help a blind person or aid someone with a handicap but who decided that a robot cleaner could use this technology efficiently? What a waste of brain power!

dieseltaylor says:

The Which? review system for the robots is flawed. As a simple example they compare the robots in the Conversation with the percentage of dirt picked up from carpets by normal vacuum cleaners – that is 50% compared to the 8O%+ on carpets.

You might be interested, and I am interested in the efficiency on tile or wooden floors. Do we have a comparison figure for that. No. I am willing to bet that the dust extraction is substantially higher but why should I bet surely Which? have that detail. And it is relevant.

Secondly we do not have a maximum swept area before returning to base for a recharge which surely is of interest. Is it 20 square metres, 50 or 100 ? How soon will the dust container need emptying, every two days, every three hours? Can the machine do multiple rooms in a morning for light dust removal?

If this seems picky it is been known for several years that hard surfaces like timber laminates and tile have been taking market share from the carpet sector. I know of a house tiled completely downstairs with a total floor area in excess of 100 square metres.

“Hard floor cleaning
Hard floor
★★★★★
How effective the robot is when cleaning large debris from hard floors. This should be a robot vacuum cleaners bread and butter, but some vastly outperform others.”

Whats with the large debris test? How large is large? How does this compare with normal vacuums? What is the dust uptake like?

What we do know is the Dyson is better than the other robots but apart from one statistic we have no hard figures comparing other aspects of the robots to the standard vacuum cleaner.

Regarding VH’s point. My mother-in-law in her prime vacuumed daily but I suspect that not many people do that now. Now I am curious whether sending your robot cleaning daily results in an overall cleanliness level higher than a human hoovering weekly of bi-weekly. If I limit my activity to light dusting of skirting-boards and higher once a week plus using a robot for daily cleans, will I have a cleaner room than provided by a human?

And what is the time saving over one month …..

The testing does not really seem to answer the quite reasonable expectation that robots are competing with cordless and corded vacuum cleaners and this testing by restricting itself primarily to robot vs robot ignores the bigger picture.

Incidentally I saw nothing about air filtration which in an era of allergies would be something of interest you might think.

Reply Hide replies ∧

John Ward says:

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?

dieseltaylor says:

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.

John Ward says:

A supplementary question that entered my head while thinking about the test room is – has anybody assessed how much influence Which? has actually had on product design and performance, and more to the point home design, layout and convenience, through all the decades of testing? Product testing for consumers is essentially a reactive process and no doubt contributes, in a sub-Darwinian way, to a process of natural selection and fitness for purpose through the elimination of weak performers from the market place, but could it go further than this and become a creative force for improvement? In the natural world there is an instinctive determinism that drives evolution; in the commercial world it is the profit motive; is that good enough?

Reply Hide replies ∧

dieseltaylor says:

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.

malcolm r says:

So, you’ll need 2 robots for a normal house, one downstairs and one up stairs, plus a best buy £200 Miele proper cleaner for the stairs, skirting, carpet edges, behind the tv, and other nooks and crannies. £1800.

A robot takes 32 minutes to clean one room (incompletely). Which say with a normal vacuum it takes 38 mins to clean a whole house (properly).

A best robot picks up half the dust in a carpet, doesn’t deal with hair well. Even a best cordless picks up 83% of dust. So how can you possibly give 5 stars to a robot?

How much more electrical energy does the Dyson use when it takes maybe 6 times as long to do its partial job?

I think the concept of “Best Buy” needs a rethink. Products doing a particular job should be compared with all other products doing that job – in this case robots vs. corded and cordless. I also think price should be taken into account, not on its own but in relation to the likely life. For example if two dishwashers – one at £1200 and one at £600 – perform equally well, have similar build quality and are likely to last just as long then I would say the £600 one is a better buy. Perhaps another criteria should be “value for money”; an assessment that would be useful would be cost per year of likely fault free life.

This would avoid seemingly silly comparisons like the Dyson hair drier at £300, given a best buy when it only scored 1 star for low speed drying, whilst a Remington best buy at £35 scored 5 stars. Which is better?

Reply Hide replies ∧

John Ward says:

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].

dieseltaylor says:

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..

malcolm r says:

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.

Gavin Robertson says:

£800 for a vacuum cleaner – not for me. I bought a iRobot Roomba 620 in 2015 after research of the features of the older models and paid £249 online. This is a very diligent cleaner as it goes over areas several times more than I would with a manual cleaner. OK it does have limitations and no fancy features but does a very good job. The dust box is usually full of fluff from carpeted areas and pick-up is good. I would say that the filter may not be the best. I suspect the exhaust probably does emit some fine dust.

dieseltaylor says:

I have spent around two hours viewing videos on robot cleaners and found other sites. I feel infinitely more comfortable that I understand the Dyson Eye and the other brands – many of which all curiously seem to share a similar body.

The Eye has recently had a software update and has a quiet mode for a longer working time before returning to base for a recharge plus an improvement to the app so you can see battery charge status.

I am perplexed with all the space on the Internet that Which?’s reviews are boiled down to little dots and are so sparse. If, and this is serious, Which? has not the resources why not simply direct subscribers to the reviews you think reliable on YouTube. A passionate amateur reviewer can do a very good job but picking them out of the dross is tricky. You could be the director to the best reviews.!

PS the guy doing the Eye spent 92 minutes starting from opening the package and it was a very useful video. As was the 12 minute follow-up.

Chris Moss says: