Why Dyson's robot vacuum took 16 years, and why it's headed to Japan first
engadget.com
engadget.com
I should have known, robots have always been held back by the weight of power and compute.
The tank-tread wheels on Dyson's model are meant to help mitigate against this, but I gather from (now ex-) insiders that this is still a buggy sticking point (ha!) that needs to be solved before release.
Also with sufficiently well-controlled motors you should be able to optimize suction and drive, say to minimize power consumption or maximize speed/vacuum power.
Reminds me of the F1 Brabham BT46B "fan car" that sucked itself down to the road using a large engine driven fan at the back of the car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46#Brabham_BT46B.C2.A...
them bumps
Correct - low weight means you have less force to apply to the wheels and hence achieve grip. The design of the aperture where the air goes into the vaccum (the soleplate) has to be optimised between flicking the carpet fibres in the right fashion to achieve good dirt pickup and not impeding sliding across the carpet too much.
The design of the tyres is critical. If there is any slip in the tyres you have a problem. Even though the attitude and trajectory of the robot is governed by the information coming from the camera it does also rely on feedback from the wheel speed sensors. If you have slip on one side and not the other then you will tend to spin around and not drive in a straight line. Adding more power to the slipping wheel merely exacerbates the problem.
You'll notice the treads on the tank tracks are chunky. This is to give maximum grip on thicker pile carpets, however this kind of carpet tend to be "squishy" and allow the wheels to float somewhat on the carpet surface no matter what design of tyre. So this is probably where they are having problems. Also you'll notice the wheels are not rigidly mounted to the robot chassis, they have suspension. But unlike car suspension the bottom of the robot does take some of the weight and it touches the floor. If you have more mass in the robot it gives you more latitude to distribute it between the wheels and the soleplate.
Its a careful balancing act and all of these variables have to be tuned based on the amount of suction your vacuum motor is providing.
My personal interests have been influenced by my father and elder brother who are both electronics engineers and I developed a keen interest in electronics and software from as far back as I remember and which I still have to this day. The ability for a mechanical engineer to fully understand the implications of the integration of mechanical systems, electronics and how they are prototyped and manufactured is key.
For instance when developing the wheels we were able to achieve minimal size by integrating the motors directly onto the PCB inside the gearbox and the PCB was an integeral part of the gearbox housing. This came about because all members of that part of the team understood each others domains to an extremely high degree.
From the general sense of the article, 16 years was the elapse time from their first version to their release version.
However, probably the right level of detail from engadget...
/etc/hosts:
0.0.0.0 techcrunch.com
It's all shit anyway, garbage.
On hard wood flooring I've never found rotary brushes to be better than side sweeps (what most of the competition uses).
And on carpet where rotary brushes do perform better, I can't help but think that instead of upping the suction power you could approach the problem from a different perspective... such as using a low vibration to shake the dirt and dust free of the carpet so that it's easier to pick up the material with less suction power.
I really like Dyson products, but it very much feels like they have a hammer (high powered suction in lower watt motors) and so every problem looks like a nail.
Some of their innovations over the past 5 years haven't impressed me...
Their hand dryers do a worse job than the classic World Dryer and look uglier over time and seem to be less performant over time (smaller clogged filters perhaps!?).
Their "fanless" fan of course has a fan, and whilst it shifts a good chunk of air at first it also suffers from degrading performance as the hidden fan gets clogged with dust over a season. And yet, the classic desk fan performs consistently well all the time.
And the problem with releasing highly-hyped products that turn out to be only average, is that it's hard to believe the hype in future.
Whereas I used to look at a Dyson as being incredibly functional innovation, I now look upon them as gimmicky innovation using their single core-trick.
And of course, they will successfully market and patent all of this (of which even the linked article is a part of that puzzle), such that people start to believe this is the best solution (not proven at all), and that Dyson will claim that no-one else can provide the best because of the patents (partly true, but who said this was the best?).
Years of buying and using Dyson products has left me greatly cynical. Their upright hoovers are still the business though.
Really? That's the exact opposite experience than I've had, the Airblade dries my hands faster and more thoroughly than any traditional hand dryer.
The Airblade db works, but not as efficiently as rubbing hands together under a World Dryer (not one of the cheaper imitators of them).
The Airblade V works extremely well, but tends to suffer from being put where old driers were, which is too damn high to be used comfortably... in motorway services where these and old traditional ones are offered you see people choose the older ones.
The tap based one I've not seen in the world.
As for the V, it's hardly Dyson's fault if they are installed in an inappropriate way.
I was at the store one day, and saw vacuum cleaners. Now, I have no interest in a vacuum at the moment, but they had a Dyson Ball, and I've seen countless videos of it, and had to take a look to see this high-end vacuum. I was disappointed from the first second, it just looked like a bunch of cheap plastic parts, and similar to something I'd find from a yard sale ten years ago. Photo below of my expectation from all the marketing, and a photo someone took of the actual vacuum.
http://i.imgur.com/bs1ygfM.jpg
I played around with it for a bit, and it just felt cheap, in every way possible. I was expecting the best vacuum in the world, and I was holding something that was entirely different. Now, I don't own one, it might work great for vacuuming, but it had no sense of luxury in person.
Another example, is the handheld vacuum, I'd see commercials on television, and then I saw one in the wild at a friends house. Comparison below is using slightly different models, but just look at the materials. In the promo image, it looks like glass and metal, and then in reality, it's some cheap stamped plastic that you'd expect from a bottom of the barrel vacuum.
http://i.imgur.com/RZ8sFxq.jpg
As for the hand dryers, I find they work well and fast. It's a creative idea, and I think they're a success. I imagine they're more difficult to clean though, and get dirty with all the water dripping on them.
I own that model of vacuum you have photographed, and it's just.... good. Lightweight, easy to push around tight corners, and sucks up everything in my flat in under 10 minutes without ever having to fight it. It makes it very clear that ever other model I've ever used was not very well-designed.
It is not the kind of status symbol that you appear to be seeking. Kirby makes those and I think you'd be a lot happier with their products.
Based on all the hype Dyson tries to generate, their product renders, commercials, sales lingo, etc, I expected this to be the iPhone of vacuums, where it was priced high, because it functions well, and has a great build quality.
Instead, it just looked overpriced, and the quality appeared no better than the vacuums a third of the price. I was disappointed, that's all, it looks like they spent their budget on marketing and the quality of the product came second.
What may be worth understanding, though, is that there are people who are equally willing to pay money for good vacuums, but whose judgment of "good vacuum" runs much more to "suction power and functional ability" rather than "build quality."
The idea that there is not a single axis of quality, and that different products can optimize for different axes, is not a new one, but it's one that many tech people in a post-Steve-Jobs era seem to have a hard time remembering.
Is no one listening here? I said I care about performance, and build quality. Why can't I ask for both? Perhaps the Dyson performs well. I said I don't have experience with it, but the quality looks cheap. When a product advertises itself as being premium and top of the line, and asks for a high price, I expect both of the above.
Likewise, when I spend money on a phone or laptop, I expect it to feel solid. Don't sell me a $1,500 laptop that's built like a $300 Dell Inspiron.
I had a Miele cylinder before this one. The experience of using it was that I dragged it around the flat and needed both hands to manage it. This Dyson model, I point at things, with one hand. It seems to be a combination of low weight, and the ease of pivoting on the ball that means it's rolling everywhere, but the difference is huge.
a) a jewel-like, highly refined computer that you hold in your hand and touch gently to use
b) an industrial cleaning device designed to be banged into objects on a regular basis, scrub surfaces aggressively, and suck up dusty dirty things, without damaging what you bang it into
The marketing photos show a new, unused vacuum. Duh. The alternative would be as odd as a Johnson & Johnson selling bandages by using a photo of a gory, infected, pus-filled wound on the outside of the box. While that may very well be a valid example of its use, I don't really see many people wanting to buy anything marketed in such a manner.
The extra height of the Dyson means it wont make it under our sofa, the TV stand, into the gap between the kitchen floor and the cupboards (well, perhaps Roomba doesn't fit there either, but the side brush does), under the chest of drawers in the bedroom etc etc..
I'll have to wait for the next iteration (and hope I'm rich by then).
Because that's how Dyson marketing department spins it.
My friend got one (forgot the brand) because she didn't have time to clean.
http://img1.lesnumeriques.com/produits/601/20289/Neato_Botva...
They probably have more than I do because I have none, but I've seen very big companies being completely clueless at market research as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case as well. Seeing Dyson himself on Japanese TV yesterday saying "Hey, we come first to Japan because Japanese consumers love robots" sounded like he has no idea what he is talking about, seriously. But that wouldn't be the first for a CEO.
Do people actually find that usable? It definitely made me think the page was broken at first... The slideshow seems like a 'play' (right-arrow) much more than a 'scroll' (down-arrow).
Is this a metaphor for Dyson vacuums in general? (Technically-clever, shiny, but not necessarily the most effective)
Why did you think it was broken? It said 'scroll to begin' on my screen so I suppose I knew I was expecting something when I scrolled.
The recent NYTimes article about ISIS in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers ( http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/03/world/middleea... ) is a much better treatment of the scroll.
If I'm going to be subjected to lengthy animations between slides, I generally expect arrows left-and-right to click on.
The whole 'scroll to begin' language on an otherwise beautiful page is a usability smell. See http://www.harmoni.ca/blog/affordances
With clicking it works fine. But some don't really like scrolling via touch.
And best of all, the "shop" link takes you to a shop where you can't buy it...
The idea of the cleaner is that it reduces the overall level of dirt in your house. Its a "maintenance" cleaner as it can just continuously clean. Therefore the buildup of dirt in the corners will be less as there is less dirt around generally. However you will still need a secondary vacuum to do the corners, cobwebs, stairs etc.
Its aimed at people with plenty of cash, who might not blink at having one per floor of their house.
We thought we'd need a second vacuum cleaner, but we really haven't.
Good to see other Dyson people on here.