I’d love to know if the initial release of the M-Series will be like the 2023 Y series, basically quickly outdated and replaced with a better hardware design. I’ll guess not considering how much Yarbo has matured and learned. No doubt they’ll iterate like they’re doing with the Y series but I really hope the release hardware will be more “final” and have a long lifespan.
The 23 highlighted a lot of things that needed to be changed. The 24 is the culmination of that. The 25 models are just iterative tweaks to the 24. The M is built on all of that. Considering it’s using a lot of the same concepts and design from the 24/25, I’d say it’s here for the long haul. Especially since they are throwing in a 5 year warranty for the first 48 hours. The mower head is the same pro style design. The trimmer is the same, just shrunk down. The charger is basically the same, just smaller. The DC has been redesigned. I’m sure we’ll see that roll out with the Y series too since it supports both. They also still support the 23 with software updates. They were doing hardware replacements too, but I believe all those warranties have expired at this point. I wouldn’t be concerned that it will be obsoleted as quickly as the 23 seemed. There was clearly communication issues out the gate with it. Relying on home WiFi was not a smart choice. LORA could not handle the data throughput for all communications either. They redesigned a HaLow base station and retrofitted the 23 with what eventually became the DC we have today. With the HaLow base, the 23 became a really solid product. There were some quality of life annoyances like screwing plastic fillers into the tracks for summer and unscrewing those for winter. Yeah that’s a nice upgrade on the 24. Lidar was added to the M series because of strong user demand for this and the ability for complete dark mowing. I hope we’ll see that move into the Y series too. And I hope it’s something we can retrofit to existing Y series machines. All that being said, I see lots of iterative improvements over the generations and not so much obsolescence. Because they still support it all.
2 Likes
Thanks for your observation!
Yes, the component you noticed on the back is used as a counterweight.
3 Likes
At the moment I am a little confused as to what exactly is going on here, and I’m shocked no one else has brought this up.
The M series is capable of 1.5 acres per day (24hrs continuously), and at this time the Y series is capable of 1.7 acres per day (again, 24hrs). This puts the totals at roughly 10.5 acres weekly for the M series and 12.5 for the Y series. At the same time, the M20 kickstarter price for the mower only with the VIP pass is $2,299 while the Y series with the mower pro (same specs as M20 aside from size) is $5,999. On top of this, the M series is faster, actually silent, doesn’t require a base station, has a leaf collector, etc. it would seem like the M series is a no-brainer, and unless you already own a Y series it’s virtually obsolete unless you need to tow insane amounts. My struggle is figuring out if a plow will work for my frequent rapid snowfall, or if I need a snowblower, in which case I would need a Y, but it would be more cost effective to own an M and a Y. I’m just baffled as to what exactly is going on here. Any ideas or knowledge is gratefully accepted.
If you mow twice a week with some grace for rain factored in, the acerages are accurate. If you mow once a week, it doubles. The Y series is still a power house. It’s going to run longer because the battery capacity is almost double the M20. As for snow, if you get a lot, the plow is not going to be effective for you. Unless you routinely clean off the edges where it pushes the snow to. That would have to be done with something else, most likely. It is really meant for areas that don’t get a lot of snow and snow that doesn’t stick around for long.
1 Like
I think that until the M series is being used by actual end users, all we have to go by is Yarbo’s marketing materials, which may or may not be accurate.
It will be interesting to see the real world abilities of the M series as compared to the Y series. The faster drive speed would be of benefit, but the narrower width and smaller batteries would be a detriment.
Personally, my money is on Y series being able to cut a lot more grass in a day.
1 Like
Hi there, for the M series snow plow blade module, it is recommended for snow depths up to 9 inches. Whether it can handle your needs will depend on the snowfall conditions in your area. In general, it is best suited for light to moderate snowfall conditions.
You should really quote a density with the depth. 9” of drifted, dense snow the Y series, with the snowblower, might not even make it through…9” of poofy lake effect is completely different.
3lbs/ft^3 vs ~38…
1 Like
AI napkin math:
To determine if the Yarbo M Series can handle this, we must separate its motor power (the $220\text{ lb}$ towing rating) from its traction limit (the “grip” it actually has on packed snow).
On dry concrete, the Yarbo could likely pull its full $220\text{ lb}$ rating. However, on packed snow, the Coefficient of Friction ($\mu$) drops significantly, meaning the tracks will spin long before the motors reach their maximum power.
1. Resistance Force (The Load)
Using your “higher average density” ($12.5\text{ lbs/ft}^3$) at a $9\text{-inch}$ depth with the $25.6\text{-inch}$ Yarbo blade:
Frontal Resistance ($F_p$): $\sim \mathbf{16.5\text{ lbs}}$ of force required to move forward.
Lateral Resistance ($F_l$): $\sim \mathbf{7.0\text{ lbs}}$ of force pushing the robot sideways.
2. The Traction Limit (The Grip)
The Yarbo M series weighs approximately $110\text{ lbs}$. Traction is calculated as $T = \text{Weight} \times \mu$. On packed snow, the coefficient of friction for rubber tracks typically ranges from $0.25$ to $0.45$.
Surface Condition Friction Coeff ($\mu$) Available Traction (Grip) Capability Status Ideal Packed Snow $0.45$ $49.5\text{ lbs}$ High: Plenty of headroom. Average Packed Snow $0.35$ $38.5\text{ lbs}$ Adequate: $2\times$ the required force. Slippery/Icy Snow $0.20$ $22.0\text{ lbs}$ Marginal: Only $5\text{ lbs}$ of “extra” grip.
3. Lateral Stability and “Crab-Walking”
The most critical issue isn’t the forward push, but the lateral force. Because the blade is angled at $25^\circ$, the snow is trying to push the front of the robot sideways with $7\text{ lbs}$ of force.
The Pivot Effect: Since the blade is at the front, this $7\text{ lbs}$ acts as a lever.
Traction Buffer: If the robot only has $22\text{ lbs}$ of total grip (slippery conditions) and $16.5\text{ lbs}$ is being used just to move forward, it only has $5.5\text{ lbs}$ of grip left to resist that $7\text{ lbs}$ of side-loading.
Result: In slippery or icy conditions, the Yarbo’s front end will likely wash out (slide sideways), causing it to lose its line even if the motors are strong enough to push the weight.
4. Summary of $220\text{ lb}$ Capacity vs. Reality
The $220\text{ lb}$ towing capacity is a measure of the gearing and motor torque. It tells you the robot won’t break or stall under heavy loads. However, on packed snow, the physics of friction limit you to roughly $30\text{–}45\text{ lbs}$ of actual usable pushing force before the tracks spin.
Answer
On average packed snow ($\mu \approx 0.35$), the Yarbo M Series has roughly $38.5\text{ lbs}$ of usable traction. Since $9\text{ inches}$ of dense snow requires $16.5\text{ lbs}$ of push, the robot has a safety factor of about $2.3\times$. It will succeed on flat ground, but will likely struggle or “crab-walk” if it encounters an incline greater than $10\text{–}15^\circ$ while pushing that volume.Would you like to see how much weight (ballast) you would need to add to the Yarbo to prevent it from sliding sideways in these conditions?
If the Y series gets a plow I’d suggest a design like this, maybe 32-36” wide:
1. Optimal Blade Geometry for 9" Snow
For 9 inches of snow, the total blade height should be at least 14–16 inches to prevent “over-topping.”
-
The Intake (Bottom Extension): The bottom edge should extend 3–4 inches forward of the main vertical plane. This creates a “chisel” effect that lifts the snow before it is pushed.
-
The Radius : A constant radius of 8–9 inches is ideal. This matches the height of your snow column, allowing the snow to complete a
turn within the blade.
-
The Overhang (Top Curl): The top of the blade should curve back toward the front of the robot. This “hood” catches any flying chunks and forces them back into the rolling discharge stream.
2. Theoretical Profile Dimensions
If you are custom-fabricating or modifying a blade for the Yarbo Y Series, use these target measurements:
| Feature | Dimension | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Total Blade Height | 15" | 9" snow snow + 6" safety buffer. |
| Curve Radius | 8.5" | Matches 9" snow volume for internal rotation. |
| Bottom Lead-in Angle | 15-20* | Angle of the “cutting edge” relative to the ground. |
| Top Discharge Angle | 45* down | Forces snow to “exit” the roll toward the side. |
3. Force Reduction Estimate
By shifting from a standard plow to this “high-curl” design:
-
Friction Reduction: You reduce the “plow-on-plow” internal friction. Instead of pushing a static 9" wall, you are rotating a 9" cylinder.
-
Force Savings: you can expect a reduction in required forward pushing force.
-
Lateral Benefit: Because the snow is “flowing” rather than being compressed, the side-loading becomes more predictable, reducing the risk of the Yarbo’s front end washing out.
Hi there, thank you for taking the time to share such detailed thoughts on the plow blade design.
Just to make sure I understand your suggestion correctly, are you referring to a plow blade for the M-series or the Y-series?
1 Like
I believe he meant in general.
If the Y series could come out with its own articulating plow blade module that would be great too, as the current one does not articulate. Especially with superdocking on the relatively near future, this would allow for hands free switching without physical human intervention as compared to needing to attach and detach the current blade.
1 Like
Y series, since it’s slower but has more power
…what did I miss? I know there was the original concept but has this been talked about recently?
Not that I am aware of. I highly doubt we see that in the next 5 years. I hope I eat those words though.
2 Likes
I understand. I’ll help share this feedback with our product team.
2 Likes
I spoke to someone from support a few months ago who told me we could see the M series version of superdocking at some point this year, with the Y series shortly after. I was incredulous, but they reassured me numerous times…
I wouldn’t bet on it.
Nice idea, but personally I’d prefer if they focus on issue resolution, platform stabilization, and completing the features that have already been promised before embarking on the super dock adventure.
2 Likes
Agreed. And I think that is the plan. At least I hope.
1 Like
No chance-for the Y anyway.
1 Like