If you’ve ever watched a classroom full of 8-year-olds try to reprogram a robot that’s just faceplanted into a wall, you know two things: (1) kids are fearless experimenters, and (2) the robots don’t always survive. Which makes you wonder, what happens when these bots break? Can you fix them, or are they headed for the landfill?
That’s exactly what a team at EPFL—the Swiss polytechnic university in Lausanne—wanted to find out. Professor Francesco Mondada and his postgraduate robotics students, Alexandre Rafael Aires Viegas and Cyril Monette, together with Mobsya, the non-profit association that produces and distributes the Thymio robot, approached us about building a repairability scorecard for coding robots, the programmable floor robots used in classrooms to teach coding to kids as young as four.
These robots look cute, but under the shell they’re real machines: Bluetooth radios, rechargeable batteries, optical sensors, wheels, motors, speakers—the works. And until now, it seems, no one had asked whether they’re built to last.
Why Repairability for Robots?
Mondada, who had helped develop the Thymio robot at EPFL beginning more than a decade ago, told us: “Our original idea was to have a robot with an open design, aimed at education, but durable and easy to repair. But I must admit that we were not really aware of the true importance of repairability; for us, it was just another feature. Later, when we ran a life cycle analysis, the results clearly showed that repair could have a major positive influence on environmental impacts. We therefore decided to focus more attention on repairability, already present by design, and the collaboration with iFixit was the next logical step in this quest to minimize environmental impact.”
That collaboration was a first for us, too. We’d never shared the full details of our internal repairability scoring system outside of iFixit. It’s a powerful tool, but it has a steep learning curve and isn’t always user-friendly. Plus, Mondada’s own robot—the Thymio II—would be scored alongside its rivals. We had to be careful to make sure the playing field was level.
Scoring Robots (and Their Guts)
At first, the EPFL team tried using the French Repairability Index or the JRC scoring system for their project, but found them ill-suited for coding robots. After studying iFixit’s repairability blogs and wikis, they reached out. We decided to share the intricate details of our scoring framework, coached them through the methodology, and advised them on tailoring it to the quirks of coding robots.
The EPFL team was up to the challenge. They tore down every robot, documented the process with videos, and scored them on design choices, parts availability, tools required, and availability of repair documentation. The results spread out nicely—exactly what you want in a meaningful, robust scoring system.
Here’s how the robots stacked up, ranked from best to … well, not the best:
| Robot | Score |
|---|---|
| Thymio II | 10 |
| Edison v3 | 8 |
| iRobot Root | 7 |
| Learning Robots AlphAI | 6 |
| Makeblock mBot2 | 6 |
| TTS Blue-bot | 4 |
| TTS Pro-Bot | 4 |
| Wonder Workshop Dash | 3 |
| Ozobot Bit | 2 |
| Ozobot Bit+ | 2 |
| Sphero Bolt+ | 0 |
Perhaps not surprisingly, the robot designed to be repairable came out on top. (Although it’s worth noting that the Thymio II didn’t ace the whole test: it actually scored a 9.56, making it good enough for the coveted 10/10 award, but still leaving a little room to improve.)
That last score stings—zero. As in, no meaningful repair paths for the nifty Sphero Bolt+ at all, due to the irreversibly destructive nature of the opening procedure. Some robots, it seems, are just too cool for school.
Lessons Learned
The EPFL team quickly discovered the value of a design-focused scoring system. “The iFixit score provides an elegant and simple way to assess repairability,” they told us. “It’s the one that best reflects what repairing a product means for the end-user.”
They also realized that repairability isn’t something you can bolt on later; it has to be baked in from day one. “With a score that heavily emphasizes design choices, we realized the importance of including repairability from the very early stages of a robot design process,” they said.
What’s Next
The EPFL team isn’t stopping at scores. They’re planning to turn the data and repair manuals into classroom activities, teaching students not just how to code, but how to repair the robots themselves. “This material should be integrated into compulsory education,” Mondada said.
We couldn’t agree more. Repairability isn’t just about keeping robots alive longer; it’s about teaching the next generation that technology doesn’t have to be disposable.
And thanks to EPFL, we now have repairability scores for an entirely new class of products—and proof that our scoring system can scale beyond iFixit. Not bad for a first test.
crwdns2944067:00crwdne2944067:0