In recent months, many industrial clients have asked the same question:
CONTENIDO DEL ARTÍCULO
“Is it better to use an AGV/AMR built from a manual vehicle or a robot designed from scratch as an autonomous mobile robot?”
It’s a very relevant question and surprisingly, one that is rarely discussed in the mobile robotics sector.
This comparison applies mainly to two types of mobile robots: tuggers and AGVs and forklift AGVs/AMRs..
platform robots or mouse -type AGVs are almost always designed directly as autonomous systems rather than converted from manual equipment.
As with most automation decisions, the real answer is:
It depends on he context
Let´s answer questions such as:
What is the difference between an AGV converted from a manual machine and an AMR designed from scratch?
When is it necessary to use manual mode on AGVs or AMRs?
Are manual machines converted into AGVs reliable for 24/7 operation?
What type of mobile robot is best in confined spaces?
Advantages of AGVs/AMRs Based on Manual Vehicles
Higher manufacturing maturity
Manual industrial machines are produced in far greater volumes than AGVs/AMRs.
This generally means:
-
more mature components
-
more real-world testing
-
fewer early-stage reliability issues
Although mobile robotics has improved significantly, manual machines still benefit from higher initial manufacturing maturity.
Intuitive and reliable manual mode
Converted AGVs allow operators to drive the vehicle manually just like theoriginal machine.
Purpose-built mobile robots usually include a manual mode, but it is often: less ergonomic less intuitive more dependent on operator training
If manual driving is frequent or operationally critical,a manual-machine-based AGV is often the best option.
Disadvantages of AGVs/AMRs Based on Manual Vehicles
Mechanical and electrical fatigue under continuous operation
This is a crucial and often overlooked factor.
Manual vehicles are not engineered to operate 24/7 autonomously.
AGVs and AMRs, however, typically run:
-
for several hours without breaks
-
across multiple shifts
-
sometimes continuously for days or weeks
This leads to mechanical and electrical fatigue that the original equipment was never designed for, causing:
-
premature wear
-
more failures
-
higher maintenance requirements
Purpose-built AGVs/AMRs, on the other hand, are designed specifically for continuous autonomous duty cycles.
Larger size and reduced maneuverability
Manual vehicles must include space for the human operator.
When converted into AGVs/AMRs, they tend to be:
-
bigger
-
wider
-
heavier
-
less agile
This is a limitation in narrow aisles or high-density warehouse layouts.
Key Questions to Decide Between Both Options
To choose objectively, focus on two fundamental questions:
Do you have enough space for a manual-vehicle-based AGV?
If the answer is nothe decision is straightforward:
Choose a purpose-built AGV/AMR.
These robots are more compact and maneuverable.
Do you need a functional and intuitive manual mode?
If the answer is yesa manual-based AGV/AMR is often the best choice.
Manual mode may be required for two main reasons:
Part of the route requires manual driving
In many real projects, part of the workflow can be automated and part cannot.
A very common scenario:
-
50% of the route → automatic
-
50% → manual
En estos casos, es imprescindible usar una máquina manual convertida en AGV/AMR.
Manual mode as operational backup
Manual mode is not only useful when something fails.
It is important when:
-
operational downtime is unacceptable
-
the cost of a system interruption is high
-
redundancy is required
Companies must decide whether to rely on:
-
the AGV itself as a manual backup, or, o
-
a separate fleet of manual vehicles for emergencies
The choice depends mainly on cost and fleet strategy.
Decision tree
Esto puede ayudaros a decidir cuál es vuestra mejor opción:
Conclusion
Choosing between an AGV/AMR based on a manual vehicle and one designed from scratch depends primarily on:
-
available space
-
the need for manual mode
-
duty cycle (continuous or intermittent)
-
long-term reliability expectations
Both options can work extremely well when applied in the right context.
The goal is to match the technology to the actual operational constraints, not the other way around.
