Hays Consolidated Independent School District came to Mobotics with a practical sports-field maintenance challenge: how can the district keep its artificial-turf football fields free of leaves and trash while also lifting flattened turf fibers and redistributing infill without overworking the playing surface?
The district was looking beyond a machine that could simply travel across a field. The right solution needed to support three connected tasks:
- Collect leaves, paper, bottles, and other loose debris.
- Groom or “fluff” matted artificial-turf fibers so the surface presents more consistently.
- Redistribute displaced infill with a light enough touch to avoid removing too much material or aggressively disturbing the field.
Mobotics evaluated two different robotic approaches: the modular FJDynamics RM21 turf platform and the PUDU MT1 Max autonomous sweeper.
Why artificial-turf maintenance needs a gentle approach
Football fields collect far more than visible trash. Leaves and windblown debris settle into the fibers, repeated play lays the turf over in high-use areas, and infill gradually migrates away from traffic lanes, sidelines, goal areas, and other heavily used zones.
Cleaning too lightly can leave material embedded in the field. Grooming too aggressively can move excessive infill, stress seams, or create an uneven surface. That makes route design, brush selection, travel speed, pass frequency, and field inspection just as important as the robot itself.
The objective for Hays CISD was controlled maintenance: collect debris, stand the fibers back up, and encourage more even infill distribution while preserving the field system.
Option 1: FJDynamics RM21 with modular turf attachments
The FJDynamics RM21 is a multi-function robotic turf platform that can work with different attachments instead of limiting the operator to one task.
For this application, two RM21 attachments are especially relevant:
- DB01 Dew Brush Kit: a broad, light-contact brush that can be evaluated for gently grooming the artificial-turf pile and lifting fibers that have been pressed down by play.
- GC01 Grass Collector Kit: a collection attachment designed to pick up clippings, fallen leaves, and debris. FJDynamics also identifies artificial-turf cleaning as an application for the collector.
This distinction matters. The dew brush is the grooming component; the collector handles debris pickup. Depending on field conditions, Hays CISD could use them in separate scheduled passes rather than asking one attachment to perform two different jobs.
The RM21’s RTK and LiDAR navigation also make it possible to define repeatable field routes. A district could establish lighter routine passes across the full field and schedule additional attention for sidelines or other high-use zones, subject to field testing and the turf manufacturer’s maintenance guidance.
Option 2: PUDU MT1 Max with a rubber main brush
The second solution evaluated was the PUDU MT1 Max, an autonomous dry sweeper built to collect material ranging from fine dust and paper to leaves and larger trash.
MT1 Max brings several useful cleaning capabilities to the football-field problem:
- A 70-centimeter sweeping path
- A 35-liter debris container
- AI-assisted debris recognition and spot cleaning
- Adaptive sweeping behavior for different debris conditions
- 3D LiDAR and multi-sensor obstacle detection
- Long operating windows for large-area routes
During the Mobotics evaluation, the rubber-brush configuration showed potential to perform all three desired functions in a single workflow: collect loose leaves and trash, lift or “fluff” turf fibers, and lightly move surface infill back through the pile.
That result makes MT1 Max an interesting alternative for a district that prioritizes debris collection and wants a grooming effect from the same pass. It should still be validated through controlled field trials. Brush height, travel speed, route overlap, surface moisture, infill type, and field age can all affect the outcome.
PUDU markets MT1 Max as an autonomous sweeper rather than a dedicated artificial-turf groomer. Its use on a specific field should therefore be approved through the district’s maintenance process and checked against the turf system manufacturer’s warranty and care instructions.
Comparing the two approaches
The RM21 and MT1 Max approach the problem from different starting points.
| Evaluation area | FJDynamics RM21 | PUDU MT1 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Primary platform | Multi-function turf robot | Autonomous commercial sweeper |
| Fiber grooming | DB01 dew brush for a light-contact grooming pass | Rubber main brush showed a useful lifting effect during evaluation |
| Debris collection | GC01 collector for leaves and artificial-turf debris | Integrated sweeping system and 35-liter debris container |
| Infill movement | Gentle brush passes can be tested and adjusted | Rubber brush showed potential for light redistribution during sweeping |
| Operating strategy | Separate grooming and collection attachments | Potential single-pass debris collection and grooming workflow |
| Best reason to choose | Purpose-built modular turf maintenance | Strong integrated debris collection with a useful grooming effect |
The decision is not simply about which robot has more features. It depends on the district’s maintenance priorities.
RM21 offers a modular turf-care strategy with dedicated attachments. MT1 Max offers a simpler sweeping-centered workflow that may complete debris pickup and light grooming in one route. Field conditions and trial results should determine which approach—or combination—delivers the best balance.
What a Hays CISD field pilot should measure
A useful pilot should establish a baseline before either robot begins work. Mobotics recommends documenting:
- The amount and type of debris collected per field
- The appearance and vertical recovery of turf fibers before and after a pass
- Infill depth at consistent test points
- Material displaced into collection areas or removed with debris
- Route completion time and operator intervention
- Performance in sidelines, hash marks, goal areas, and other high-use zones
- Brush wear and field response across repeated maintenance cycles
Infill measurements are particularly important. The goal is redistribution, not removal. If a brush collects too much infill or creates visible ridges, brush setup, route overlap, or operating frequency should be adjusted before the program expands.
A repeatable maintenance program for school athletics
For a school district, the larger opportunity is consistency across fields. Once Hays CISD identifies the right brush, route, and operating frequency, the district can create a repeatable procedure for pre-game cleanup, post-event debris collection, and scheduled turf grooming.
Autonomous equipment does not eliminate field inspections or specialized turf maintenance. It can take over repeatable passes so grounds teams have more time for seams, repairs, infill testing, edge work, and the judgment-heavy tasks that protect field quality and player safety.
The Hays CISD evaluation shows why sports-field automation should begin with the surface and the desired outcome. The best robot is the one that collects the right debris, produces the right grooming effect, and does so gently enough to support the field’s maintenance requirements.
Explore commercial landscaping and turf robots, compare the FJDynamics RM21 and PUDU MT1 Max, or request an onsite sports-field assessment.