2 ms·

The problem with actually running is that it likely will burn way more power at any speed where its trying to run, so this likely would be really boring to watc

by xt00 9y ago

The problem with actually running is that it likely will burn way more power at any speed where its trying to run, so this likely would be really boring to watch -- "he has 2 more seconds of his turbo to use... ohhh... and he's out.. gotta conserve power to avoid getting run down by the other robot at a blistering 4 miles per hour.."

candiodari 9y ago
With this level of control, you're probably right. But if you get the control solved and no human inside it would at least be as interesting as a horse or dog race. The point of running and walking is simply that driving only works on sufficiently flat surfaces and is only efficient if the friction of that can be reduced, e.g. using flattening and asphalt. Running on sand or snow or otherwise loose underground, with big feet to distribute weight, is always going to be more efficient than rolling, we just can't control such systems. But try doing a safari. A 6 hour drive across "flat" savannah, after which you look at the map and see you've travelled 30km, and used up something 1-2% of the lifespan of the 4x4 you were in (axle will need replacement after 50-70 such rides because it'll be shocked to pieces), that ride will cure you of the notion that driving is efficient. And that's flat savannah, really, on photographs it looks really flat an driveable. And at the height of the dry season there are areas where that's even kind of true. Not many though. When you think about other biomes like forests, rocky mountainous areas, swamps (or really anything even a bit wetter than dry savannah, like almost all of Western Europe). Without roads, cars go nowhere. But after dozens of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment per state, it can be tolerably efficient in densely populated areas. Even such efforts unlock something like 20% of the state at best. Most people just happen to have spent their entire life in such an area and then extrapolate their direct experience to cover everything. Then there's "reach". The truth is, even in dense cities, specifically built for car traffic, walkers can reach far more locations than cars ever will, even the smallest most agile car you've ever seen. And even there you see people using power equipment costing millions to compensate for the fact that cars, vans, ... can't navigate something like a building site. Walkers are the future, at some point.

by xt00 9y ago

candiodari 9y ago

With this level of control, you're probably right. But if you get the control solved and no human inside it would at least be as interesting as a horse or dog race. The point of running and walking is simply that driving only works on sufficiently flat surfaces and is only efficient if the friction of that can be reduced, e.g. using flattening and asphalt. Running on sand or snow or otherwise loose underground, with big feet to distribute weight, is always going to be more efficient than rolling, we just can't control such systems. But try doing a safari. A 6 hour drive across "flat" savannah, after which you look at the map and see you've travelled 30km, and used up something 1-2% of the lifespan of the 4x4 you were in (axle will need replacement after 50-70 such rides because it'll be shocked to pieces), that ride will cure you of the notion that driving is efficient. And that's flat savannah, really, on photographs it looks really flat an driveable. And at the height of the dry season there are areas where that's even kind of true. Not many though. When you think about other biomes like forests, rocky mountainous areas, swamps (or really anything even a bit wetter than dry savannah, like almost all of Western Europe). Without roads, cars go nowhere. But after dozens of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment per state, it can be tolerably efficient in densely populated areas. Even such efforts unlock something like 20% of the state at best. Most people just happen to have spent their entire life in such an area and then extrapolate their direct experience to cover everything. Then there's "reach". The truth is, even in dense cities, specifically built for car traffic, walkers can reach far more locations than cars ever will, even the smallest most agile car you've ever seen. And even there you see people using power equipment costing millions to compensate for the fact that cars, vans, ... can't navigate something like a building site. Walkers are the future, at some point.