51 ms·
I'm not sure that these intuitions are actually correct. For example, while it seems obvious that a four wheel solution should be faster and cheaper, that is on
by HALtheWise 8y ago
I'm not sure that these intuitions are actually correct. For example, while it seems obvious that a four wheel solution should be faster and cheaper, that is only really true if you assume that software and controls algorithms are expensive. This robot needs fewer wheels, tires, frame structure, and drive motors than a conventional four wheel design, and the ability to lean into the direction of motion gives higher acceleration limits, increasing speed. Just like a bike is cheaper and higher performance than a recumbent tricycle, this might actually be cheaper and higher performance than something more conventional. If not today, Boston Dynamics seems to be betting that it will become so in the future.
- ivalm 8y agoThe counterweight swinging seems like a major hazard. Also, I am curious what stability issues it will have if there is a sudden hazard appearing (let's say person walk in front of it).
- fludlight 8y agoCover it with a hard plastic skirt at the max range of motion.
- Havoc 8y ago>The counterweight swinging seems like a major hazard. Seems like an easily enough problem. Basically every car out there has reverse sensors...
- readingnews 8y agoYou are assuming that there are people around to be a liability. I am assuming there will be no people in this warehouse.
- lukasm 8y agoThe people will always be there to restart the system and clean up the accidents. Robots have to be designed in that in mind.
- thanatos_dem 8y agoRestarting systems and cleaning up seem like jobs that can be/have been automated.
- etatoby 8y agoJudging by the video, the swinging weight is used to provide all sorts of acceleration: forwards, back, and to lift the payload. This is a smart usage of a dead weight (batteries) that makes all the other motors smaller and lighter.
- eeZah7Ux 8y agoNitpick: recumbents are faster.
- HALtheWise 8y agoInteresting. I just looked more into this, and it seems to depend on what performance regime we are measuring speed in. It seems like recumbants are always heavier, which makes them worse on hills, but extremely optimized recumbants with aerodynamic shells are lower drag on flat ground. From an agility perspective, uprights always win, which is probably the closer analogy for "cycle speed" that Handle cares about. Thanks for teaching me something :)
- eeZah7Ux 8y agoThe main difference is that on an upright bike one cannot exert more force on the pedals that the body weight, while on a recumbent the upper body is locked into the chair and pushes against the back.
- ufmace 8y agoNot true. It's a completely standard technique to pull down on the handlebars to exert more force than your body weight on the pedals. Watch any video of a pro cyclist climbing hills, or sprinting on a straight.
- ufmace 8y agoBasically right, except for one detail: Heavier recumbent bikes are slower to get up hills, due to being heavier. But that extra weight actually makes them faster going downhill. Not enough to be faster overall if the power source is still one person pedaling, but still. Source - I was part of a project in college that built a recumbent tandem bike. We built the frame out of large-diameter steel tubing, and it was quite heavy. I followed it on a normal bicycle several times while testing. Even with 2 people pedaling, it was easy to keep up with going up hills. It would tend to get away from me going downhill though.