3 ms·

>Because whether at rest or in action (an other commenter provided a video) that thing looks like it would tip over if you looked at it funny, let alone "over r

>Because whether at rest or in action (an other commenter provided a video) that thing looks like it would tip over if you looked at it funny, let alone "over rough terrain". A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Shenanigans moving heavy things is what they do when they get bored but don't have any lower effort mischief to engage in.

masklinn 7y ago
> A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Well sure but why would they use it in action aside from the fun factor of seeing this lumbering contraption (and at 1400kg empty with a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly) flail and fall over every few minutes?
- falsedan 7y ago
  > a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly 8kph is a gentle jog, hardly lumbering.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  They're not gonna walk it out into a firefight but it makes sense for getting heavier weapons into the hard to get to places you inevitably wind up wanting them. This kind of vehicle is useful for moving all the weapons systems we put on top of M113 and Humvee chassis. Also, it's worth remembering that this is a prototype, not a finished system.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > They're not gonna walk it out into a firefight but it makes sense for getting heavier weapons into the hard to get to places you inevitably wind up wanting them. No better than a souped up ATV would. Probably worse, with harder maintenance and more breakdown potential. > Also, it's worth remembering that this is a prototype, not a finished system. Doesn't matter, it's the concept itself which is nonsense.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Go watch some rock crawling videos on YouTube. That's the kind of terrain legged vehicles are envisioned for. Making wheeled vehicles navigate that kind of terrain is non-trivial and requires lots of design compromises. There's a reason you see most people doing it in dedicated recreational vehicles. >No better than a souped up ATV would Big obstacles necessitate some combination of big tires (and all the big heavy parts to turn those without breaking) and massive amounts of suspension travel in order to maintain wheels on the ground (and therefore stability). A legged vehicle of the same weight would be able to carry much larger cargo or go over much rougher terrain because it would simply be able to step through each obstacle rather than roll over it. >Probably worse, with harder maintenance and more breakdown potential. Pin and bushings joints aren't exactly maintenance intensive and in "you should have replaced this last year" condition they tend to be more operable rotary power transmission systems. The problem is figuring out how to control the damn thing. Fairly recent advances in programming techniques (ML, basically) have resulted in new solutions for this problem which has resulted in renewed interest in legged systems. >Doesn't matter, it's the concept itself which is nonsense. There's a reason people keep trying to make legged designs viable. They're very attractive for navigating rough terrain because they offer the potential to do equivalent work with a smaller (and therefore cheaper and simpler to maintain) vehicle. It just turns out that every time someone has tried to build one the technology isn't quite there yet.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      > Doesn't matter, it's the concept itself which is nonsense. Not at all. Look at the kind of terrain that recent Boston Dynamics bots can handle. The concept is solid, they just didn't have the technology yet to make it practical. (And we're still working on it.)
    - magduf 7y ago
      You sound like someone who's never been on a hike, especially on a rock scramble. Try driving any wheeled vehicle over terrain that's filled with rocks and boulders; it can't be done. But I can easily walk over it, climb through fissures, etc.
      - 7y ago

masklinn 7y ago

> A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Well sure but why would they use it in action aside from the fun factor of seeing this lumbering contraption (and at 1400kg empty with a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly) flail and fall over every few minutes?

falsedan 7y ago
> a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly 8kph is a gentle jog, hardly lumbering.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
They're not gonna walk it out into a firefight but it makes sense for getting heavier weapons into the hard to get to places you inevitably wind up wanting them. This kind of vehicle is useful for moving all the weapons systems we put on top of M113 and Humvee chassis. Also, it's worth remembering that this is a prototype, not a finished system.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > They're not gonna walk it out into a firefight but it makes sense for getting heavier weapons into the hard to get to places you inevitably wind up wanting them. No better than a souped up ATV would. Probably worse, with harder maintenance and more breakdown potential. > Also, it's worth remembering that this is a prototype, not a finished system. Doesn't matter, it's the concept itself which is nonsense.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Go watch some rock crawling videos on YouTube. That's the kind of terrain legged vehicles are envisioned for. Making wheeled vehicles navigate that kind of terrain is non-trivial and requires lots of design compromises. There's a reason you see most people doing it in dedicated recreational vehicles. >No better than a souped up ATV would Big obstacles necessitate some combination of big tires (and all the big heavy parts to turn those without breaking) and massive amounts of suspension travel in order to maintain wheels on the ground (and therefore stability). A legged vehicle of the same weight would be able to carry much larger cargo or go over much rougher terrain because it would simply be able to step through each obstacle rather than roll over it. >Probably worse, with harder maintenance and more breakdown potential. Pin and bushings joints aren't exactly maintenance intensive and in "you should have replaced this last year" condition they tend to be more operable rotary power transmission systems. The problem is figuring out how to control the damn thing. Fairly recent advances in programming techniques (ML, basically) have resulted in new solutions for this problem which has resulted in renewed interest in legged systems. >Doesn't matter, it's the concept itself which is nonsense. There's a reason people keep trying to make legged designs viable. They're very attractive for navigating rough terrain because they offer the potential to do equivalent work with a smaller (and therefore cheaper and simpler to maintain) vehicle. It just turns out that every time someone has tried to build one the technology isn't quite there yet.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    > Doesn't matter, it's the concept itself which is nonsense. Not at all. Look at the kind of terrain that recent Boston Dynamics bots can handle. The concept is solid, they just didn't have the technology yet to make it practical. (And we're still working on it.)
  - magduf 7y ago
    You sound like someone who's never been on a hike, especially on a rock scramble. Try driving any wheeled vehicle over terrain that's filled with rocks and boulders; it can't be done. But I can easily walk over it, climb through fissures, etc.
    - 7y ago