7 ms·

Raptor robot runs at 28.58 mph, faster than any human [video]

81 points by ca98am79 12y ago

Cuuugi 12y ago
So does a car. Whats your point?
- mryingster 12y ago
  I think the fact that cars don't use bipedal locomotion to achieve fast velocities is the point.
- gambiting 12y ago
  I am not aware of any bipedal cars, and I think that's the point here. A machine that moves like human, yet for the first time ever can actually do it faster than we can.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    It doesn't move like a human. It has digitigrade legs and a forward-backwards horizontal balance thing. It runs, I guess, like a raptor. It's not a big shock that things built for speed can run faster than humans can. Horses can also run faster than humans. So can cheetahs. Ostriches, if you want something bipedal.
    - throwaway7767 12y ago
      Exactly. It also can't move in any of the other ways a human can, it certainly won't be climbing obstacles. It's not as if humans are the pinnacle of power efficiency. We're versatile, but inefficient. So if you're going to compare a machine to human movement, it should be on the basis of versatility. A car is way more efficient than a human at moving on a flat track.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        A human uses less energy going a mile on foot than a car does. So for one definition of efficient, the human wins. They should still win even if they are carrying a modest load. I guess I would have used effective where you said efficient. (If you add in the energy used by modern agriculture to produce the food the human ate, the car probably wins: http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoline-driving http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoli...)
        rquantz 12y ago
        How much energy does a human use when he carries a car for a mile?
        maxerickson 12y ago
        I'm curious how I could have better phrased my comment so as to not invite responses like this. I guess I realize that 'efficient' vs 'effective' is a quibble, but I was trying to respond to the ambiguous usage of 'efficiency', not trying to give the final answer on the comparison.
        rquantz 12y ago
        Sorry, I realized you were trying to be circumspect, I just was instantly visited with a vision of a guy trudging around a track with a car on his back.
        ori_b 12y ago
        How much of that comes from bipedal motion, vs the way that humans break down their food?
        qbrass 12y ago
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwCwwrDnGI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwCwwrDnGI The wheel of cheese rolls effortlessly down the hill with no power source, while the bipeds all end up turning into makeshift wheels trying to catch up to it.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  Simple really, robots will do most physical jobs better than us and society needs to adapt to that. They will also be used in tasks we find disgusting like military conflict. Seeing how little real outrage drones deaths are causing; mostly because of deft political handling of the press; do you think employing robots against "other people" really is going to be much different? The best outcome is that the onset of robots doing much of the work is that it frees enough of the world from economic strife to end the need for warfare.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Biologicals still have an edge - the power-plant issue. Until batteries get a LOT better, or fuel cells get cheaper, a person that lives off of peanut butter and lemonade is a real advantage.
    - seacious 12y ago
      Especially since a very active human will only require the energy equivalent of a liter or two of gas per day.
  - viraptor 12y ago
    > frees enough of the world from economic strife to end the need for warfare. While this sounds good, I'm not sure this would happen for two reasons: - we'd have to completely change the system of work / salaries / resource allocation - the way we're going right now we'll end up with smaller number of companies providing services / resources to huge society that is much larger than needed to support those companies - I don't believe people have a need for warefare... they may actually be more interested in it, assuming their other daily needs are satisfied in an easier way Why do you think automating much more work would make life better for people in general?
  - PavlovsCat 12y ago
    The world has economic strife not in the least because of greed, and violence not in the least because of the lust for power. I am afraid more efficiency might not necessarily reduce those, it might even enhance them.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It's a pity this was downvoted because that's exactly the sort of thing against which new tech should be tested. So, to really answer the 'what's your point' question I think the point is that bipedal could be more energy efficient than wheels and that feet can go where wheels can not.
  - throwaway7767 12y ago
    > I think the point is that bipedal could be more energy efficient than wheels and that feet can go where wheels can not. The second one, absolutely. As for the former, I don't think you can get any more efficient than a wheel on a flat track - certainly biped movement is a lot less efficient since you need to work against gravity.
    - claudius 12y ago
      The perceived efficiency of bipedal movement comes mostly from the ludicrous efficiency of biological actors when converting chemical into kinetic energy – a cyclist (or even runner) can go a day on the chemical energy that would get a motorcycle to the next petrol station [0]. Also consider that even the fastest bipedal runners tend to go much slower than any motorised vehicle, and even quadruped animals rarely reach into what is considered standard with cars. [0] The guideline daily amounts for a human are roughly 10 MJ, from personal experience, cycling a bit during the day only increases that marginally (e.g. 10-20%). It seems reasonable to claim 1 MJ per 100 km cycled, whereas one kg of gasoline (~1L) is at ~42 MJ. Given the usual 1-10L/100 km, 1 MJ appear to correspond to a few kilometres.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Here is a trivial proof of the former: take an elite biped marathon runner on foot vs an older marginally in shape biped like myself on a bicycle, and on my bicycle I can beat the elite runner quite easily. Another way to model it is I can quite easily maintain 10 MPH without much if any sweating on a bike trail, but on a calm hike with the kids on the same trail I struggle to achieve 3 MPH average.
- officialjunk 12y ago
  One key difference is friction. With wheels there is continuous contact with the substrate, which means continuous friction and thus energy loss. Since this robot has an aerial phase, this should be considered an advancement towards the energy efficiency of most land animals who only* lose energy due to friction when in contact with a substrate. Edit: *not factoring wind resistance, which is present regardless of mode of locomotion.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Cars aren't bipedal so no, a car doesn't "run" faster than a human.
- Lambdanaut 12y ago
  Cars can't jump over obstacles, climb stairs, or traverse rubble.
  - moron4hire 12y ago
    Hrm, seems like an opportunity :)
    - mhb 12y ago
      Paving, for the win!
      - moron4hire 12y ago
        I was originally thinking along the lines of hillclimbing jeeps. But imagine a treaded vehicle that could automatically level and pave a road. There are these things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkVBg_-OviI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkVBg_-OviI and these things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMPoHahaj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMPoHahaj8 but they all look like they're running on ground that has already been cleared and leveled. It would be really interesting to see something that could dig through ground and rock like a tunnel digging machine and compresses the material into tile blocks to use as pavers.
gioi 12y ago
28.58 mph == 45.995 km/h [0], BTW. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=28.58+mph+in+kilometers+per+hour http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=28.58+mph+in+kilometers...
mryingster 12y ago
Link to video. If there was embedded video on that page, it wasn't working for me. Here is a video I found of it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/embed/lPEg83vF_Tw http://www.youtube.com/embed/lPEg83vF_Tw I'm a little disappointed that its tethered... Then again, having little robots that run faster than any human be tethered is probably a good precaution just in case we ever achieve singularity.... ;)
kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
Randall Munroe's nightmare has come true.
dllthomas 12y ago
Yeah, but Usain Bolt has on-board power.
- VLM 12y ago
  No on-board oxidizer storage. Less than a weeks worth of water storage. Lame.
dumbfounder 12y ago
Are we supposed to ignore the arm the "robot" is attached to? Set that thing out on a road and let it run and I will be impressed.
- iandanforth 12y ago
  Not quite two legs, but you might like this :) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2626036/Move-Road-Runner-Sprinting-robot-tears-race-track-reaching-speeds-20mph-using-six-rotating-legs.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2626036/Move-...
spindritf 12y ago
That's a great leg imitation and obstacle tolerance but does it really count as running when it's permanently attached to a stationary object?
- mattmaroon 12y ago
  I was thinking that too. I bet Usain Bolt could run faster if he had an arm holding him up.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
These are really impressive from a mechanical engineering point of view, but in all these demos the powerplant is not on the frame. Instead, power is fed via wire, making it stationary. Its a little disingenuous to claim it goes 28 mph when it doesn't even power itself. I'd love to see what real speeds they can get out of these things with a powerplant installed, especially over mixed terrain. Right now, this is like running a Tesla with a very long extension cable and claiming absurd 0-60 times. Instead, tell me how well it operates with a battery or an engine and all the extra weight and engineering accouterments that requires.
- bnegreve 12y ago
  > These are really impressive from a mechanical engineering point of view It's not just a mechanical engineering problem, the dynamic of the system is way too complex to be modeled with a simple formula. There's a lot of AI/machine learning involved in robotics. That's hard with or without external power supply.
- gamerdonkey 12y ago
  I'm going to reply to your comment, as it's currently on top, but several of the top comments have this same sentiment. I don't think it's fair to criticize this project harshly because the robot has external power and a supporting arm to keep it from damaging itself. The research and development was clearly about the design and actuation of the legs, and the researches have clearly done well on that front. To require them to provide onboard power for a system that they don't even know the requirements for is a little much, in my opinion.
  - glesica 12y ago
    The research and development was clearly about the design and actuation of the legs... OK, but then is it really fair for them to publicize how fast it can run? I mean, I guess if the challenge is just to be able to move the legs fast enough, then maybe it is. But then why not publicize the number of steps it can take per unit of time instead of its speed? Speed is kind of misleading anyway unless you know how big it is.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
trose 12y ago
I think people are missing the point about the attached boom arm. They're working on the mechanics of the bipedal motion before worrying about making an autonomous robot.
mcguire 12y ago
Is the "dynamic balance control" really a large gyroscope, with rotational acceleration to control falling forward and backward? Nonetheless, I was really hoping to see what happens whet it falls down while running at high speed on the treadmill.
Medea 12y ago
A lot of people seem to take issue with the lag of on-board power. OutRunner i a running robot with on board power, that have reached some impressive numbers while running outdoors. The projekt is on kickstarter right now: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/138364285/outrunner-the-worlds-most-advanced-running-robot https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/138364285/outrunner-the...
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  its a WHEEL, stop with the running nonsense http://11even.net/wp-content/uploads/Mutant-bicycles-1.jpg http://11even.net/wp-content/uploads/Mutant-bicycles-1.jpg
Gravityloss 12y ago
It is surprising that such things have not been created before. It's a few legs supported on a sideways axis. One would expect it would not have been hard to do it at least 50 years ago. But in robotics everything is about 1000x harder than one would naively assume, it seems. (Judging by how my vacuum robot with a friggin' laser scanner can't find its docking station from 1 meter away.)
anjc 12y ago
Have you ever created something which requires somewhat esoteric knowledge to create and understand, and then you show it to someone who doesn't have that knowledge, and you find yourself disappointed with their reaction, and disappointed that they don't understand enough to know that they don't understand? Made up example: "Hey look, I designed a CPU and created a basic computer and wrote an OS...it's basic I know but..." "Can it run Call of Duty? Xbox is better" "That's not the...point...nm" That's what this thread feels like. Except I would have expected HN commenters to have enough insight to know that they don't understand enough to be commenting.

81 points by ca98am79 12y ago

Cuuugi 12y ago

So does a car. Whats your point?

mryingster 12y ago
I think the fact that cars don't use bipedal locomotion to achieve fast velocities is the point.
gambiting 12y ago
I am not aware of any bipedal cars, and I think that's the point here. A machine that moves like human, yet for the first time ever can actually do it faster than we can.
- aetherson 12y ago
  It doesn't move like a human. It has digitigrade legs and a forward-backwards horizontal balance thing. It runs, I guess, like a raptor. It's not a big shock that things built for speed can run faster than humans can. Horses can also run faster than humans. So can cheetahs. Ostriches, if you want something bipedal.
  - throwaway7767 12y ago
    Exactly. It also can't move in any of the other ways a human can, it certainly won't be climbing obstacles. It's not as if humans are the pinnacle of power efficiency. We're versatile, but inefficient. So if you're going to compare a machine to human movement, it should be on the basis of versatility. A car is way more efficient than a human at moving on a flat track.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      A human uses less energy going a mile on foot than a car does. So for one definition of efficient, the human wins. They should still win even if they are carrying a modest load. I guess I would have used effective where you said efficient. (If you add in the energy used by modern agriculture to produce the food the human ate, the car probably wins: http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoline-driving http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoli...)
      - rquantz 12y ago
        How much energy does a human use when he carries a car for a mile?
        maxerickson 12y ago
        I'm curious how I could have better phrased my comment so as to not invite responses like this. I guess I realize that 'efficient' vs 'effective' is a quibble, but I was trying to respond to the ambiguous usage of 'efficiency', not trying to give the final answer on the comparison.
        rquantz 12y ago
        Sorry, I realized you were trying to be circumspect, I just was instantly visited with a vision of a guy trudging around a track with a car on his back.
      - ori_b 12y ago
        How much of that comes from bipedal motion, vs the way that humans break down their food?
      - qbrass 12y ago
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwCwwrDnGI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwCwwrDnGI The wheel of cheese rolls effortlessly down the hill with no power source, while the bipeds all end up turning into makeshift wheels trying to catch up to it.
Shivetya 12y ago
Simple really, robots will do most physical jobs better than us and society needs to adapt to that. They will also be used in tasks we find disgusting like military conflict. Seeing how little real outrage drones deaths are causing; mostly because of deft political handling of the press; do you think employing robots against "other people" really is going to be much different? The best outcome is that the onset of robots doing much of the work is that it frees enough of the world from economic strife to end the need for warfare.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Biologicals still have an edge - the power-plant issue. Until batteries get a LOT better, or fuel cells get cheaper, a person that lives off of peanut butter and lemonade is a real advantage.
  - seacious 12y ago
    Especially since a very active human will only require the energy equivalent of a liter or two of gas per day.
- viraptor 12y ago
  > frees enough of the world from economic strife to end the need for warfare. While this sounds good, I'm not sure this would happen for two reasons: - we'd have to completely change the system of work / salaries / resource allocation - the way we're going right now we'll end up with smaller number of companies providing services / resources to huge society that is much larger than needed to support those companies - I don't believe people have a need for warefare... they may actually be more interested in it, assuming their other daily needs are satisfied in an easier way Why do you think automating much more work would make life better for people in general?
- PavlovsCat 12y ago
  The world has economic strife not in the least because of greed, and violence not in the least because of the lust for power. I am afraid more efficiency might not necessarily reduce those, it might even enhance them.
jacquesm 12y ago
It's a pity this was downvoted because that's exactly the sort of thing against which new tech should be tested. So, to really answer the 'what's your point' question I think the point is that bipedal could be more energy efficient than wheels and that feet can go where wheels can not.
- throwaway7767 12y ago
  > I think the point is that bipedal could be more energy efficient than wheels and that feet can go where wheels can not. The second one, absolutely. As for the former, I don't think you can get any more efficient than a wheel on a flat track - certainly biped movement is a lot less efficient since you need to work against gravity.
  - claudius 12y ago
    The perceived efficiency of bipedal movement comes mostly from the ludicrous efficiency of biological actors when converting chemical into kinetic energy – a cyclist (or even runner) can go a day on the chemical energy that would get a motorcycle to the next petrol station [0]. Also consider that even the fastest bipedal runners tend to go much slower than any motorised vehicle, and even quadruped animals rarely reach into what is considered standard with cars. [0] The guideline daily amounts for a human are roughly 10 MJ, from personal experience, cycling a bit during the day only increases that marginally (e.g. 10-20%). It seems reasonable to claim 1 MJ per 100 km cycled, whereas one kg of gasoline (~1L) is at ~42 MJ. Given the usual 1-10L/100 km, 1 MJ appear to correspond to a few kilometres.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Here is a trivial proof of the former: take an elite biped marathon runner on foot vs an older marginally in shape biped like myself on a bicycle, and on my bicycle I can beat the elite runner quite easily. Another way to model it is I can quite easily maintain 10 MPH without much if any sweating on a bike trail, but on a calm hike with the kids on the same trail I struggle to achieve 3 MPH average.
officialjunk 12y ago
One key difference is friction. With wheels there is continuous contact with the substrate, which means continuous friction and thus energy loss. Since this robot has an aerial phase, this should be considered an advancement towards the energy efficiency of most land animals who only* lose energy due to friction when in contact with a substrate. Edit: *not factoring wind resistance, which is present regardless of mode of locomotion.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Igglyboo 12y ago
Cars aren't bipedal so no, a car doesn't "run" faster than a human.
Lambdanaut 12y ago
Cars can't jump over obstacles, climb stairs, or traverse rubble.
- moron4hire 12y ago
  Hrm, seems like an opportunity :)
  - mhb 12y ago
    Paving, for the win!
    - moron4hire 12y ago
      I was originally thinking along the lines of hillclimbing jeeps. But imagine a treaded vehicle that could automatically level and pave a road. There are these things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkVBg_-OviI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkVBg_-OviI and these things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMPoHahaj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMPoHahaj8 but they all look like they're running on ground that has already been cleared and leveled. It would be really interesting to see something that could dig through ground and rock like a tunnel digging machine and compresses the material into tile blocks to use as pavers.

gioi 12y ago

28.58 mph == 45.995 km/h [0], BTW. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=28.58+mph+in+kilometers+per+hour http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=28.58+mph+in+kilometers...

mryingster 12y ago

Link to video. If there was embedded video on that page, it wasn't working for me. Here is a video I found of it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/embed/lPEg83vF_Tw http://www.youtube.com/embed/lPEg83vF_Tw I'm a little disappointed that its tethered... Then again, having little robots that run faster than any human be tethered is probably a good precaution just in case we ever achieve singularity.... ;)

kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago

Randall Munroe's nightmare has come true.

dllthomas 12y ago

Yeah, but Usain Bolt has on-board power.

VLM 12y ago
No on-board oxidizer storage. Less than a weeks worth of water storage. Lame.

dumbfounder 12y ago

Are we supposed to ignore the arm the "robot" is attached to? Set that thing out on a road and let it run and I will be impressed.

iandanforth 12y ago
Not quite two legs, but you might like this :) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2626036/Move-Road-Runner-Sprinting-robot-tears-race-track-reaching-speeds-20mph-using-six-rotating-legs.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2626036/Move-...

spindritf 12y ago

That's a great leg imitation and obstacle tolerance but does it really count as running when it's permanently attached to a stationary object?

mattmaroon 12y ago
I was thinking that too. I bet Usain Bolt could run faster if he had an arm holding him up.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

These are really impressive from a mechanical engineering point of view, but in all these demos the powerplant is not on the frame. Instead, power is fed via wire, making it stationary. Its a little disingenuous to claim it goes 28 mph when it doesn't even power itself. I'd love to see what real speeds they can get out of these things with a powerplant installed, especially over mixed terrain. Right now, this is like running a Tesla with a very long extension cable and claiming absurd 0-60 times. Instead, tell me how well it operates with a battery or an engine and all the extra weight and engineering accouterments that requires.

bnegreve 12y ago
> These are really impressive from a mechanical engineering point of view It's not just a mechanical engineering problem, the dynamic of the system is way too complex to be modeled with a simple formula. There's a lot of AI/machine learning involved in robotics. That's hard with or without external power supply.
gamerdonkey 12y ago
I'm going to reply to your comment, as it's currently on top, but several of the top comments have this same sentiment. I don't think it's fair to criticize this project harshly because the robot has external power and a supporting arm to keep it from damaging itself. The research and development was clearly about the design and actuation of the legs, and the researches have clearly done well on that front. To require them to provide onboard power for a system that they don't even know the requirements for is a little much, in my opinion.
- glesica 12y ago
  The research and development was clearly about the design and actuation of the legs... OK, but then is it really fair for them to publicize how fast it can run? I mean, I guess if the challenge is just to be able to move the legs fast enough, then maybe it is. But then why not publicize the number of steps it can take per unit of time instead of its speed? Speed is kind of misleading anyway unless you know how big it is.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

trose 12y ago

I think people are missing the point about the attached boom arm. They're working on the mechanics of the bipedal motion before worrying about making an autonomous robot.

mcguire 12y ago

Is the "dynamic balance control" really a large gyroscope, with rotational acceleration to control falling forward and backward? Nonetheless, I was really hoping to see what happens whet it falls down while running at high speed on the treadmill.

Medea 12y ago

A lot of people seem to take issue with the lag of on-board power. OutRunner i a running robot with on board power, that have reached some impressive numbers while running outdoors. The projekt is on kickstarter right now: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/138364285/outrunner-the-worlds-most-advanced-running-robot https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/138364285/outrunner-the...

rasz_pl 12y ago
its a WHEEL, stop with the running nonsense http://11even.net/wp-content/uploads/Mutant-bicycles-1.jpg http://11even.net/wp-content/uploads/Mutant-bicycles-1.jpg

Gravityloss 12y ago

It is surprising that such things have not been created before. It's a few legs supported on a sideways axis. One would expect it would not have been hard to do it at least 50 years ago. But in robotics everything is about 1000x harder than one would naively assume, it seems. (Judging by how my vacuum robot with a friggin' laser scanner can't find its docking station from 1 meter away.)

anjc 12y ago

Have you ever created something which requires somewhat esoteric knowledge to create and understand, and then you show it to someone who doesn't have that knowledge, and you find yourself disappointed with their reaction, and disappointed that they don't understand enough to know that they don't understand? Made up example: "Hey look, I designed a CPU and created a basic computer and wrote an OS...it's basic I know but..." "Can it run Call of Duty? Xbox is better" "That's not the...point...nm" That's what this thread feels like. Except I would have expected HN commenters to have enough insight to know that they don't understand enough to be commenting.