-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chinese technology is absolutely realistic
- Thread starter Leongsam
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 67,321
- Points
- 113
Why it looks dramatic (and funny)
Last year's (2025) race had comparable failures: one robot fell at the start, another's head detached and rolled, and at least one collapsed and broke into pieces. Only a small fraction finished. This year's test runs (including overnight full-course simulations) exposed ongoing issues like balance on real roads, endurance, and minor obstacles.
au.news.yahoo.com
The X post frames it for laughs (suggesting a broom and dustpan instead of a stretcher), and reactions range from mockery of hype to defenses of "iterative testing." But the footage aligns with widespread reporting on the event—no evidence of CGI, actors, or deliberate staging for virality. These robots are still prototypes being stress-tested in public; spectacular failures are expected and even useful for engineers.In short: real robot, real physics, real (if overly theatrical) response team. Current humanoid tech isn't ready for reliable long-distance running without frequent interventions.
- The robot catches its foot on the blue starting line tape right after the countdown, loses balance, and impacts hard enough that its lightweight/composite structure breaks apart (common in current humanoid designs, which prioritize weight savings over extreme durability for marathon distances).
- Staff rushing in with a stretcher is part of the official emergency protocols tested in these events. Organizers treat robot "injuries" with mock medical responses (stretchers, quick removal) to simulate safety procedures for a public race alongside human runners. It's not theater for the camera—it's rehearsed protocol, which makes the scene ironically comical when applied to scattered robot debris.
Last year's (2025) race had comparable failures: one robot fell at the start, another's head detached and rolled, and at least one collapsed and broke into pieces. Only a small fraction finished. This year's test runs (including overnight full-course simulations) exposed ongoing issues like balance on real roads, endurance, and minor obstacles.
au.news.yahoo.com
The X post frames it for laughs (suggesting a broom and dustpan instead of a stretcher), and reactions range from mockery of hype to defenses of "iterative testing." But the footage aligns with widespread reporting on the event—no evidence of CGI, actors, or deliberate staging for virality. These robots are still prototypes being stress-tested in public; spectacular failures are expected and even useful for engineers.In short: real robot, real physics, real (if overly theatrical) response team. Current humanoid tech isn't ready for reliable long-distance running without frequent interventions.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 94,342
- Points
- 113
You really think so?
Similar threads
