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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
