Slashdot Mirror


Monster Garage's Robotic R/C Car Challenge

KMan writes "According to Roboteq Discover Channel's Monster Garage will be airing an epsisode where the challenge will be to build an R/C controlled car (full sized/real deal). 'Details' on how to build your own R/C car can be found at Roboteq along with airing time info for the Monster Garage episode."

98 comments

  1. So I don't need to buy cars from... by seems+so+green · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... all the amazing rc car deals I keep getting in my email?!?

  2. It's been done before by Phosphor3k · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/30/0510225.shtm l?tid=133&tid=159

    Though the linked video file is no longer there.

    1. Re:It's been done before by Aneurysm · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was one of the challenges on Scrapheap Challenge (Junkyard Wars) last year. Very cool, and they worked pretty well. Wonder how responsive they are to control?

    2. Re:It's been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to see robotic drivers in action click on any Vancouver BC traffic cam. Be forewarned there's still much research left to do.

  3. It's been done before! by WavyGravy-R5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some guys have done it before with a camry and video taped the entire deal. You can get it off of my site at http://mrgravy.com/uploads/remote_camry.wmv (download it if it doesn't stream fast enough). I originally got it from StileProject (don't ever go there kids), and who know's where it came from before then. Defintely worth a watch.

  4. so whats robotic ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful


    is there anything robotic about a RC car/Boat/plane ?

    its like those TV shows battlebots/robotwars that are simply glorified radio control cars, can a radio controlled device really be called a robot ? or is it just another way to make RC seem "cool" if you add the word "robot"

    1. Re:so whats robotic ? by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      its like those TV shows battlebots/robotwars that are simply glorified radio control cars, can a radio controlled device really be called a robot ?

      I've always thought they could improve that show by including both unlimited and autonomous divisions. Admittedly, a well armed autonomous robot is dangerous, but surely there's some way to manage it with a combination of kiss switches and willingness to let it go until it runs out of whatever powers it if necessary.

    2. Re:so whats robotic ? by Beardydog · · Score: 5, Funny

      a combination of kiss switches

      If there's anything more dangerous than a well armed, autonomous robot, it's a well armed, autonomous robot that can only be deactivated with a kiss.

      Be prepared to duck and weave...

    3. Re:so whats robotic ? by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      I used to agree completely.
      My (perhaps eternally) unbuild Battlebot was going to incorporate a lot more onboard intelligence than is normally seen. If nothing else, it would hopefully cut down on "driver error" losses (of which I saw many), but I was still going to refuse to call it a robot on general principles.

      However, writing this post led me to try to find an authoritative definition for the term 'robot'. The following is typical:

      "A robot is a machine designed to execute one or more tasks repeatedly, with speed and precision."

      There is no mention in any of the accepted definitions of autonomy, which means that yes, even a simple RC car can accurately be called a 'robot'. (And yes, it sounds cooler when you do.)

  5. Sorry by Pingular · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I really don't see the point in this. I guess it's an ok novelty thing, but who else than James Bond has use for a R/C car?

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      terrorists.
      no, that's not funny.

    2. Re:Sorry by JasontheMason · · Score: 1

      Suicide Bombers. No, wait, then they wouldn't be suicide bombers. And that's not funny anyway.

      Or, on a more constructive note, full sized radio controlled cars would be good for, say, a (ahem) demolition derby. Or the military, like ground based drones. (If they don't already have them.)

      But other than that, I don't see a point, and naturally some danger, with these things, I would not want to see one driving down my street. I don't think I'd even want to drive one, even with cameras you don't have the same sensory information and feedback on what the vehicle is doing and how it's moving in relation to your control. But, if you do crash it, at least you're not inside. :^)

      JtM

      --
      "Ad infinitem et ultra!" - Buzz Lightyear
    3. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't see the point in this. I guess it's an ok novelty thing, but who else than James Bond has use for a R/C car?

      What's the point of anything? Why read books? Why watch TV? Why install linux and tinker with your computer? Is there really a point to anything?

      If you really can't understand that someone does something purely for entertainment value, you should probably just give up on life and kill yourself.

  6. Jessie's involvement in the show by Fubar411 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is Jessie just not into doing Monster Garage anymore? He barely shows up during the build. He only seems interested in trying out the monster the day of, and seems highly critical. Even the handing out of the tools at the end is very half-hearted. I'd be surprised if he signed up for another season.

    1. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by UberOogie · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I used to really like this show, but not only does Jessie seem less and less interested, he's become more and more of an ass.

      I understand that it is part of his whole "bad boy" persona, but he's just been a complete dick lately. Whenever anyone stands up to him, I find myself rooting for them, even though they get labelled the "bad" guy.

      My Monday night viewing is narrowing down to Monster House and American Chopper.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    2. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 1

      oh come on now, getting his hair cut specifically contributes to the welds. obviously. duh.

    3. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by ananke · · Score: 1

      The whole show went down the drain. At the beginning it seemed quite exciting and sincere. Now it's full of overhyped bs narration, most parts are donated, each vehicle is built for commercial purposes ["let's advertise terminator 3", "let's sell this"], etc. Jesse seems like a decent guy, he knows that the show got stupid, and he doesn't have much say in what goes in it.

      --
      --- d'oh
    4. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by e40 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My $0.02:

      1. He was always an ass, but you just liked it before.

      2. The producers are running out of ideas, and it's getting to Jessie. During the PT Crusier show he kept harping of the fact that the idea (from the producers) sucked.

      3. They're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel for show talent. On shows where there is good talent with good personalities, Jessie isn't an ass.

      All of these make Jessie more of an ass.

    5. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by ldspartan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with a lot of the other posters in this thread. I think the producers of the show have a great, yet horribly executed concept. Jesse James? Building random shit? Sounds good.

      Stupid announcer voices, graphical effects, and corporate sponsorship? Terrible.

      Its amazing that Discovery got it so right with American Chopper, and so so wrong with Monster Garage. The ingredients are the same, there's just a distinct lack of trumped-up bullshit in American Chopper.

      It seems like every third episode of Monster Garage Jesse is saying something that translates to "The Producers of this show are morons," and I think he's right. Remember the skate-board-ramp-RV episode? The producer gets into a whining match with one of the skater/builders that pretty clearly illustrates what a waste the producer is. And remember, he has artistic control... if he left that in, imagine what he's edited out. The crew from the two hearse shows (a dysfunctional group of people if I ever saw one) said similiar things about the producers, and most of them were hollywood types that should be used to that kind of nonsense.

      Monster Garage has a lot of great aspects to it, but the "artistic input" of the producer and who ever else has their hands in the pie sure destroys it.

      --
      lds

    6. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      It's quite old, but The Wheelie episode was pretty cool. I remember the boys getting all amped up over pulling wheelies in a converted ambulance, with Jesse pulling wheelies on an old chopper bicycle early in the piece. And a bunch of prefessional mechanics unable to get the motor running... Good fun.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    7. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by TroyFoley · · Score: 1

      He's not a TV personality that can dedicate himself to it full time (like Steve on Monster House, who's cool too). He has his own shop where he runs his own company to produce his own brand of choppers. Imagine working two jobs and being able to choose which one you get to spend more time at, and one's capable of completely going bankrupt if you don't babysit it. He's at that one.

      --
      After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
    8. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by UberOogie · · Score: 1
      I agree that the producers might have a lot to do with it, but frankly, a lot of it is just Jesse.

      Sometimes Jesse tries to be big man and talk about how this is his "job" when people aren't being as serious as he'd like. Well, if he's going to take that attitude, he should be more professional all the time instead of being a total tool when he's cranky. The Delorean Hovercraft build is a prime example of him just not being professional at all. If this is his "job," he should be a part of it all the time or quit, not just throw tantrums when he's underwhelmed with something.

      As a contrast, Steve on _Monster House_ really works as a team builder and only flips out when he has really been provoked, and even then is willing to accept apologies and chip in. Most of the time these days, Jesse is just throwing hissy fits and, at best, doing exhausts.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    9. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if he signed up for another season.

      It would be too ironic to see his resume on Monster.com.

    10. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

    11. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been watching Monster Garage since it first aired. Maybe you missed it, but part of the "fun" or draw of the show IS the contention between producers and Jesse, and between Jesse and his workers. Duh. Esp. the former--they deliberately try to irritate the hell out of each other, such as distractions during the build process, insults, etc. What, you think the USC cheerleaders showing up on like a day 4 to prance around on a slowly development project was suppose to aid them getting done by the end of day 6 or something?...

      I don't see how an escalation of such activity proves your point. It's supposed to be contentious, moronic, and insulting at times. As to comparisons with American Chopper, the newer show certainly lacks the producer versus cast deliberations (and they don't need it; the father son dynamic is fuq'd up enough as it is). It's not even close to the same planned or superfluous dynamics.

    12. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by polarbrowser · · Score: 1

      I've noticed the same thing. And with the new rules and the new garage, why are they going way over budget? and what happened to the one "freebie" rule?

      Lately my attention has turned more towards "American Chopper" with drama and all.

    13. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by polarbrowser · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's like so many cool start up ideas that get corrupted and totally taken over by over-commercialzation. It's only the brief moments before the marketers take over-board that it is a joy.

      TV anyone?
      Internet?

    14. Re:Jessie's involvement in the show by polarbrowser · · Score: 1

      Yeah the "ramp-RV" episode was where I lost a lot of respect for the show. One of the advertisers logos got paited over because one of the build team was a competitior. And the producers went ape-sh!t over that. Advertising is a double edged sword. They enable a lot of things,b tu they also restrict a lot of what you can do if you want to keep their advertising dollar. It's much like radio and TV censoring having a lot to do with who the advertisers are.

  7. scrapyard challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant


    had this as their finale in their show a couple of years ago

  8. R/C controlled? by dillkvast · · Score: 0, Troll

    Isn't R/C short for radio controlled. Is it suppsed to be a radio controlled controlled car? (the control-unit itself is radio controlled perhaps)

    Pardon me for conTrolling

    --
    Scitne aliquis remedium potimum crapulae?
    1. Re:R/C controlled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it suppsed to be a radio controlled controlled car?

      Correct. For last-minute parts/repairs, they got cash from the automated teller machine machine.

      IHBT,
      Bob

    2. Re:R/C controlled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you all caught the Human Immunodeficiency Virus virus and died!
      If you do, please let me know so I can film it and sell Digital Versatile Disc discs of the progress of your disease.

      I don't know the HyperText Markup Language language, so I'll just let Slashduh handle the mucking up of this post.

  9. Been done by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has been done on both MythBusters and Junkyard Wars. Nothing new.

    At least in the Junkyard version, the two teams fought the RC cars Battlebots style, and Mythbusters strapped a set of rocket engines to it!

    Don't get me wrong, Monster Garage is a good show, but sometimes it's a little overhyped.
    =Smidge=

    1. Re:Been done by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      A little overhyped? More like completely overhyped. I mean, most of the time they just drive the "project" around in some staged fake "competition" at the end, that's really cheesy.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Been done by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1

      At least in the Junkyard version, the two teams fought the RC cars Battlebots style

      And on Junkyard Wars they did it in 10 hours as opposed to a week.

      I like Monster Garage, but this is a lame project.

      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    3. Re:Been done by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1
      And on Junkyard Wars they did it in 10 hours as opposed to a week.

      And with junk (well, duh!) and fewer people instead a pile of cash and lot of freebies. Yeah, they supposedly cut back the freebie to just one item, but I still have to wonder if that's really true.

  10. "KITT, buddy - I need you!" by Chalybeous · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hmm. Am I the only one who thinks this might be a backdoor pilot for a Knight Rider revival?

    "There's nothing worse than a smartass automobile." - KITT, Knight Rider 2000
    --

    "It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." -- Zork

  11. already been done on junkyard wars by Squeezer · · Score: 1

    one episode t hey turned regular cars into remote controlled cars and did a demolition derby for them.

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
  12. Video clip by Danta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A videoclip of a R/C'ed real car. WARNING! Sexually explicit banner ads.

    1. Re:Video clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one to think of how cool it would be to drive that thing on the freeway remotly? Think of the reactions from the people who look into the car and see no one in there. :)

    2. Re:Video clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WARNING! Sexually explicit banner ads.

      Slasdotted.

  13. ...that becomes... by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 2, Funny

    An R/C car that becomes a streetsweeper that becomes a lawnmower that becomes a hot air balloon that becomes a figure-8 car.

  14. Doc Brown by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reminds me of when Doc Brown put Einstein into the front seat of the DeLorean and drove it around with a radio controller.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
  15. HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by Cryofan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would say that RC cars are indeed a type of robot. In fact, MIT has a webpage on how to convert RC Cars to a robot. See:
    http://web.mit.edu/tas/www/traxx/rt_main.htm

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      RC cars are not robots because they do not make decisions for themselves. The only exceptions to that which I am aware of are speed controllers for electric cars which implement regenerative braking and thus ABS, and which have a temperature sensor and will shut down. The ABS would seem to me to possibly qualify as robotics (it's sensing something and then taking physical action) but the temp sensor not.

      A real example of automotive robotics would be active suspension, a so-far failed technology which would use actuators attached to each corner of the suspension and which would pull up or push down based on the road to smooth out bumps; your wheel dives into and jumps out of a pothole, for example, without the huge jarring shock. Or your SUV drives over a downed tree trunk (branches are still going to punch though your grille and radiator, sucka. Better get out the chainsaw after all.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no robots that make decisions by themselves. All robots have to be built or programmed to do a certain task and that is all they do. You'd better define what you mean by making decisions by themselves.

      If you think a "robot" needs to use sensors to produce physical action, then what is the difference between taking input from a radio frequency receiver and a encoder or position sensor? They are both controlling inputs to the robot at different levels of abstraction. What's the difference between the robot accepting commands like "Go Forward" or "Move actuator out 4 centimeters"?

      By the way, regenerative braking is not ABS. They are entirely different concepts. You can have regenerative assisted hydraulic brakes though. Also if you compare the effect of regenerative braking and engine braking, you'll realize that if the road is slick enough, it's possible that regenerative braking would have to be modulated by the ABS system if the wheels are detected to lock up.

    3. Re:HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I shouldn't respond to ACs. I know they only post for protection from themselves. But here goes: Part of the definition of robot is that they must make some decisions for themselves. Obviously no computer can do anything it is not programmed to do; programming the computer is the equivalent of teaching it.

      The difference between a robot and a remote-controlled toy is that the robot has a goal (pick this thing up) and it decides how to do it, whereas you control each action of a robotlike toy.

      The way regenerative braking gives you ABS, in a sense, is that you can vary the amount of power being taken from the motor, which is used as a generator. If the power coming from the motor drops off too rapidly then you know the wheels are locking up (or slipping unevenly) and you decrease the amount of power you are taking. The speed controller makes its decision on braking force based both on how much brake you are applying (which it receives as a pulse rate from the radio receiver) and the amount of power coming back from the motor during regenerative braking.

      There is no need for ABS to stop regenerative braking from locking up the wheels. The only time you need to engage brakes at all on a vehicle with regenerative braking is when your speed is too low to get any substantial load on the motor. I suppose you could also need to do it if you can't get enough braking force out of the motors but as they are usually about as efficient as a generator as they are as a motor, I suspect that at least at higher speeds you can load them enough to lock up the wheels.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're right. You shouldn't have responded.


      Robot:
      1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.

      Your arguments fail so badly because you don't have an abstract view of what you're talking about. A goal can be "I want to pick this thing up" or as simple as "I want to move forward". A decision can be "The obstacle is blocking the left path so I will choose to go right" or "I will perform the action specified in my command input instead of the other 3 possible actions that could be commanded".

      If I control an RC car, I do not control each action of it. I specify that it should go left. It has implicit understanding of how to move the wheels simultaneously. It knows when the wheels have reached maximum deflection. Yet all I said was "Go left" and it performs that action. That's all there needs to be said about robots really. They act from a command. How intelligent they are is irrelevant.

      Do you understand that until you create an abstract model for a "robot" you are simply giving examples of what you THINK are robots? You have not created a model which is why your requirement that robots make decisions now becomes a requirement that they have goals. Each new specific example brings up a different problem which can only be resolved in the definition is more abstract. By the way, I did my MS degree work in mobile robotics. Yes, they were decision making and goal oriented so I think they were robots! :) By the way, what is the goal of the active suspension? Is it possible to say it has a goal because it will 1) never achieve the goal and decide it is finished 2) can never be given a different goal?

      About ABS and regenerative braking, I think you've proven my point. ABS and regenerative braking are entirely separate concepts. You can implement a form of ABS with regenerative braking but there's nothing innherent in regenerative braking that says when it is used, ABS is automatically useless. Again... think ABSTRACT! Regenerative braking is the concept of reusing kinetic energy from your car. ABS is the concept of preventing skidding wheels. They are SEPARATE!

    5. Re:HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      An RC car does not actually understand that its wheels have turned all the way to the right. All it knows is that it is asking for the wheels to be all the way to the right. It has no way to know what the servo is actually doing. There is no feedback. It cannot sense the servo position, or the wheels' position.

      Now, let me address ABS and regenerative braking once more. ABS means Antilock Braking System. Braking is slowing you down. Antilock means without the wheels stopping before the car does. Regenerative braking gives you this effect. Therefore, regenerative braking is ABS. I don't think I can put it any more clearly. I didn't say one was the other; I said one gave you the other, and I said which was which.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:HowTo convert RC Car to a Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 6 years ago I personally disassembled a cheap $25 Radio Shack RC car and when I took apart the servo for the steering, it did have metal contacts for detecting maximum deflection. It was not a normal servo that takes PWM. It was a very simple motor that would operate until it hit metal contacts and then the controller board switched off the motor. It did not have an analog position control like normal servos. Because of the feedback from the deflection sensor it could move the wheels fully to the left or right and sense when the motor had to be activated to hold that position.

      I have recently taken apart a digital camera to fix the lens extension mechanism and it also has sensors to know when the lens is fully extended and fully retracted. Does that make my camera a robot now?

      My car does not have the usual definition of ABS yet in normal circumstances when I stop my car, I can stop it without the wheels stopping before the car does. That does not mean that I give the car ABS. If I hit the brakes hard enough I will skid. Similarly with regenerative braking, if enough current is put through the motors to stop the wheels, the wheels will skid. If your implementation of regenerative braking has ABS features, I have no problem with that but they are separate. One does not give you the other. It is the implementation that gives you ABS. If you're not convinced, can you make a comparison with regular friction brakes and explain why regular friction brakes do not give you ABS. I would simply argue that again, they are different concepts and it is the implementation of friction brakes that give you ABS.

  16. I'm not satisfied until... by SamSim · · Score: 1

    I won't be satisfied until the R/C car is also capable of travelling through time.

  17. Re:Monster Garage - More Info -D'oh! by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    Sorry, I effed up the last link's URL and forgot to include one:

    Almost-related ramblings of a software developer

    Why is Jesse James so popular?

  18. Monster Garage is a Joke by SloWave · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Lost interest in that worthless show when then converted a Mustang into a lawnmower. Hanging chrome plated non-functional mower blades from the car doors is suppose to be cool? Caught one of the later shows where they tried to drive a couple backhoe blades off a pair of hydraulic pumps using a little tiny fan belt coupled to a car motor. Seems they could figure out why the fan belt kept braking. Jesse was there the whole time and didn't catch on. Makes me wonder how real his bikes are. Don't count on Monster Garage for any useful inspiration.

    1. Re:Monster Garage is a Joke by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      Lost interest in that worthless show when then converted a Mustang into a lawnmower.

      I thought I remembered hearing that the lawnermower episode was the pilot. I was wrong. It's the forth episode. (Although I believe that car was the first "idea" the producers came up with.)

      I gave up interest in the show when it became crystal clear that the first rule ("When completed, the monster machine must appear to be stock.") was completely and totally ignored. In fact, none of the rules seem to actually apply. The only rule for winning is that the completed car must do whatever was chosen for that episode.

      I no longer watch the Discovery Channel. There's nothing good on anymore. (Same with TLC, but that happened earlier.) I'm left with the History Channel for TV entertainment. I wonder why I'm playing more video games now...

      Yet again, Mozilla won't let me preview (the HTML is there, I can View Source, but Mozilla won't display it). I'm going to have to switch back to IE until this is fixed... *sigh* Please forgive any errors that should have been fixed on preview!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:Monster Garage is a Joke by polarbrowser · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not only do they break the rule of appearing stock, but they almost always give the project a sparkly paint job with flames - I think flames are used too much.

      And since jessie builds motorcycles why don't they use motorcycles as the base for a few projects. The only time I saw a motorcycle in monster garage was during the Terminator 3 truck episode and then the bike(triumph) was only a prop.

  19. Junkyard Wars by wardomon · · Score: 1

    has already done it. Wouldn't you rather watch the abusive and dysfuntional family that is "American Chopper" anyway?

    --

    - - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
    1. Re:JunkYard Wars by Grimster · · Score: 1

      I saw this episode of Junkyard Wars it was very cool, they made these big monstrous "Mad Max" type cars with steal spikes bristling all over and stuff, definitely one of my favorite episodes.

      I was gonna post about this very point, that it was already done on JY Wars and done in 10 hours, using mostly "junk" albeit finely picked over and amassed "uber junk" but junk nonetheless.

      --
      --- www.f-theocean.com
  20. This would be great for NASCAR by swb · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm sure "real" race fans would never go for this, but NASCAR has gotten lamer and lamer as the number of safety restrictions have gone up; the only "real" racing is on short tracks anymore, and those are rapidly in decline as NASCAR moves races out of the hills into big, fast, new superspeedway style tracks.

    The cars are so hobbled by aerodynamics rules and sometimes even restrictor plates that you don't get racing, you get single-file drafting and a ton of pit strategy, and neither is exciting racing. Competitive pits can be exciting, but pit strategy isn't per se, and neither is a long line of cars going round in circles.

    Having the drivers race their cars via advanced simulators would eliminate the need for many of the safety enhancements; the owners would drive crash prevention via economics, not "concern for drivers" since no drivers would ever get hurt. Drivers could drive much more aggressively and the cars could be given much more competitive power bands.

    It's not "real" racing, but from a distance does it matter if there's a person in the car or not?

    1. Re:This would be great for NASCAR by polarbrowser · · Score: 1

      That just gave me an idea. Insted of a simulator how about remote controled full size race cars.

      Now that would be cool. I've been much of a racing fan, but I just might watch remotely piloted race cars. No safety restrictions, just raw unchecked competition.

      Imagine screaming machines racing around the track at hundreds of miles per hour with the drivers on the sidelines. If there is a wreck then would be parts flying everywhere through the air and no one would get hurt.

      Then someday a touring test of sorts would be possible with autonomous racing vehicles competing with human pilots.

  21. Talk about dangerous ... by dougmc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The RobeteQ site starts out with a big warning --
    Important Warning and Disclaimer Remote controlling or operating semi/fully autonomous full-size gasoline powered automotive vehicle is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Such a vehicle should only be operated on a secure test track and never be used to carry passengers.
    And yes, it's in bold type and all, but it's not nearly strong enough.

    R/C equipment fails. Even in a standard sized R/C car or plane, things can and do go wrong. Planes can fly miles away before they run out of gas, and cars can end up doing doughnuts at full speed until they hit something or flip over.

    With a full sized car, the consequences of a failure will be much worse. Imagine losing control of your car and having it go to full speed, straight ahead -- merely being on a test track won't be enough, as the car could easily plow through fences, barriers and even buildings. And you'd have no way to stop it.

    I'd strongly suggest that nobody attempt this without extensive experience with both R/C stuff and with modifying full sized cars. And I'd also suggest installing a kill switch of some sort that will immediately kill the engine, and have this switch controlled by a different R/C transmitter on a different channel entirely, with a different battery -- just in case.

    Also, the picture shows a Futaba 6X transmitter -- be aware that by default transmitters like this are on the 72 mhz frequency band (in the US), and that the use of the 72 mhz band for controlling ground vehicles is *illegal*. Instead, you're supposed to use the 75 mhz band. Most R/C car transmitters have at most three channels, so people building this sort of thing will be looking at airplane equipment for the extra channels, but you need to be aware that you can't just use any old equipment you find -- you'll need to special order 75 mhz equipment from the manufacturers to be legal (yes, it is available and it doesn't even cost much more. But it is rare, and it's unlikely you'll find it in somebody's attic unless they're into large R/C cars or robots.)

    1. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by loic_2003 · · Score: 1

      you can buy pieces of kit that senses if the radio signal has been lost or the batteries are low. When they detect this they just shut the piece of kit down (ie close throttle or whatver you set it to do). Remember that you can buy RC cars and trucks that do 80mph+ out the box which won't do anyone's ankles/shins any favours- this has already been thought of!

    2. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by Whammy666 · · Score: 1

      This is actually not a big deal. Battlebots has had requirements for fail-safes on their radio equipment from the beginning. Most PCM based R/C equipment comes standard with it. There is also high-end R/C stuff (like the IFI controllers) which use frequency hopping which makes them jam resistant and have very robust fail-safes.

      --
      When all else fails, run.
    3. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by dougmc · · Score: 1
      you can buy pieces of kit that senses if the radio signal has been lost or the batteries are low. When they detect this they just shut the piece of kit down (ie close throttle or whatver you set it to do).

      Yes, and if you have PCM equipment this is built in. However, it's not enough. If the battery gets pulled loose, your servos will all freeze right where they were, and your failsafes will never activate. Or if a big bump cracks your receiver PC board, same thing. Or if your car rolls over and crushes your receiver ...

      This is a very non-standard configuration. Suppose what would happen if your throttle servo arm broke, or the servo broke loose so it was hanging free. Not hard to imagine, as it was almost certainly mickey-moused into place in the first place. This is a better situation than the loss of battery, as you've still got steering and brakes, but it could still be very bad.

      Remember that you can buy RC cars and trucks that do 80mph+ out the box which won't do anyone's ankles/shins any favours- this has already been thought of!
      Of course it has. And people have been throwing R/C equipment into full scale cars for decades now too. But now it's being suggested to those who really have no experience with this sort of thing ... and yet are crazy enough to try it anyways. This could easily turn into a Darwin award, or worse ...

      In any event, your average 1/8th scale car doing 80 mph will probably be stopped by a simple barrier of old tires or a curb (it will be pretty to watch though!) The car isn't likely to go far, and even if it did, it's probably only got a few minutes of fuel.

      On the other hand, your full scale car will go through that, through a fence, many miles cross country, and perhaps even through a full building -- and keep on going. Depending on the car, it may go well over 100 mph. And there won't be a thing you can do to stop it.

      A full scale remote control car requires that much much more care be taken than with your average R/C car, even a high performance one.

      I still think the kill switch I suggested is essential. Have it set to kill the power to the distributor, or if you must the fuel pump (though that's not as good, as it would take a while for the engine to die.) Having it be a totally seperate system would allow you to kill things even if the first system was broken -- a car is big and heavy, and it's very likely to be abused, and so and I'd expect lots of failures of the primary control system, from pushing the servos too hard, from physical damage (you'll probably be doing all kinds of crazy things with the car) and from not being mounted properly.

    4. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Battlebots has had requirements for fail-safes on their radio equipment from the beginning.
      No, not from the beginning -- it used to be just a suggestion. But now it is a requirement. The Battlebot rules have gotten much better since they first started out.

      Still, a full sized car is much much more dangerous than any battlebot allowed by the BattleBot rules, and requires much more care. Merely relying on your PCM radio to protect you from disaster *is not enough*.

    5. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: Sniper Rifle.

      Put a couple 0.50 rounds into the engine block. It'll stop.

    6. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's easier than you think. put a very simple microcontroller in the fuel pump that causes the fuel pump not to work unless it recieves a signal every, say 1 second. in a sense you have created a "watchdog circuit". it will shut down unless given a specific condition by other controlling parts. you could also create a seperate circuit for the throttle control that does exactly this.

    7. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more to stopping a car than cutting the fuel. You have to make sure the brakes are activated. Also you need to make sure the engine is not stalled due to lack of fuel or else braking/steering will become much harder if you still want to have any control over the car.

    8. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by loic_2003 · · Score: 1

      If the battery gets pulled loose, your servos will all freeze right where they were, and your failsafes will never activate.

      The failsafe commonly used to protect against this (Such as the Schumacher Nitro XTR is a simple spring attached to the servo arm. If power is suddenly lost the servo will just get pulled back to the throttle close position, or whatever. Simple but effective.

    9. Re:Talk about dangerous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple??? Fuck.. I'd hate to see the engine that takes more than one. A train engine maybe?

  22. There is a TV series about this! by loic_2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's called combat cars and is on bravo in the UK. People fix up bangers (old cars) to be radio controlled and they go through some challenges and then trash each other's cars. It's just like robot wars etc. but with real cars. Certainly not news, this.
    Can't find much info about it, but it's mentioned here!

    Great fun to watch when someone's put in a fair amount of effort...

  23. Fun show, but... by Whammy666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    MG is a fun show. But I'm not real happy with having Jesse as host. There's no question he's a talented metal worker, but the stoned surfer dude personna gets old really fast. I think the final straw for me was when he threw a hissy fit and walked off the build for 3 days because he didn't like the project then came back and dissed the contestants for not building what he wanted. (I think it was the hover DeLorean episode.) One of the contestants stood up to him and Jesse threw yet another stink fit and tossed him of the team. What a fucking baby.

    At least Junkyard Wars has more personable hosts. But they need to bring Cathey Rogers back. Monster House is cool too.

    --
    When all else fails, run.
    1. Re:Fun show, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agreed with Jesse on that episode.

      What the hell challenge is there in just chopping off the top of a DeLorean and slapping it on top of an -already working- hovercraft. Lame.

      At least he got the team to start over and actually -convert a DeLorean into a hovercraft-. It ultimately failed (lack of time), but was way more interesting than (in his words) "Decorating a hovercraft to look like a DeLorean".

    2. Re:Fun show, but... by Whammy666 · · Score: 1

      Granted stripping the panels from the DeLorean and attaching them to the hover craft was a bit lame. The point is that had Jesse actually been on the set for the first three days of the build like he was supposed to have been instead of running off to throw his tantrum, it wouldn't have happened.

      What I don't understand is why the producers allow him to get away with this. I wonder if he still gets paid for not showing up on his own show.

      --
      When all else fails, run.
  24. Not a robot... by cobra1729 · · Score: 1

    ...because the R/C car cannot make decisions on its own. You have to see it to believe it:

    http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ee192

    Now, thats more like it. Yes, it does not have a camera to emulate vision. But, it is much closer to a robot than a crummy computer controlled R/C car.

  25. TELEOPERATION by flikx · · Score: 1

    While not autonomous, it is still a subset of robotics.

    --
    One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
  26. Darpa Grand Challenge teams probably all did this. by leko · · Score: 1

    At least I know the redteam has already done this. If you're building an autonomous car, making it remote controlled is a very early step along the way.

    The Red Team has taken serious safety procautions that this Monster Garge thing seems not to address. There are E-Stop buttons all along the perimeter of the car, and the E-Stop mechanism isn't just an electrical cutoff, but also a huge brake on the drivetrain which engages if power is cut. I would advise anyone trying to build one of these things to use a similar system, since a runaway car could be expensive both in terms of dollars and lives.

  27. Yes, I submitted instead of previewing. oops. by leko · · Score: 1

    Sorry.

  28. I an just see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DH: Kit
    Car: Yes Michael?
    DH: Swing around the corner and pick me up a date.
    Car: Get bent, Michael!

  29. JunkYard Wars by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    There was an episode of junkyard wars where they made full size RC cars out of scrap, and had them fight in an arena...

    I have this weird beleif that the fellas on Junkyard wars might be a little more bright to hvae thought of and accomplished this goal in 10 hours, instead of having all the time in the world to work on it.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  30. Balloon Chase Vehicle by n6mod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I often thought about doing this to the small (van-chassis) RV we used for a hot-air balloon chase vehicle. From the balloon, you can always see which backroad goes to the field you're aiming for...and those in the basket are always cursing the idiots on the ground who are going down what is obviously (from 500') a dead end.

    Existing vehicle systems are pretty well set up for this in the modern American land-yacht. All that effort to isolate you from actual vehicle dynamics mean that they've presented you with controls that are pretty much just servo inputs. (Yes, there is a mechanical link in most cases, but they're servo-assisted)

    Steering and brake are both heavily boosted, and throttle doesn't require much force.

    We were talking about this fifteen years ago...doesn't seem like much of a challenge now. ;)

    -Z

    --
    You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
    1. Re:Balloon Chase Vehicle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever consider just bringing a frikkin radio along to guide the chase van? Or having the chase team equipped with a map of the area? Seems a teeny bit simpler.

    2. Re:Balloon Chase Vehicle by n6mod · · Score: 1

      Yes, we had radios. Never used them, though...seemed to take the fun out of it.

      Besides, if it's just instructor and student (as it often was), you didn't have a chase crew (they only show up for paying customers).

      So we'd have one guy hitchhike back to get the van.

      Besides...this is /., what do reason, logic, or simplicity have to do with anything?

      -Z

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
  31. Comments from one of the builders by istewart · · Score: 1

    http://entermyworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=153

    Hopefully that site allows direct links to UBB threads...

    Rich W was one of the builders on the DeLorean hovercraft episode, and also behind the monster GT40. He has some interesting insight into what really went on during production, and also into Jesse's frame of mind. I thought there were some other threads on that same board where he went into greater detail, but this is the only one I can find.

    It would be interesting if the MG producers asked him back, so he could replicate the remote-controlled time machine from the beginning of "Back to the Future." :-D

  32. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you imagine your typical slashdot geek appearing on the same show with the same type of people who used to beat them up in school?

  33. Overhyped? by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, Monster Garage is a good show, but sometimes it's a little overhyped.

    The only hype I see here is coming from the person that posted this to Slashdot.

    Discovery Channel are not hyping this episode more than any other... it's getting the exact same "next week on monster garage" television advertisments.

    I would agree that some of the monster garage challenges aren't too awe-inspiring... but I'd rather watch the lame shark cage pontoon episode again than watch Friends or SurvivalShowOfTheWeek.

  34. Lame show, lame star by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    Slashdot must be really be scraping the bottom of the barrel for this story. With a group of experts, and a $3000 budget, and lots of time, Jesse James manages to barely finish his wundercars each show. The guys from Junkyard Wars made two in 10 hours with the same amoun t of manpower. All the teams in the DARPA challenge are going way beyond what Jesse GED and his merry band of hacks could ever accomplish. Hate to be a snob, but does this geek-neating troglydite really deserve equal billing with other /. fare?

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  35. Hmm.... by El · · Score: 1

    What do the cops do when they pull one of these over for speeding?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  36. Junkyard Wars... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    They did something similar on Discovery's sister network, TLC some time ago....but with two such cars....for a remote controlled jousting.

  37. Original Source by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
    It was originally done by a bunch of guys from JDFilms
    (you can see the name on the side of their truck)
    Here's a TechTV interview with them.

    And your server is zippy :O)

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!