Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Grand Challenge 2005 Rules Announced

Posted by timothy on from the and-roll-tape dept.

Mr_KnowItAll writes "Our friends at DARPA have released the proposed rules for the 2005 Grand Challenge. They learned their lesson from the first one, now they will expect teams to submit a video demonstration of their vehicle's ability to complete the course before being invited to participate. Good, but they're also advancing the timeline to the point that it will be very hard to any team to start now and hope to participate. After all the fuss at DARPA's last-minute rule changes in '04, it's interesting to see that they're offering the proposed rules for community review and feedback."

8 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Are they doing this wrong? by cujo_1111 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Set up a series of events like you suggest but make them qualifying rounds, ie. you have to meet a minimum grade to reach the final race.

    Going by this years event, there may not even be a race though...

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  2. Why robot cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A spider like robot or a flying robot would have a much greater chance of success with the current level of technology, and a flying robot could get over rough terrain much faster than any wheeled vehicle and automatically avoid enemies.

  3. We Shall See! by TravisTHose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like all teams will require an alleged Site Visit in order to participate in this next Grand Challenge. Last time, their PreChosen Few did not need to have a site visit. As a result, you can see what happened! The newer rules will still allow them to game it any way they really want to. Actually, after reading the newer rules, it looks like it will be easier for them to refuse teams for non technical reasons. Before, they had to explain exactly why the teams technical papers did not pass their muster. Now, all they have to do is not like any teams Video Presentation in order to disqualify them! They will not even have to give a a reason why they were not chosen like they had to before! The implied answer is that they did not like your video for some reason. What once was a technical challenge has now turned into which teams are able to produce the slickest and flashiest video of their alleged race vehicle. Something tells me that technical challenge was never the case. Rest assured, they are not going to like our teams video for some, as yet, unknown or dreamed up reason even though we already fulfill and surpass the current GC requirements. We shall all see.

  4. Hard to participate? by angrist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been following the GC for a couple of months now, with the aim of setting up a team at school.

    While there are some very tough technical barriers to be overcome, getting a vehicle in 'race' shape shouldn't be THAT hard. All of the pieces needed are available, they just need to be integrated. A dedicated team of college students (engineers) should be able to start in september and still be competitive.

    That being said, let the naysaying commence.

  5. Sciam View of 2004 Results by Mr_Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Another view of the first race here...
    Scientific American: From Finish to Start
    Was the Grand Challenge robot race in March the fiasco it appeared to be? Hardly, argues William "Red" Whittaker. The annual event is pushing mobile robotics to get real."
    Yeah sure the last race could have been run better. But so what. The contestants learned a lot. So did the organizers. That was the point I think. DARPA learned its lessons fast, AND increased the prize money to boot. Let's see if the contestants learned as much!!
  6. I would like to see by rDx666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be interesting if they tried more unconventional vehicles. Berkeley's motorcycle was a good idea (very very efficient), but it just couldn't balance right. Maybe a tricycle design is in order? Like those 666 mile per gallon freakshows? Or a car that can flip over and still run (like some of those fancy toy RC cars)?

    I hope there will be teams who will think it's worth it to do a really radical design: we might see some strange and exciting stuff on the battlefield later on.

  7. New rules look OK. by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The new rules seem reasonable enough. The video requirement makes sense, because it will avoid a debacle like last time. Last time only seven of twenty vehicles made it out of the starting area. That's embarassing. Very bad TV. This time we should see most of the field disappear into the distance.

    John Nagle
    Team Overbot

    We're recruiting. Programmers, this time; we have most of the hardware working. Silicon Valley only; we're in Redwood City. Send us 1000 lines of C++ code that you're proud of. We'll be having an open house in late August. Watch the Overbot web site for details.

  8. A very interesting detail... by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quoth the competition rules;

    "The manual emergency stop must be easy to identify and activate safely, even if the vehicle is moving at a walking pace. The operation instructions for manual emergency stop actuators must be clearly labeled in English and Spanish."

    Who'd have thunk it, government organizations requiring instructions in English and Spanish, bilingually, for vital instructions on the vehicles. Is this a sign of the U.S. going bilingual (adopting Spanish) at snail's pace?