Robots run a half marathon, slowly

Tech Crunch - Apr 19th, 2025

In a groundbreaking event, Beijing's E-Town tech hub hosted what it claimed as the world's first humanoid half-marathon, featuring 21 humanoid robots competing alongside thousands of human runners. The robot Tiangong Ultra, developed by the government-backed X-Humanoid research institute, emerged as the winner in the robot category, finishing in two hours and 40 minutes. This time significantly lagged behind the human winner's time of one hour and two minutes. Tiangong Ultra relied on a human runner with a signaling device to guide its movements, while other robots were controlled remotely by human operators. The event saw only four robots completing the race under the four-hour cutoff, highlighting the technological gap in humanoid robotics.

The marathon provided insights into the current capabilities and limitations of humanoid robots, underscoring the challenges in matching human athletic performance. The competition required robots to have a humanoid appearance and to run on two legs, with battery changes and robot substitutions permitted. The event's significance lies in its potential to propel further innovation in robotics, as expressed by X-Humanoid’s CTO Tang Jiang, who claimed that no Western firms have matched Tiangong's sporting achievements. Despite some robots experiencing malfunctions, such as the Little Giant emitting smoke, the marathon showcased the growing interest and investment in humanoid robotics by Chinese companies and educational institutions.

Beijing Humanoid Robots Tech Competition Tiangong Ultra Half Marathon X Humanoid Robotics Innovation

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides an engaging and timely account of a novel event in the field of robotics, capturing the public's interest with its focus on the humanoid half-marathon. It is well-written and accessible, with a clear structure and language that make it easy to understand. However, the article could benefit from greater accuracy in some details, such as the number of participating robots and the institute responsible for the winning robot. Additionally, it lacks balance and depth, as it does not explore the broader implications of the event or include diverse perspectives. Enhancing source quality and transparency, as well as incorporating more context and expert insights, would improve the article's overall quality and impact.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed account of the humanoid half-marathon event in Beijing, mentioning specific details such as the winning robot, Tiangong Ultra, its completion time, and the human assistance it required. These points are generally accurate and verifiable through other sources. However, there are discrepancies in the number of participating robots and the institute behind Tiangong Ultra, which are critical for factual accuracy. The article claims 21 robots participated, while other sources mention 20 teams. Additionally, there is a variance in the reported institute responsible for Tiangong Ultra's creation, with some sources attributing it to a different organization. These inconsistencies suggest a need for more precise information to ensure complete accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the performance and challenges faced by the humanoid robots during the marathon, offering a detailed narrative of Tiangong Ultra's victory and the technical issues encountered by other robots. However, it lacks a broader perspective on the significance of the event within the context of robotics advancement or its implications for future technology. The article could benefit from including viewpoints from various stakeholders, such as engineers, participants, or industry experts, to provide a more balanced perspective on the event's impact and significance.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting information in a logical sequence that is easy to follow. The language is straightforward, and technical terms are explained adequately, making it accessible to a general audience. However, there are moments where the narrative could benefit from additional context, particularly in explaining the significance of the humanoid marathon or the technological challenges faced by the robots. Adding more background information would help readers better understand the event's importance and the advancements in humanoid robotics.

Source quality

The article references Bloomberg and a statement from X-Humanoid's Chief Technology Officer, Tang Jiang, which lend some credibility to the information presented. However, it lacks a diverse range of sources, relying heavily on a single primary source for most of its claims. The absence of additional perspectives or corroborating sources from other authoritative entities in the field of robotics diminishes the overall reliability and depth of the reporting. Including more varied and authoritative sources would enhance the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the event, such as the rules for robot participation and the nature of the competition. However, it does not fully disclose the basis for some claims, such as the comparison of Tiangong Ultra's performance to Western robotics firms or the specific methodology used to assist the robots during the race. Greater transparency regarding how information was obtained and the criteria for robot assessment would improve the clarity and trustworthiness of the report. Additionally, disclosing any potential conflicts of interest, such as affiliations with the participating organizations, would enhance transparency.