Elon Musk has a method of simplifying design structures (and reducing budgets), but it may slow down the progress of Optimus robot development.
This method involves minimizing moving parts, as they are prone to failure. Once a design becomes functional, components are incrementally removed or replaced until the functionality is compromised. Then, they are carefully reintroduced one by one until the design works again, allowing identification of any unnecessary parts. (See Note 1.)
I believe this simplification approach is unsuitable at the current stage. Robots are striving to replicate human movements, and by imitating these actions, researchers can uncover the underlying logic of motion control, laying a data foundation for future simplification. However, this pursuit of minimalism may clash with the current need to emulate human actions, which first requires tackling complexity.
Human actions, particularly upright walking, evolved from primitive animal behaviors into standing tall and striding confidently. I don’t think our ancestors chose this path because it was easier or simpler; rather, it was a display of superiority, the budding of dignity, or, poetically, “a hymn to humanity.” It was a laborious declaration. The spectrum of human postures—walking, standing, sitting, and lying—didn’t evolve for laziness or energy efficiency. Instead, they emerged to resist animalistic instincts, to hold ourselves upright, and to showcase our excellence.
In conclusion, executing human actions with a human body isn’t something that can be perfected by constantly taking shortcuts or being lazy—let alone by current robots, which still fall far short of humans in hardware complexity and motion control.
I estimate that only after robots can fully replicate all human movements will it be the right time for Musk to apply his simplification and refinement approach to mechanical design. At that point, robots could achieve lower energy consumption, higher reliability, and even surpass human efficiency in motion. It would be akin to a martial artist with a solid foundation gradually refining their techniques—say, throwing punches along the shortest path, dodging more efficiently, or channeling energy to avoid wasting effort.
Some might argue that simplifying designs from the outset saves time, but without a solid foundation, this method could lead to repeated revisions, costing more than it gains. In martial arts, some make a similar mistake to Musk’s: with a weak foundation and little strength, they try to optimize their movements prematurely, aiming for the shortest path. As their strength grows, their control falters—like a utility knife pressed too hard against a tough material, slipping and damaging the work itself. After endless tweaks and patches, they look back and realize their overambition wasted significant time.
Musk’s simplification method has proven successful in the automotive and aerospace industries, but applying it to robotics—such as Tesla’s Optimus project—may encounter unique challenges:
Complexity of Movement
To mimic human actions like walking or grasping objects, robots require multiple joints and actuators working together. Over-simplification could limit flexibility and precision, failing to meet the needs of complex tasks.
Sensing and Control Requirements
Robots rely on numerous sensors and sophisticated control systems to perceive and respond to their environment. Excessive simplification might undermine these critical functions, reducing adaptability in dynamic settings.
Balancing Durability and Functionality
Reducing moving parts can enhance reliability, but certain functions, like dexterous hand movements, may demand additional components, conflicting with the simplification ethos. Moreover, robot joints wear out over time, so designs must account for maintenance ease.
In summary, Musk’s simplification approach has delivered remarkable results at Tesla and SpaceX by reducing part counts and optimizing structures. Yet, in robotics, it must strike a balance between simplicity and functionality to ensure robots are both efficient and practical.
I boldly predict that once the design is perfected, robots might exhibit Jackie Chan-like behaviors—skipping the stairs to leap from a fourth-floor windowsill, using mid-air leverage points to land safely. For now, I’m watching parkour videos and dreaming of future robots.
Note 1:
Tesla: Simplifying Battery Modules
At Tesla, Musk’s simplification philosophy shines in battery optimization. The “2170” battery cells (used in Model 3 and Model Y) are larger and denser than the earlier “18650” cells, reducing the number of cells per vehicle. This simplifies assembly and cuts costs. Tesla’s “4680” battery, with its tabless design, further reduces internal complexity, boosting efficiency, performance, and safety. By minimizing parts and streamlining structures, Musk has crafted a more economical battery design—a hallmark of his approach at Tesla.
SpaceX: Simplifying the Merlin Engine
At SpaceX, Musk applied simplification to the Merlin engine, the heart of the Falcon rockets. Unlike traditional aerospace engines with the complex “staged combustion cycle,” Merlin uses the simpler “gas generator cycle.” While this sacrifices some performance, it slashes part counts and manufacturing complexity, lowering costs and boosting reliability. In-house production further streamlined the supply chain. This method enabled rapid iteration, leading to reusable rockets and transforming aerospace economics.