____________________
FIELD OBSERVATION: STRAIGHT-LINE RACING PROTOTYPE
Assembling a racing car based on LEGO Education SPIKE Prime at a summer school.
____________________
The concept was beautiful. We called it 'Strela'. The idea: a long blue nose for aerodynamics when travelling in a straight line, a reinforced rear section and a forward-shifted centre of gravity for stability. It sounded like a Formula One car. It looked convincing.
We didn't win the race. Because there wasn't actually a race.
We switched it on – it drove straight ahead – and crashed into the wall. We switched it off, repositioned it, switched it on again – it drove straight ahead until it crashed. There were no turns. At all. There was nothing to steer.
____________________
____________________
And it wasn't our fault. The summer school robotics course didn't require it to turn anywhere. The programme simply didn't include a steering function. And structurally, there was nothing there to turn. It wasn't a racing car, but a straight-line projectile.
But we'd made a mistake. And we'd made it as early as the assembly stage.
____________________
What went wrong (and what we'd already realised, but had simply kept in mind):
____________________
False aerodynamics. The long front nose seemed like a progressive solution to us. But at LEGO robot speeds, aerodynamic force is zero. In reality, this nose acted as a lever and a sail. At the slightest resistance (or if we'd tried to turn), it created a bending moment that could have lifted the front section off the floor.
Centre of mass. We positioned the white hub high up and far back, on the yellow brackets. This shifted the actual centre of gravity upwards and behind the rear axle. We knew that a 70/30 weight distribution and a high centre of mass are bad for cornering. But with the 'straight-line' design, we simply decided to ignore this fact for the sake of getting it built.
Traction. Black plastic wheels on a smooth table mean minimal friction. There's no lateral grip whatsoever. Even if we'd had a servo, it would simply have skidded sideways on tyres like that.
We didn't lose because we didn't try hard enough. We lost because we accepted the terms of the challenge: to build it, drive it in a straight line for a couple of minutes, take it apart — and understand how it works from the inside. And we did understand. Every mistake was recognised and added to our 'knowledge bank', but we deliberately didn't correct them, because this was just a warm-up model.
____________________
Mistake analysis (for the future):
____________________
— Shorten the nose. A long wheelbase with high
moment of inertia is the enemy of cornering. A
truss-type structure with a short wheelbase is
required.
— Lower the hub. As low as possible and
precisely centred between the axles. This will
provide ideal 50/50 weight distribution and
eliminate roll.
— Fit a full-fledged steering system. Either a front
servo drive on a split axle, or a differential
drive. Otherwise, the robot is doomed to be
'straight-line only'.
— Change the wheels. To small rubber rims with
tread, so there's at least some lateral grip.
The race didn't happen. The experience did.
'Strela' will go down in history not as a racing car, but as the first step towards understanding why engineers bother with suspension geometry and trajectory algorithms in the first place. Now we know that speed isn't just about going straight, but also about turning at the right time.
In the next version, we'll fix everything. And perhaps we'll even teach it how to turn.
____________________











