Ugh, you know how the robotic horse market has been such garbage? I mean, sure, there are all kinds of robotic sex-horses you can get from your local family-owned erotic mechanical equipment dealer, but what if you just want all of the open-air convenience of (non-sexually) riding a horse without all of the messy, messy biology? And what if you want to add the inconvenience of hydrogen fueling into the equation? What then?
Up until quite recently, I’d have said, Sorry, friend, you’re out of luck. But not anymore! Finally, someone has listened to all of the consumers, and that someone is Kawasaki. Yesterday at the Osaka-Kansai Expo 2025, Kawasaki showed the world the Corleo, essentially a robotic horse that eats hydrogen instead of hay and the occasional apple, if they’ve been a good horse.


Corleo seems to be primarily intended for off-road use, sort of like the use case for an ATV or four-wheeler, only here it has legs and is controlled by motions and weight shifting of the rider’s body, in a manner similar to that of riding a horse or, if you can convince the upper half, a centaur.
Here, just watch this thing:
Now, there is some question as to whether or not this thing actually exists and works, or if this video is just all CGI, which it seems to be. All Kawasaki actually showed live at the Expo was a stationary example of the machine. All it did was change positions slowly, like a cat stretching, as you can see here:
It’s also maybe worth noting that Corleo doesn’t seem terribly equine, really, but rather seems more like a wolf, or perhaps even more feline. The name may even be suggesting something like this, since the logo for it divides the name into Cor/Leo:

So, maybe the “leo” is referencing a lion? And the “cor” is, um, for a … corvid? Because crows are smart? Maybe?
Here’s what Kawasaki says about this new concept machine:
Kawasaki’s revolutionary off-road personal mobility vehicle offers excellent all-terrain capability, powered by four robotic legs, together with the handling and stability of Kawasaki’s motorcycles. While preserving the joy of riding, the vehicle continually monitors the rider’s movements to achieve a reassuring sense of unity between human and machine. Scale mountains, breathe in the fresh air, and enjoy panoramic views. Let CORLEO unleash your “Impulse to Move” in the great outdoors.
Hm. Nothing there really says that it’s any more real than a lightly motorized model. It’s definitely a concept at this point, but a concept that Kawasaki has put a good bit of thought into, at least.

Up front, there is a 150cc engine – single-cylinder, I’m assuming – that runs on hydrogen, because many Japanese companies, like Toyota, seem quite fixated on hydrogen. I don’t really get why, at this point. Yes, it’s the most abundant element in the universe, but here on Earth, where we and such notable figures as Nathan Lane and author Mary Roach actually live, hydrogen is expensive to extract and difficult to store.
It’s also interesting that the hydrogen is being used to power a combustion engine, which in turn generates electricity for motors that drive the legs. Typically, in the context of a hydrogen-powered electric vehicle, a hydrogen fuel cell is used to create electricity, not a combustion engine.

The hooves are especially interesting, as they’re made of a combination of metal and rubber, with the rubber providing more grip on slicker surfaces:

These hooves are also less like feline animals, famous for their paws, and closer to horses, though the split hoof feels more like a deer or antelope or something?
The video also shows an interesting projection-based sort of heads-up display, in this case showing navigation arrows projected onto the ground. This would be useful for any sort of ATV, legged or wheeled or otherwise:

So what do we make of this thing? I don’t actually think it’s fully real yet, though I suspect it could be. I’m just not really sure who would prefer to ride around on a robot horse rather than an ATV. [Ed note: Bravestar and He-Man (but most frequently Fisto), that’s who – Pete] And a hydrogen robot horse? Isn’t the whole point of something like this that you can go anywhere? If you’re limited to hydrogen refueling, that “anywhere” quickly becomes “like, three places, and in America, basically just Southern California.”
This basic idea has been around a good while. Did you ever read Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age? He describes robotic horses meant to be ridden, called chevalines, like this:
No effort was made to disguise it as a real animal. Much of the mechanical business in the legs was exposed so that you could see how the joints and pushrods worked, a little like staring at the wheels of an old steam locomotive. The body looked gaunt and skeletal. It was made of star-shaped connectors where five or six cigarette-size rods would come together, the rods and connectors forming into an irregular web that wrapped around into a geodesic space frame. The rods could change their length. Hackworth knew from seeing the same construction elsewhere that the web could change its size and shape to an amazing degree while providing whatever combination of stiffness and flexibility the controlling system needed at the moment. Inside the space frame Hackworth could see aluminum-plated spheres and ellipsoids, no doubt vacuum-filled, containing the mount’s machine-phase guts: basically some rod logic and an energy source.
And even earlier than that, we have an 1892 book called Frank Reade and His Steam Horse:

So this is all hardly a new idea. But I suppose it’s kind of fun to see, still.
Maybe these legged vehicles will actually find use for traversing terrain that’s simply too rough for wheels, and in those contexts, I think they make a lot of sense. Just maybe, you know, not hydrogen.
The One With The Horse On It: Cold Start
This Comparison Between EV Costs And Horse-And-Carriage Costs From 1900 Is Fascinating
How To Advertise Cars By Making Horses Look Like Jerks: Cold Start
At least it would be easier on the landscape than ATV’s.
And quieter! Nothing like getting passed by an ATV or snowmobile while you’re trying to enjoy the quiet beauty of nature only to have your eardrums ruptured and lungs full of exhaust.
Hadn’t thought of that; the fuel cell / electric motor would be very quiet compared to the combustion engine..
If you think this looks weird wait until you see their mechanical ostrich.
Equip that ostrich with wings and you can play “Joust”: with your friends.
Sounds like a mid-cycle refresh!
Yeah, it’s CGI bullshit 100% (with some green-screened people sitting on a model for some shots, plus a motorized model like you say. Not exactly Hollywood-level effects for their concept
carATVthing reveal video.I saw that on social media last week and closed my browser and walked away from my computer. “That enough internet for this week”
I mean, sure, there are all kinds of robotic sex-horses you can get from your local family-owned erotic mechanical equipment dealer, but what if you just want all of the open-air convenience of (non-sexually) riding a horse without all of the messy, messy biology? And what if you want to add the inconvenience of hydrogen fueling into the equation? What then?
Why not have a mechanical horse you can ride AND sex? And why use hydrogen? Power it with with human sourced methane and market the fill procedure an extra kink. I’m confident we can count on Fisto to be an early adopter.
I can think of some local trails that need this.
The fast one is an extra $200 in classic green.
How fast is it to fill one? That is the big win for Hydrogen vs. battery “livestock.”
This live action re-interpretation of Voltron is going in an unexpected direction.
.
How to become the centaur of attention!
How Chironic.
This is what happens when you outsource Mustang production to Afghanistan.
We were warned of the slippery slope introduced by the Mach E but this is more of a cliff.
Seeing as how it’s apparently headless (the head no doubt being placed in someone’s bed), perhaps a better name would be Corleone.
JFC with this hydrogen shit for light mobility… it’s OVER guys…
Hydrogen for rail, maritime, aerospace, (maybe) stationary… end of list.
Somebody got really into Horizon Zero Dawn.
So glad I’m not the only one who immediately thought of a Chevaline.
Give it a diesel engine, then we’ll talk.
AND a manual transmission.
I don’t think that would work, but a diesel that can be fueled by basically anything liquid and flammable, like vodka, would be way better than a hydrogen engine only fuelable in california.
Here we are talking about converting a hydrogen fueled mechanical horse to diesel and yet my suggestion is the unfeasible one.
The engine works as a generator to power the actuators. The type of engine used does not make a huge difference. Using a diesel engine would be way more practical than a hydrogen engine unless the infrastructure needed for hydrogen fueling is fully developed in remote areas in the next 25 years. Even then refueling with a ton of different fuels instead of one very specific fuel would be a huge advantage in the areas this kind of vehicle was designed to traverse.
How would you even put a manual on a mechanical horse? you could use one for the generators gearbox I guess. But why? When you could have a 1 gearbox since it is a generator.
I think both of our suggestions are feasible, just one may or may not be more stupid than the other.
I agree with your assessment I was only being intentionally obtuse.
Oil (any kind of organic or mineral oil) in a diesel, sure. Vodka (or any other alcohol), nope. You need a lubricating fuel, not a degreasing one, otherwise your diesel fuel pump is not long for this world.
Makes sense. Using Vodka to run the engine would be funny though.
If you want to use vodka (or any random hooch) you need a low-compression carbureted engine, like a lawnmower or an older motorbike.
..or a brand new Yamaha TW200 🙂
How well does it traverse swamps? And by “swamps” I mean the “of Sadness” variety in particular.
ARTAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!
“I’m terribly allergic to humans.”
…… Why? …… They already make the KLR.
Or the KX450XC…
Everything in that video looks like a (maybe decent) first person shooter, but nowhere near real. Jesus though, I’d really love to ride a robot horse.
So Hydrogen storage in the back? That gives new meaning to blow it out your A$$.
“MY ASS!”–Harry Morgan’s character in “Support Your Local Gunfighter”
Wheels are so 20th century. We need a disruption in the ATV market.
“On a (Kawasaki) STEEL HORSE I RIDEEEE. I’m WAAANTED, DEAD OR ALIIIIIIVEEE”
I presume the hypothetical $50k budget for new car wouldn’t be enough for one of these.
A Boston Dynamics robot dog starts at about $75,000, and it doesn’t have to carry a human (or humans). On the other hand, this horse probably doesn’t require any of the AI or sensors needed by the BD robot dog, since it will have a skinsuit on its back making those decisions. Still though, I think $50k would be way too optimistic.
If I can’t blow an ocarina and summon this like a Tesla, then all is for naught.
Just be careful servicing this thing on a hoist or you might end up like Catherine the Great.
I understand the skepticism around hydrogen, I really do. But I also have to believe that the companies in Japan, Korea, and China putting bets on hydrogen are not filled with dummies. They clearly have a strategy, and they’re thinking long-term.
The fact is that there simply aren’t enough resources for every vehicle on earth to be a BEV instead of ICE. The materials needed aren’t renewable and they’re actually quite limited, on a global scale.
Hydrogen infrastructure is well under way in Asia, with massive government and corporate investments. If we consider the development of hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure to go hand-in-hand with the development of better nuclear technology to make extracting it cost-effective, it’s a much better bet than batteries over the next one or two decades.
It’s not a solved problem yet, but then again, neither were electric cars just 25 years ago.
Anyway, all that is basically to say that I WANT A ROBOT HORSE
We need a lot of green electricity to make Hydrogen work. But we will need almost as much to make BEVs work as well.
Given batteries have about a 90-95% RT efficiency vs about 40% for hydrogen you’ll need at least 2x as much green electricity for hydrogen vehicles as for BEVs
EVs have nowhere near that efficiency from the place where the electricity is produced. Even just the chargers only have 80-90% efficiency. Then there is maybe about 5% loss in transmission from the generation point, though that is likely offset by hydrogen transportation costs. You would also need to account for the extra energy needed for larger batteries over the smaller, lighter fuel cells.
It gets complex and messy to calculate but the delta isn’t nearly what you are suggesting.
Sorry but that logic doesn’t seem right, we still have to generate the power to store the electricity or hydrogen, so that doesn’t change, and the major way hydrogen is created currently is from thermal reforming so even less efficient to create, and then at the end still half as efficient as batteries.
Also you can recharge a battery from any standard outlet, it will be slow, but you can do it, and to fast charge you just need 3 phase, which is nearly everywhere, you can’t do that with hydrogen so there’s almost no infrastructure, it just doesn’t make sense.
Nope. Hydrogen can be produced without petroleum/gas, but since it is currently a byproduct of that industry, it is currently the main source. The efficiency percentages are from the point of generation to the vehicle.
Yes, it is understood the infrastructure doesn’t exist. That wasn’t the point. BEVs had a built-in advantage because they can be implemented with existing infrastructure. That doesn’t make them the best solution from an environmental standpoint.
Even PHEVs with ICE engines are better for the environment than BEVs mainly because they can get away with 20% of the battery and still provide 90%+ of the EV-only use. BEVs are just a convenient way to shift the dirt under the rug. Unless we have green sources for electricity BEVs are a dead end.
“Unless we have green sources for electricity BEVs are a dead end.”
Two points:
1) We do have green sources for electricity. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, tidal, take your pick.
2) Since it takes much more electricity to run a HFV than a BEV any shortcomings in green sources for electricity make HFV even more of a dead end.
“Hydrogen can be produced without petroleum/gas, but since it is currently a byproduct of that industry, it is currently the main source”
What are you talking about? Hydrogen is made from natural gas not because natural gas is a byproduct but because there is a huge industrial market for hydrogen and steam reforming requires less high quality energy (is cheaper) than electrolysis.
If energy is the goal then its a LOT cheaper, easier and more efficient to just burn gas directly in a turbine.
The least expensive way to currently generate hydrogen is through the petroleum industry but that is by no means the only way to generate it.
Green energy is about what, 25% best? So until that changes either hydrogen or BEVs are a dead end. BEVs have the added disadvantage that they require more damaging metal extraction.
Even with green energy there is a problem for hydrogen. For it to do any good as a transport fuel the needs of industry must be first met completely with green hydrogen. Otherwise you are simply green washing hydrogen.
So while I think using hydrogen as a sink for surplus green energy that would otherwise go to waste is a good one IMO any and all green hydrogen should be used industrially instead of for transport or even high demand energy production.
Unfortunately its going to be a LONG time before we have enough green energy surplus to make that a reality.
The biggest geological repository of hydrogen ever found has enough hydrogen to meet the world’s light transport demand for a very very short time:
Beneath the soil of Folschviller, in the Moselle region, researchers have uncovered an astonishing 46 million tons of natural hydrogen.
Assuming metric tons that’s 46B kg of hydrogen which works out to the equivalent of 46B GGE.
By comparison the world used about 25,853 barrels of gasoline a day in 2022:
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gasoline_consumption/
That works out to 1,085,862,540 gallons of gasoline a day.
So the biggest geological hydrogen reserve ever found could replace global demand for gasoline for about 39 days or less – 2022 was during lockdown. That’s nowhere near enough to bet the farm. And I’m pretty sure it won’t replenish in anywhere near that time, that process may take years if not centuries or millennia.
That’s not to say such white hydrogen isn’t useful but use that hydrogen for industry, NOT transport or energy production.
EV charger efficiency is not battery RT efficiency.
“It gets complex and messy to calculate but the delta isn’t nearly what you are suggesting”
Agreed and I was being very generous for hydrogen. Consider that this horse uses an ICE to convert hydrogen to electricity. Well the best ICE engines available do so at a 40% TE. Most Otto cycle engines run about 25-30% TE and most small engines like you’d find in a generator or lawnmower are only 15% TE. So hydrogen in a system that uses an ICE will be worse than. 40% efficient, probably a lot worse. At $36/GGE for hydrogen that’s a dealbreaker.
Charger efficiency is part of the chain for EVs, so it has to be accounted for. I wasn’t suggesting hydrogen needs to use ICE. Fuel cells can be 60% efficient which is for sure lower than the 90% battery-to-wheel but take off another 15% for charger and you’re now down to 75%. It’s not nearly as dramatic as you are trying to suggest. Is the 15% delta worth looking at since it would likely help minimize environmental damage outside of the myopic focus on carbon only? Seems well worth the effort to find out. Why put on blinders and pretend you know BEVs are the best answer now and forever?
Hydrogen dosen’t just magically appear in the tank of a HFC. Electrolysis, compression, transport, leaks, etc are also part of the chain for hydrogen which is where the 40% came from. I was being very generous. The actual numbers are much lower:
Power-to-Power is a process whereby the surplus of renewable power is stored as chemical energy in the form of hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used in situ or transported to the consumption node. When power is needed again, hydrogen can be consumed for power generation. Each of these processes incurs energy losses, leading to a certain round-trip efficiency (Energy Out/Energy In). Round-trip efficiency is calculated considering the following processes; water electrolysis for hydrogen production, compressed, liquefied or metal-hydride for hydrogen storage, fuel-cell-electric-truck for hydrogen distribution and micro-gas turbine for hydrogen power generation. The maximum achievable round-trip efficiency is of 29% when considering solid oxide electrolysis along with metal hydride storage. This number goes sharply down when using either alkaline or proton exchange membrane electrolyzers, 22.2% and 21.8% respectively. Round-trip efficiency is further reduced if considering other storage media, such as compressed- or liquefied-H2. However, the aim of the paper is to highlight there is still a large margin to increase Power-to-Power round-trip efficiency, mainly from the hydrogen production and power generation blocks, which could lead to round-trip efficiencies of around 40%–42%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031992201388X
So my delta, even with charger inefficiencies factored in stands.
Why put on blinders and pretend you know BEVs are the best answer now and forever?
I never claimed BEVs were the best answer only that they are much better than HFVs.
Better than the current HFCs. But your claim was that there wasn’t any point in attempting any other research into Hydrogen because BEVs exist.
I said BEVs are more efficient at using green energy than HFVs. I also said any green hydrogen made from surplus renewable energy is better used by industry rather than transport, at least until industry has its fill.
Right now the ONLY clear advantage I am aware of hydrogen has over BEVs for light transport is filling times, a point partly negated by the convenience of home charging, something hydrogen can never claim.
There have been promises of $1-2kg renewable hydrogen for almost a decade, yet today pump prices are $36/kg…if you can get it.
Barring a world shattering discovery of decades worth of geologic hydrogen supply or a complete turnaround of public opinion to embrace nuclear power plants designed to crack water hydrogen can never surpass or even approach the efficiency of BEVs. There are just too many extra steps.
But that’s just my opinion man. If you believe differently there are plenty of low mileage Mirais available for cheap. Go buy one and enjoy it.
Sorry, I messed up threads in my head. YOu weren’t the person claiming hydrogen research was pointless. It was completely my fault. BEVs are certainly currently more energy efficient than hydrogen.
But batteries currently have their own very real and very destructive impacts and unless they are solved, they simply shift the issue into other areas. There is no current path to being able to make enough BEVs with current battery technology. Hydrogen is less energy-efficient, but it is also currently possible to technically achieve, especially as we run towards WW3 in part over those very limited resources.
Plus, PHEVs using traditional ICE engines are currently better for the environment than BEVs and greatly reduce the amount of destructive extraction needed.
Oh BEVs have their issues as well, no argument from me there. For me the main problem is economic. My utility PG&E charges so much for power I may pay the same to charge a PHEV at home as I would to fill it with regular (and that’s at California gas prices). On the road those electricity prices are worse. Electrical power is notably cheaper than gasoline for many folks but not everyone.
As such I’m a fan of range extended EVs, preferably with the ability to run on a variety of fuels (Gasoline, natural gas, propane, alcohols, whatever), V2X capacity and a heat exchanger to tap the hyper-efficient ICE’s waste heat for home use. Perfect for those multi day long bomb cyclone power outages.
PHEVs, whether series or parallel, are generally a better solution than BEVs for all sorts of reasons. The flexibility of which fuel, when is a big plus.
Again, I apologize for messing up which thread I was responding to.
“You would also need to account for the extra energy needed for larger batteries over the smaller, lighter fuel cells.”
Not really. A 2022 Tesla model S weighs 4883 lbs yet gets 28 kWh/100 miles. That’s about the same as a far lighter (2866 lbs) Chevy Spark EV. Wheel size affects efficiency a lot more than weight.
Larger batteries don’t take more energy to create than smaller ones? PHEVs with ICE or fuel-cell support need batteries that are 20-25% the size of BEVs.
Since it was not clear to me what energy you were referring to I went for the most obvious one, the energy needed to move those batteries over the lifetime of the car. If you want to point fingers at the energy needed to manufacture the batteries you’ll need to show the energy cost is not worth the lifetime benefit. The energy penalty of a heavier car is not one such lifetime cost.
If you want to show HFV are more energy efficient to manufacture than BEVs by all means please do so. You will need to account for not just the HFC but the hydrogen tanks and other hydrogen hardware and the small battery too. Please post results here.
Since you are the one who claimed with certainty that hydrogen was a lost cause, while I just said it was a potential worth researching. The burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on you.
Nope:
I just said it was a potential worth researching.
You accepted the burden. So get out there and research it!
People keep throwing money at nuclear fusion, too, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, just means lots of companies are comfortable losing money for tax writeoff and share boosting purposes
Lots of research is very optimistic, but it is still worth the effort.
That’s what was said about alchemy at one time, I’m sure
…and powered flight.
Nobody with any real knowledge of the science involved ever doubted that would happen, it was waiting for engines that could be made light and compact enough while still producing enough power, and it also didn’t take all that long to accomplish once truly aggressive, sustained research was put into it. Santos Dumont and the Wright Brothers weren’t at it for 80 years
You conveniently left out most of human history where it had been a strong desire and just recalled the last few steps. Flight was also relatively easy; it’s just a mechanical problem.
The first battery is likely from around 200 BCE, with concentrated research in the mid-1700s, and while we have made big improvements, it still isn’t where we need it to be to solve the net-zero problem.
We had balloons in the 18th century, flight was achieved, it just wasn’t powered because the steam engines of the day couldn’t be made small enough and light enough to put in a gondola, but it was obviously demonstrated that a) flight was possible, b) engines existed, and c) engines were already getting more powerful and more compact and more efficient over time, so eventually they would be combined
Attempts at flight predate balloons by centuries. Balloons were the first way to manage flight because they were the easiest and allowed incremental progress. Like batteries are now. But people kept throwing money at it despite having zero realistic chance of a any functional powered flight for a couple centuries. Thanks for coming around and supporting my original point.
Tell you what, if either fusion or the hydrogen economy happen, I’ll owe you a Coke
And I’ll buy you one when they figure out how to create enough batteries for BEVs without destroying existing ecosystems.
Have we figured out how to make ICEs without destroying at least some part of the physical environment? That’s how mining and manufacturing work
Well, since the metals in ICE cars are almost completely recyclable and cost-efficient, their impact on mineral extraction is significantly lower.
Keep in mind that I am very involved in defending one of the world’s most beautiful and pristine environments, which is currently under threat from a company looking to mine for metals used in batteries.
Those metals are the new version of oil. I have no desire to trade one tragic lack of foresight for another.
well, its going to happen regardless, ICE cars are being phased out, so the choice is battery EV or nothing, because hydrogen is a pipe dream that will never, ever happen. Ever.
Well, if they mine in the area I am talking about, I will be dead or in jail. Unfortunately, your attitude is the exact same one that got us into this mess in the first place.
“There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
“Oh no, not again.”
I had to tell this story in reply. I met Douglas Adams in about 1993 when I was in college. He was doing a book tour promoting “The Last Chance to See” DVD or television program and reading from the book.
My roommate and I had him sign our calculus and Eastern Philosophy textbooks.
I feel like we should just use the existing giant fusion reactor we already have(the sun), it’s there and it’s fairly cheap, and if it runs out…we got bigger problems.
They clearly have a strategy, and they’re thinking long-term.
Government subsidies, grants and investor hype, probably.
Finally!