A lower price for Acemate’s rally robot

We first covered the Acemate S10 back in May, when the company was still riding the momentum of its crowdfunding campaign. That momentum appears to have held up well. Acemate says the device received support from more than 1,500 backers and raised over $2.4 million.

Now the company is moving into a more traditional sales push. For Prime Day, the S10 will be available at $1,899 in the US, £1,899 in the UK, €1,899 in Europe, CAD$2,499 in Canada and AUD$2,899 in Australia. In the US, that works out to a nice reduction from the listed $2,499 MSRP.

This still makes the S10 a premium training device. But it does bring the price closer to the upper end of advanced ball machines, which is probably where many buyers will mentally place it.

More than a static ball machine

The pitch for Acemate remains interesting because the S10 is not just another machine that fires balls from one end of the court. It tracks incoming shots, moves around the court, catches the ball and sends it back. Yes, you read that correctly, it catches the balls you hit back at it.

The robot uses 4K binocular vision and Acemate claims a 0.15-second response time. Ball return speeds go up to 100 km/h. In theory, that should make practice feel closer to a rally than a feed session. A bit like hitting with a real person.

That’s not what you get with normal ball machines. These types of devices can help with repetition, but they often lets the player stand still and groove a shot in isolation. Acemate’s approach should put more pressure on movement, recovery and timing.

The software may be the bigger story

The hardware grabs attention, but the coaching features could be what make the S10 more valuable over time. Acemate includes more than 40 training templates across NTRP levels 1.0 to 5.0, covering forehands, backhands, volleys, overheads and other common drills.

Players can also build custom sessions by changing feed interval, ball height, direction, speed, spin and ball count. After practice, the robot provides session data, including shot placement, speed, net clearance and accuracy.

Acemate S10 AI Tennis robot*

Order now

As always, “AI coaching” deserves a little scepticism until people use it over many sessions. But tennis is a good candidate for this type of feedback. The sport gives you measurable patterns. If the S10 can track them reliably, it could help players spot problems they would otherwise miss.

The Prime Day discount definitely doesn’t make the Acemate S10 cheap, but it does make it a lot easier to justify for regular players, coaches or clubs. If you’ve been eyeing this thing since the crowdfunding campaign, this is probably the right time to pull the trigger.

We’ll find out exactly how well it handles on the court when we put the robot through its paces next month. So keep an eye out for our full hands-on review.

*We are a review site that receives a small commission from sales of certain items, but the price is the same for you. Purchasing items by clicking on links in this article allows us to run this website. We are independently owned and all opinions expressed here are our own. See our affiliate disclosure page for more details.

The post The Acemate S10 tennis robot is now $600 cheaper appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The table tennis range is not built around one device. Pongbot currently has three main table tennis robots in the lineup: Nova S Pro, Omni S Pro and Halo S Pro. They all do the same basic job, firing balls with adjustable speed, spin and placement, but they sit at very different levels.

My review of the Pongbot Pace S Pro was about tennis, but the bigger point was the same. A good training robot only works if it gets out of the way and lets you build repeatable sessions without turning practice into a settings menu.

That is where Pongbot’s table tennis machines make sense on paper. These are not humanoid opponents or robots that play rallies back at you. They are smart serving robots built for repetition, placement, spin work and drill structure.

Nova S Pro is the entry point

Nova S Pro is the smallest and cheapest model in the range. It sits on the table, weighs 4kg and holds around 150 balls, so it is clearly the one designed for home users or players who want something they can move around easily.

The headline specs are still strong for the price. It can fire balls from 2 to 15 metres per second, with a frequency of 30 to 90 balls per minute. Spin goes up to 60 revolutions per second and Pongbot says it supports 9 spin variations. There are also more than 264 built-in drills, plus app and remote control.

Nova S Pro*

Order now

The compromise is adjustment. Nova S Pro has manual side and vertical adjustment, so it does not give you the same automated placement flexibility as the more expensive models. That probably will not bother a casual or intermediate player. It may bother someone trying to build more complex footwork routines.

This is the model that looks easiest to recommend for someone who wants structured solo practice without going deep into club-level equipment. It is still a proper training robot, just stripped back in some places.

Omni S Pro steps things up

Omni S Pro is the clamp-on model and it moves the range into more serious territory. It weighs 9kg, clips onto the table and holds around 250 balls. The ball speed remains 2 to 15 metres per second, while the firing frequency stays at 30 to 90 balls per minute.

The big jump is spin and control. Omni S Pro supports up to 100 revolutions per second and 360-degree spin adjustment. It also adds automatic continuous left and right oscillation, plus automatic vertical and side adjustment. Control comes through the app or Pongbot’s E-Pad touchscreen.

Omni S Pro*

Order now

That changes the use case. With Nova S Pro, you are getting a compact robot that can handle useful drills. With Omni S Pro, you are getting something that can build more realistic patterns across the table. Forehand, backhand, middle ball, short ball, deep ball, spin change. That is where table tennis training starts to become more serious.

It also includes more built-in drills than Nova S Pro. Pongbot’s own listing shows over 522 drills, which gives players a large preset library before they start creating their own routines. For clubs, coaches or players who train often, that extra control is probably where the money goes.

Halo S Pro is the full setup

Halo S Pro is the floor-standing model. It weighs 11kg, holds around 250 balls and uses the same broad performance range as Omni S Pro, with 2 to 15 metres per second speed, 30 to 90 balls per minute and up to 100 revolutions per second of spin.

The difference is the format. Because Halo S Pro stands on the floor, it can be positioned in different locations around the table. That gives it more flexibility than a fixed clip-on robot, especially for players who want to simulate different angles or feed patterns from more natural positions.

Halo S Pro*

Order now

It also gets the largest drill library, with more than 702 built-in drills according to the current Pongbot listing. That makes it the most complete option in the range, but also the one that makes the least sense for someone who just wants a casual hit in the garage.

Halo S Pro looks more like club kit. It is the one for players who already know they will use a robot regularly and want the widest spread of training patterns. For everyone else, Omni S Pro may already cover the useful middle ground.

Pongbot table tennis robot comparison

The table makes the range fairly easy to understand. Nova S Pro is about portability and price. Omni S Pro is about better automation and more serious drill building. Halo S Pro is the most flexible setup, mostly because of its standing design and larger drill library.

You can also see the typical pricing. But it’s worth pointing out, the company frequently runs sales so its worth checking their site from time to time.

The AI label needs some perspective

Pongbot uses a lot of smart training language around these products. That makes sense, especially after using the Pace S Pro, but it is worth separating the useful training features from the marketing gloss.

With the Pace S Pro, the smarter side of the product is more obvious. It can track the player, adjust drills and use positioning data to make tennis practice feel less static than a traditional ball machine. That is a very different setup from the table tennis robots, which are not watching your stroke or reading your movement in the same way.

The table tennis range is better understood as a set of app-controlled serving robots with structured drills, spin variation and programmable placement. That still lines up with the same Pongbot idea I saw in the tennis machine: solo practice should feel more deliberate, less random and easier to repeat.

That does not make the table tennis models less interesting. It just makes the buying decision cleaner. With Pace S Pro, part of the appeal is the way the machine reacts to the player. With Nova S Pro, Omni S Pro and Halo S Pro, the appeal is different. You are paying for repeatable ball delivery, quick drill changes and the ability to build awkward patterns without needing a practice partner.

For table tennis, that is already a lot. You do not need every device to pretend it is a coach. Sometimes the better product is the one that feeds the exact same awkward backspin ball 80 times until your brain finally gives in.

Which one makes the most sense

Nova S Pro is the obvious starting point for most home users. It is portable, much cheaper and still gives you speed, spin and drill programming. For players who want to improve footwork, returns and consistency without spending over $1,000, it is the easiest one to understand.

Omni S Pro is probably the sweet spot for serious players. It adds automatic adjustment, higher spin capability, more drills and a larger ball capacity, while keeping the unit mounted neatly on the table. It looks like the one to consider if the robot will become part of a regular weekly training setup.

Halo S Pro is the big one. It makes sense if placement flexibility is important, or if the robot will sit in a dedicated training space rather than being packed away after each session. It is overkill for casual use, but that is not really the point of it.

What I like about Pongbot’s table tennis range is that the differences are not hard to explain. The company has not buried the buyer in tiny model changes. It has a portable model, a clamp-on model and a floor-standing model. Pick the setup first, then decide how much automation and drill depth you actually need.

After reviewing the Pace S Pro, this range feels like a natural extension of the same idea. Pongbot is clearly interested in solo training that feels more structured than old-school ball machines. The table tennis robots are less ambitious than the tennis machine in terms of tracking and AI, but they may be easier to justify for everyday practice.

*We are a review site that receives a small commission from sales of certain items, but the price is the same for you. Purchasing items by clicking on links in this article allows us to run this website. We are independently owned and all opinions expressed here are our own. See our affiliate disclosure page for more details.

The post Pongbot S Nova, Omni and Halo show where solo table tennis training is going appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

CYPLORE is trying to solve one of the biggest problems with e-bike conversion kits. It adds electric assist to existing road and gravel bikes while keeping the weight down.

The project has just launched on Kickstarter with prices starting around $599 for the FLEX version and $779 for the ready-to-ride ONE wheel setup. The pitch is simple enough. Give riders extra help on climbs and long rides without turning a lightweight carbon bike into something that suddenly feels heavy and awkward.

A very different kind of e-bike conversion

Most conversion kits end up changing the personality of the bike. You usually get a bulky mid-drive motor, a large external battery and extra weight that changes handling even when the system is switched off.

CYPLORE is clearly trying to avoid that. The motor sits inside the rear hub while the battery disguises itself as a bottle mounted in the standard cage position. There is also a small wireless remote that docks neatly onto the setup. From a distance, the bike still looks mostly normal.

That low profile approach is probably the most interesting thing here. Plenty of cyclists still resist full e-bikes because they either dislike the added mass or simply do not want their expensive road bike turning into something visually cluttered. CYPLORE seems aimed directly at those riders.

The quoted 1.7kg total system weight is also unusually low for this category. That includes both the motor and battery. The battery itself weighs roughly 800g and delivers a claimed 50km assisted range from its 111Wh capacity. USB-C charging is supported and the company says a full recharge takes around an hour.

The ride feel will decide whether this works

CYPLORE says the system uses a torque sensor that adjusts assistance based on pedalling effort in real time. Push harder and the support increases. Ease off and the motor backs away. The company also says the built-in clutch fully disengages the motor when assistance is not active, removing drag resistance from the wheel.

That last part is important because some lightweight hub systems still feel slightly sticky when riding without power. Road cyclists tend to notice those things immediately. If CYPLORE has genuinely managed a near invisible ride feel, that could end up being the real selling point rather than outright speed or power.

The system is rated at 250W and targets modern road and gravel bikes using 142x12mm thru-axles. Compatibility includes most Shimano and SRAM drivetrains.

Two versions depending on how much flexibility you want

The ONE version is the simpler option. It arrives as a complete rear wheel with the motor already built in. Riders swap out their existing rear wheel, attach the bottle battery and ride away within a few minutes.

FLEX takes a different approach. Instead of a complete wheel, buyers receive the hub motor and build it into their own preferred wheel setup. That will probably appeal more to experienced cyclists who already have favourite rims or very specific wheel configurations.

CYPLORE also splits its setups into road and gravel variants. The road rims support 25 to 32c tyres while the gravel option stretches from 32 to 55c.

There is app connectivity too. The system connects to cycling computers over ANT+ and syncs activities to Strava through the CYPLORE app. Riders can monitor battery levels, switch assist modes and view ride history from the app itself.

A familiar Kickstarter balancing act

Like many cycling hardware projects, CYPLORE sits somewhere between exciting concept and wait-and-see territory.

The company says it already has working prototypes and has completed performance testing. It also claims the founding team includes engineers and former staff from Samsung, Xiaomi, Alibaba and e-bike system companies.

Still, Kickstarter hardware campaigns always carry some uncertainty. Manufacturing delays, supply chain problems and shifting timelines remain common across the category. CYPLORE currently estimates deliveries for November 2026.

Price: $599 and up

Raised: $333,474 of $10,000 goal

Estimated delivery: November 2026
33 days to go before campaign closes

View on:

The post A new Kickstarter wants to make your road bike electric without the bulk appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The main experience stays

This is an extension of Form’s smart goggles idea. Instead of checking a watch between lengths, you see swim data inside the lens while you are in the water. And it works brilliantly. Smart Swim 2 LT now sits below the regular Smart Swim 2 and Smart Swim 2 Pro.

I reviewed Smart Swim 2 a while ago, and the display was the main reason the goggles worked. It made structured swimming easier because data was visible mid-set rather than after stopping at the wall. The second generation model also had a smaller module and better fit than the original, although the display still takes some getting used to.

The new LT model should offer the same basic experience for swimmers. But with one caveat.

Heart rate is the cut

The regular Smart Swim 2 includes an integrated heart rate monitor. Smart Swim 2 LT does not. That is the clearest reason to pick one over the other.

In my review, I found the built-in heart rate tracking useful because it removed the need for another device. It gave a better view of effort during intervals and recovery. But not every swimmer needs that, especially if they already train mostly by pace or use a separate heart rate strap.

HeadCoach remains part of the LT package. That gives users access to Form’s training planner and technique guidance, including feedback around swim form. SwimStraight is also now free for all users, which helps open-water swimmers keep a straighter bearing without sighting as often.

The range now makes more sense

The lineup now has three clear price points. Smart Swim 2 LT costs $149. The standard Smart Swim 2 remains at $199. Smart Swim 2 Pro now costs $259 after a $50 price cut and adds Gorilla Glass lenses and fog-free swimming. You can check the all out on Form’s website/,

Smart Swim 2 LT is the entry model for swimmers who want the display and coaching, but not integrated heart rate. Smart Swim 2 remains the better fit if you want heart rate included. Smart Swim 2 Pro sits above both with the tougher lens setup.

That is a cleaner range than before. Form has not taken away the thing that makes its goggles useful. It has just created a lower priced version for swimmers who can live without one sensor.

For regular pool swimmers, this could be the more practical option. You still get the in-lens data and the training platform, which are the main reasons to buy Form goggles in the first place. The more expensive models are still there for swimmers who want the full hardware package.

The post Form Smart Swim 2 LT brings the display down to $149 appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

You can check all the current Isinwheel offers here.

The power option up front

The Isinwheel GT1 Dual Motor Off Road Electric Scooter 1600W is the one that leans into power. You get two 800W motors, a 48V 13Ah battery and a quoted range of up to 35 miles. It sits on 10 inch all terrain tyres and supports up to 330lbs, so it is clearly built for more than short city hops. This thing is aimed at riders who want stronger acceleration and a bit more confidence on uneven ground.

The 6% discount code ISW6% applies here, and it runs for a long time. What’s more, right now the scooter is selling for £569 on the site, down £190 from its usual price. So quite a big drop.

A middle ground scooter

The Isinwheel GT2 Pro Off Road Electric Scooter 1200W sits between the two. It runs a 1200W motor and adds a removable 48V 15Ah battery, which is probably its most useful feature day to day. The quoted range is 37 miles and charging takes around 5 to 7 hours, so it edges slightly ahead of the GT1 on range while trading off some motor output.

That removable battery makes a difference if you do not want to move the whole scooter just to charge it. It also makes it easier to top up indoors, which can matter depending on where you store it. It uses the same ISW6% code as the GT1. Right now this one is selling for £539 on the site, down from the usual £799.

The ebike stands apart

The Dremax Commuter Ebike is a sensible part of the Isinwheel. It uses an 864W motor paired with a 720Wh Samsung battery, with a claimed range of up to 93 miles. That number depends heavily on how you ride, but even with real world variation it is clearly built for longer trips and daily use.

Bigger 27.5 inch tyres and the ebike format make it more suited to commuting and mixed terrain rather than quick bursts. It should feel more stable over distance, especially compared to standing on a scooter for longer rides.

The Dremax gets a simple £70 discount with the Dremax70 code. This is in addition to the £200 off the price it is selling right now (£1,199 down from £1,399).

Another ebike worth considering

Those three described so far are the current hot sellers. But there is another device in the mix that is also on sale.

The Isinwheel U4 Foldable Step-thru Electric Bike 500W is down to £439 from £629, which puts it in budget territory for a folding ebike. The 6% discount code ISW6% applies here, as well.

The U4 is a bit different from the Dremax. It is lighter, more compact and built around convenience rather than long range riding. You get a 500W motor and a quoted range of up to 55 miles, which is enough for shorter commutes and everyday errands without needing something as large as a full size ebike.

I recently reviewed the U4 and it comes across as a very accessible entry point into electric bikes. The folding step through frame makes it easy to store and carry, which is a big part of its appeal if you are tight on space or mixing transport modes. It is not trying to compete with higher end models on power or battery size, but it does not need to.

In day to day use, the focus is clearly on simplicity. It is the kind of bike you can just hop on without overthinking settings or modes. That makes it a solid option for casual riders or anyone who wants something straightforward for getting around, especially at the current discounted price.

You can check all the current Isinwheel offers here.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as your preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Isinwheel GT1, GT2 Pro and Dremax deals, which one makes sense appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Fast forward to 2026 and the product looks very different. In/Out has moved well beyond that original single-device setup into a full v4.0 system with Net Devices, Line Devices, multiple sport support and years of software updates that have made the whole thing feel much more practical.

In the original review, one of the main attractions was simplicity. You clipped the device onto the net post, connected it to your phone and suddenly your local tennis match had a touch of Hawk-Eye style technology. It was fun, useful and definitely something that got people talking on court.

But there were obvious limits. Asking one device sitting at the side of the net to judge everything was always ambitious. Accuracy depended heavily on positioning and calibration, and while the idea worked, it still felt like an early version of something that needed more refinement.

From one gadget to a proper court system

That is probably the biggest difference today. In/Out is no longer really selling one gadget. It is selling a court setup.

The company now uses Net Devices and Line Devices. Net Devices still sit on the net posts and handle the main match operation, while Line Devices sit directly along the lines they monitor. In/Out describes them as the equivalent of chair umpires and line umpires, which is actually a very good way to explain it.

This solves one of the obvious weaknesses from the original product. A device looking straight down a baseline has a much better chance of making an accurate call than one trying to judge everything from the side. In/Out says these Line Devices help deliver millimetre accuracy, and for amateur matches it recommends using two Net Devices and two Line Devices, particularly for baseline coverage.

Compared to the version I tested in 2017, this feels far less like a clever gadget experiment and much more like a serious officiating system.

Hardware has matured

My early review focused on a much simpler hardware package. Since then, In Out has gone through multiple generations including v1, v2, v3 and now v4.0.

Version 3.0 introduced support for a third middle camera on the Net Device, which expanded both video capture and match analysis. It also improved net-related tracking by separating serve net faults from rally net faults, something the original system could not handle nearly as well.

Version 4.0 takes things further with a dedicated app flow, clearer device pairing and support for a much more modular setup. One v4.0 device can now work with multiple Line Devices, and the whole system is positioned not just for tennis, but also pickleball and badminton. Also, now there’s no screen on the device itself – instead it all works through your smartphone.

Software did most of the real work

Looking back at the original review, the concept was already strong. What the product really needed was reliability.

That seems to be where most of the work happened. In/Out’s own changelog says there have been 75 software releases and five hardware generations over eight years, which tells you this was not a product left sitting after launch.

Updates improved camera speed, Line Device communication, calibration, ball detection and overall call consistency. There were fixes for cases where devices disagreed with each other, better automatic recalibration after movement and fewer false detections.

One feature I particularly like is the “Too Close To Call” alert. Instead of pretending every call is perfectly certain, the system can now flag when a decision falls inside the margin of error. That feels much more honest and much more useful for real tennis.

Back in 2017, the discussion was often whether the technology could work. Now the focus is more about how smoothly it works in practice.

The app matters much more now

When I first tested In/Out, the app was mostly there to support the device. Today it’s a much bigger part of the product.

The v4.0 app handles umpiring, stats, camera views, replays and video recording. It can record from the phone or device view, stream matches and save videos directly to the smartphone. That makes it far more useful for coaching sessions and match review, not just line calls.

Stats have also grown. Training zones, player positioning and better Line Device stats all make the system feel less one-dimensional than before. It is still not trying to replace professional broadcast-level analytics, but it offers far more than the original “was it in or out?” use case.

Still not for everyone

One thing has not changed much. This is still a specialist product.

The current v4.0 pricing costs around $499 for one Net Device and two Line Devices. That means it is still aimed more at serious players, coaches and clubs than someone playing casual doubles once a week. But that was always the reality. Even in 2017, the value was strongest for people who played regularly enough to care about accuracy, video review and structured training.

You can also opt just for the Net Device for $299. Plus, there’s a special promotion with free shipping until May 8th for Europe. No customs fees or import duties guaranteed, too.

Looking back at that original review, the core idea was right. Tennis players hate bad line calls and love any tool that removes arguments. The difference now is that the product is far more complete.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post In/Out tennis line calling has come a long way since our 2017 review appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The French Open will now allow the wearables on a trial basis, with Wimbledon and the US Open expected to follow later this year. The move comes after confusion at the Australian Open, where players including Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka were told the devices were not permitted on court. To remind, these devices were already allowed on ATP and WTA Tour events.

Why the rule is changing

So why the rule change?

It all kicked off in Melbourne earlier this year. Players who regularly wear recovery bands like Whoop suddenly found themselves being told to take them off before matches, despite using them throughout the rest of the season.

There were even awkward moments on court. Carlos Alcaraz had a device hidden under his wristband during a match, while Jannik Sinner was stopped before play after an official noticed his wearable before the coin toss.

That confusion came from the fact that Grand Slams were operating under separate rules from the regular tour. The International Tennis Federation had already approved these devices, and ATP and WTA events were allowing them. But the majors were still taking a stricter approach.

Now that appears to be changing.

Players were never using them for coaching

This was never really about live coaching or someone getting tactical advice through a wrist strap. Players have been clear that the main reason for wearing these devices is recovery and health tracking.

Whoop and similar wearables track metrics such as heart rate, heart rate variability, recovery, strain, sleep, respiratory rate, blood oxygen and skin temperature. For elite players dealing with back-to-back matches, long rallies and difficult weather conditions, that data can be useful when deciding how hard to train the next day or whether the body needs more recovery.

Sinner spoke about this after the Australian Open issue, explaining that after playing in the extreme Melbourne heat, he wanted to check recovery numbers and understand how his body was responding before the next round.

Aryna Sabalenka made a similar point. She said she uses the device to monitor stress and recovery between matches and was frustrated by the ban, especially because the same wearable was allowed all year on WTA events.

Why organisers are backing it

French Open tournament director Amélie Mauresmo said the decision to allow the wearables was made in order to improve the player experience and respond to what athletes were asking for. The idea is simple enough: if players want better access to their own health data, there is little reason to block it if the technology does not affect fairness.

That is probably the key point. These are not hidden performance enhancers. They are passive trackers collecting information from the body. The argument from supporters is that data should help protect players, not be treated like an unfair advantage.

In a social media post – Whoop itself leaned heavily into that argument with the phrase “Data is not steroids”. Which is dramatic but gets the point across.

For now, the bigger takeaway is that Grand Slam tennis is catching up with the rest of the tour. The French Open is treating this as a trial, but once players start using these devices openly on the biggest stages, it will be difficult to go back.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Why the French Open is now allowing Whoop on court appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The video itself is undeniably fun to watch. There is something slightly surreal, and admittedly a bit funny, about seeing a humanoid robot charging down a running track like it has somewhere very important to be. It feels less like watching a smooth Olympic sprinter and more like seeing a determined machine late for its own firmware update.

Fast, but not world record fast

What’s worth noting here is that the robot has hit 10.1 meters per second at one point. Which is not the same as averaging that speed from start to finish. Bolt’s 9.58 second world record works out to an average speed of 10.44 metres per second across the full 100 metres, despite starting from a standstill.

That is the part that often gets lost when these clips start doing the rounds on social media. Peak speed is the headline number. But average speed is what the stopwatch cares about. A car touching 200 km/h for a second on a straight is not the same as averaging that across an entire lap, and the same logic applies here.

The H1 is clearly quick, and much quicker than most people would expect from a full-sized humanoid (minus the head). But it needs further improvements before it can genuinely be mentioned in the same breath as elite sprinting performance.

The movement still looks very robotic

There is also the small matter of how it moves. The H1’s stride looks fast, but not exactly graceful. It is more rapid mechanical stepping than fluid sprint mechanics. In fairness, that is part of what makes the clip so compelling.

Human sprinters make running at that speed look almost effortless, even though it is anything but. The robot, by contrast, looks like it is working extremely hard for every metre. There is a slight drift in its line too, which adds to the sense that this is still very much an engineering demo rather than something ready for lane four at the Olympics.

That said, it is still a serious technical achievement. Keeping a humanoid stable at these speeds is no small task. Balance, foot placement, traction, and real-time correction all need to work together, and one bad step could easily send it face-first onto the track.

Bolt can still sleep easy – for now…

So, is Bolt’s record under threat? Not yet. The robot would need faster acceleration, better directional control and, most importantly, the ability to sustain a much higher average pace over the full distance.

Still, this is the sort of thing that makes for great headlines and even better videos. For now, the record books remain safe, but it is not every day a robot gives sprint fans a reason to check the numbers twice.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Unitree’s 10.1 metres per second robot run sparks Usain Bolt comparisons appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

How the robot actually learned to play

The interesting part is not just that the robot can hit a tennis ball. It is how it learned to do it.

Instead of relying on perfect motion capture data, the researchers used short fragments of human movements. Things like forehand swings, backhand strokes and basic footwork. These fragments were not precise, and they did not represent full tennis rallies.

The system stitches together these fragments using a learned latent action space. In simple terms, it builds a library of movement building blocks and then figures out how to combine them in real time. So instead of copying a textbook forehand, it learns something closer to how a human moves when playing tennis, then refines that into something usable.

There is also a clever workaround for one of the hardest problems in tennis, wrist control. The robot’s high-level controller directly adjusts the wrist during play, rather than relying on the imperfect training data.

That alone tells you how messy this problem is. Even humans struggle to explain what their wrist is doing mid-swing.

What the video actually shows

The video doing the rounds online makes this look almost match-ready, but it is worth looking a bit closer.

The robot is genuinely tracking the ball and returning shots. This is not stitched footage or selective cuts. But the rally is clearly controlled. The human is feeding relatively clean, predictable balls rather than pushing the pace or mixing things up.

But it’s still impressive. And fairly surreal.

The system works because it can anticipate fairly consistent trajectories. You do not see last-second adjustments or recovery from awkward bounces. The swings are functional, not precise, and there is a slight hesitation between movements that would become more obvious if the tempo increased.

What does stand out is the coordination.

The footwork is surprisingly decent. The robot repositions itself, shuffles across the court, and times its swings in a way that feels closer to natural movement than earlier humanoid demos. It is not fluid in a human sense, but it is not rigid either.

What it can actually do on court

This is not just a one-hit demo.

The system can sustain multi-shot rallies with human players and return balls across different areas of the court. The incoming balls in testing travel at speeds above 15 metres per second. Which is more basic level tennis. But if this is the worst its ever going to be, it makes you wonder.

In simulation, the robot handles thousands of trials and consistently returns balls close to target areas. In real-world testing, performance holds up across forehand and backhand strokes, as well as different court positions.

There is also another interesting detail. When two of these systems play each other in simulation, they can keep rallies going for up to 25 consecutive shots.

Why this is more interesting than it looks

Robots playing sports is not new. There have been table tennis bots, badminton experiments, even robot football teams. What stands out here is the approach.

Most systems depend on clean, high-quality motion data or unrealistic physics assumptions. This one leans into imperfect data and still produces movement that looks relatively natural.

That has broader implications. If a robot can learn a complex physical skill like tennis from messy, incomplete data, it suggests the same approach could work for other real-world tasks. Anything involving coordination, timing, and adaptation.

Also, instead of trying to perfectly model physics, the system trains with a wide range of variations. Friction, mass, air drag, all of it gets randomised. That makes the robot more robust when moving from simulation to reality.

Where this could go next

Before anyone starts worrying about being replaced at Wimbledon, there are limits.

The setup still relies on motion capture systems to track the robot and the ball. The rallies are controlled, and the robot is not diving for impossible shots or dealing with real match pressure.

The next step is moving away from motion capture and toward vision-based systems, so the robot can operate independently. Another direction is training in more realistic match conditions, with unpredictable shots and longer rallies.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Robot rallies tennis balls with humans and actually holds its own appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Players push for more in-match data

On Sunday in his 4th round match, Alcaraz was spotted wearing a Whoop on his right wrist and was quickly told to take it off by the umpire. Shortly after, Whoop CEO Will Ahmed voiced his frustration on social media, calling the decision “ridiculous” and stating that the tracker poses no safety risk. “Let the athletes measure their bodies. Data is not steroids!” he added in a post on X.

Jannik Sinner faced the same request in the tournament, after wearing his Whoop tucked under a wristband. Like Alcaraz, he complied, but said afterwards that the decision was disappointing. He explained that he and his team had no intention of using the device for live data, but rather to analyse post-match heart rate, calorie burn and effort metrics. For Sinner, these insights are useful in tailoring future training sessions and refining recovery strategies.

“I understand. I won’t use it again,” he said after advancing to the quarter-finals. “There are other things we could use. The vest with a tracker inside. But it’s a bit uncomfortable, you feel like you have something on your shoulders.”

His comments point to the shift that has been happening in the sport. More players are integrating physiological data into their match preparation and recovery routines. I mean, why wouldn’t they? Aryna Sabalenka was also seen wearing a Whoop tracker during the event

Grand Slam rules lag behind pro tour standards

Tennis Australia, which oversees the Australian Open, confirmed that wearable tech is currently not allowed during play at Grand Slam events. That puts it at odds with the broader rules of the sport. The International Tennis Federation includes the Whoop strap on its official list of approved Player Analysis Technology. The same goes for the ATP and WTA tours, where wearables are permitted under specific guidelines.

That split in policy creates a grey area for players and their teams. On one hand, governing bodies encourage smarter recovery and performance tracking. On the other, players risk penalties if they try to wear the same tech on the sport’s biggest stages.

In most other sports, wearable sensors have become standard. They’re in team kits, shoes and jerseys, often with league support. Tennis remains one of the more conservative corners of pro sport when it comes to tech integration, with Grand Slam tournaments especially reluctant to modernise.

Commercial partnerships complicate the picture

There’s also a commercial angle here. Whoop has marketing deals with several high-profile players and teams, and its strap is marketed specifically as something athletes can wear throughout their day. The brand is known for pushing the limits of real-time physiological data, especially in endurance and combat sports. Tennis fits neatly into that strategy.

But tournament organisers may be wary of giving visibility to commercial brands unless they’re official sponsors. That could partly explain the tension at this year’s event.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as your preferred source to get our expert news, reviews and opinion in your feeds.

The post Tennis stars told to ditch Whoop trackers at Australian Open appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.