: We're different from other non-humanoid biological beings for multiple
: reasons, not just our legs and humanoid torso. What if another factor is
: that having a humanoid machine manned by a human creates a total that's
: more than the sum of its part? Subconsciously it could be a more natural
: structure environment (this gets into sci-fi territory of training and
: 'becoming one' with the machine).

Fair warning, but I hate the trope above with the undying passion of ten million things that hate a lot. Mostly because of its use and abuse in Code Geass.

"Oh, hey, we have this prototype mech that we hauled to the battlefield even though we don't have a pilot for it, and for no adequately explored reason it will only work with an exact match for a pilot... fortunately, we found this teenage reservist in the infirmary. Ran him through the simulator, and he's a 99.995% match, so we're going to drop him in the pilot seat and send him back out. Because $%#* training and common sense! Now call up his high school and make sure they have a place to stow it, because he's going to be the bodyguard for some British royalty that is attending the same school."

Would a mech be easier to control just because it's humanoid? I dunno. You can teach someone to drive a car in a few hours, but true driving skills aren't honed until at least a hundred hours are spent behind the wheel. Mechs may be more 'familiar' at the outset, but how much practice would it take to get used to a higher center of balance, larger frame, and possibly a different range of mobility? And how much discipline would transfer over from driving vehicles to piloting mechs?
Also: Don't pick your nose.

: ie, would a human
: controlling (as if his own body) a non-humanoid vehicle fair better or
: worse than if an actual humanoid mech? *shrug*

I wouldn't expect it, no.
Humans are a tool using species. We easily grasp the idea of manipulating a stick to pick ants out of a log, or pushing an analog stick to make a character on a TV screen move in the direction we want.

Wait. Are you talking about controlling a vehicle with a haptic feedback device, like some mechs are controlled?
*shrugs*

Sounds overly complicated for little benefit.

: Remember we're discussion future fictional sci-fi mechanical constructs :P
: it's all in theory.

How far can you push fictional tech until it's functionally magic?

: Enh, I don't buy that. That argument is highly fallacious. There are many
: reasons why we as humans fair better than non-humanoid beings. But heck,
: this argument is more like "is it better to have opposable thumbs or
: not?" -- both structure have benefits and drawbacks; they're
: specialized for certain activities and tasks. As humans we obviously have
: some weaknesses, we're not the optimal form for certain environments or
: conditions. Yet, we still fair better overall because overcome those
: drawbacks in other ways.

: Are vehicles better in some contexts than mechs? Of course. Can mechs be
: better in some contexts than vehicles? Of course. It all depends HOW
: they're designed and/or engineered, and operated. And, who operates them
: and how optimally. So many factors.

Again, you seem to be approaching the problem from the vantage point of "What can I do to make a mech fit a role," instead of "What machine has the best qualities for the role that needs to be filled?"

: You seem to be coming from an angle that all mechs can be out-done by
: non-humanoid vehicles. I'm saying only that I think just to make that
: statement is fallacious.

I'm just stating that legs are a structural weakness with no significant benefits.
-That's not true. Legs must have some benefits that outweigh their drawbacks.
What are they?
-I don't know, but I'm sure they exist.
What are they?
-I don't know, but I'm sure they exist.
What are they?

I think we're trapped here. Not an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object, but a football getting caught in a basketball net.

: My argument is simply this: Based on the fact that we humans are generally
: more capable than any other biological being (our state of existence
: serves to demonstrate that, whatever your ethics about how we live may
: be), it is more likely that if we design mechs to take advantage of our
: advantages - whether biological or intellectual or whatever - we will,
: theoretically, be able to create a mech that given a certain specified
: purpose, might be able to be more beneficial than non-humanoid vehicles.

Two thoughts:

Notice that there's no axle or wheel in nature? No macroscopic organism moves along on wheels. There is no sort of shaft that can spin freely of a body. The closest thing nature has to using a wheel for transportation is the dung beetle. And, honestly, it sort of makes sense. Is it possible to have a contiguous circulatory system or nervous system between an axle and a body?

What is present in nature works for nature. Machines can take advantage of components that nature can't reproduce, like the wheel or the bearing. So, maybe the fact that the human form works for us doesn't mean that it works as well as other forms that are available to machines.

My other thought is... intellectual? As in, mechs somehow taking advantage of our mental capacity in a way that vehicles can't? Color me skeptical.

: Don't blame the trope, blame the writers :P

Oh, I blame 343i's writers for much more than the Mantis.
In fact, since Kojima seems to be where they got the idea, maybe he deserves some blame too.

: If designed-- sorry, engineered that way. (I hope the spirit of my words was
: picked up more than the literal meanings :P)

Maybe multipedes will fare better, but the average biped is burdened with a high center of gravity and low footprint. The bigger they are...

: circa... how old was that? No one's disputing that today mech engineering
: (2, or whatever-legged) leaves much to be desired in comparison to
: specialized vehicles :)

Eh, I first saw the video when I was in high school, four or five years ago. I haven't been able to find any more information on the tractor though.

: Sure. But I think there will always be purists who say humans can always do
: everything better :P we have endless great sci-fi that explores that human
: vs machine dynamic. :)

Anthropocentric bunk, most of it. When an android is involved, you just /know/ the conversation is going to go downhill fast.

: Probably also part of the reason why humans are
: always the average jack-of-all-trades in fantasy settings :)

Jack of all trades, master of none, and always better than the master of one.
Unless the fiction is emphasizing how warlike and insane we are compared to the rest of galactic civilization, in which case we are amazingly effective specialists.

: As long as there's no Sarlacc or Rancor in your midst!

No such monsters, no. But it's dark and musty, and when the meat's thrown down, the rats have the advantage of numbers and they-

Yes, Mrs. Wormwood?

: *shrug* I'd leave that up to engineers to decide. Do drawbacks of any
: particular design in its practical context outweigh the benefits?
: They made segways work :) (not saying that tech necessarily applies directly
: here :P just the principle)

Anything can 'work', provided that the design goal is narrow enough and you find enough rich idiots to buy it. Does it have a place in a hostile environment, where it may be shot at and people's lives may depend on it?

: Makes me picture the scene from The Core,

I find that a good dose of vodka usually gets me out of your situation.

: and wish never to be crushed in a
: collapsing compartment under high pressure. o_O Also, I don't think any
: mech suit would have helped him in that context (inside the vessel, inside
: earth's core)

Not sure if a spaceship would collapse under high pressure in normal conditions. Impact damage and the repairing thereof was what I was thinking of.