Why is citing to old publications seemingly the norm even in fields where much research becomes obsolete as technology progresses?
Coming from the same field as you, I know what you mean. I also wondered the same thing at first. Note that in other fields, citing papers that are 100 years old is the norm so saying a paper is old because it is a decade old might not resonate for them :).


There is much to take from an old paper. Even if the problem was solved with "obsolete" technology for an obsolete problem, the method employed, the problem tackled, the method used to test the results, ..., all this might still be relevant to your problem. 
You might also use related works to show that a research direction was taken as to explain why you don't have to do it yourself. But at least you will show that you know it has been searched and your reader will also know.
The last reason you might want to cite those paper is to put your own work in contrast to those present there. You say the works are obsolete and old ? Perfect, explain how your research tackles a problem they have not resolved. This is something especially important in robotics where everything is new and shiny and cool and changes so fast. Make yourself unique by citing close related work but showing how you differ from them. And those similar work might be those older highly specialized work:


  This method solve very specific problem 1. However, it cannot solve novel situation while the method we present in our work can.



There is more to a paper than meets the eye.