Hacker News Reader

Comment by danhak | Hacker News Reader

I've never owned a car in a city as dense as SF or New York so maybe it's different in places like that, but this strikes me as yet another example of the "Uber-For-X" SV startup that doesn't solve any real problem. Stopping by the gas station once a week on my way home is simply not a big enough annoyance for me to subscribe to yet another service.

I'm also skeptical of the long-term prospects of this business model based on the rise of transportation-as-a-service and the inevitable demise of gasoline in favor of EV's. Both of those factors will be especially pronounced in the Bay Area, where this startup hopes to gain a foothold.

View on HN

I guess I'm one of those weird outliers who has a use case but still won't use the service. My wife works nights and rarely remembers to fuel our vehicle. I commute via Uber or bus so I never have it either. $15/mo is still too much for the service. Sooner or later my wife will run out of gas and then she'll do a better job of remembering to fuel the truck.

I imagine it's quite a bit more than $15 a month. They probably bake some healthy margins into the price of gas.

They claim their prices for members are designed to be competitive with lower-priced gas stations in the area.

I had never heard of this kind of service until a couple of weeks ago when I saw a Booster fuels truck. The advertised prices on the truck were a good 20 cents/gallon lower than the Chevron across the street from where it was parked.

OTOH, I don't know if they use top tier fuels with whatever detergent packages or if it's Arco-quality gas, or what.

Having seen but never used Arco--is there a significant difference in gasoline quality? I had always been under the impression that it was largely a commodity product with the various additives largely being used to help differentiate from a branding standpoint and not actually doing much.

There is basically no difference in gasoline brands. They all buy from the same area wholesalers. Some may vary on ethanol percentage and other additives but generally it's nothing significant.

Back when I lived in WA, Arco was the "cheap gas" because they used the winter 10% ethanol blend (== less power and less fuel economy) year-round, whereas 'good' gas stations switched to ethanol-free in the summer.

Now that I live in CA, everyone does 10% ethanol anyway. More and more it's hard to find non-ethanol gas anywhere.

Supposedly the top tier brands use 'better' detergents, but I'd say the differences in brands are smaller than ever.

In many major areas there are only one or two refineries anyways - it all comes from the same place and is rebranded. Sometimes with a tiny percentage of some special fuel additive poured in when they fill the gas station's tanks. For example in western WA there is Cherry Point or Anacortes. ARCO gas comes from the same place that refines petrol and diesel for 5 other major brands in the area.

There's no such thing as top tier fuel. Gas is bought off the spot market, just like orange juice. The quality of Arco's product on any given day could be identical to that of Chevron/Shell/more-expensive-name-brand.

There is such a thing as old gas which you don’t want in your car’s engine.

You probably don't want to use fuel that's been sitting in a jerry can for years, but is that concern really applicable to gas stations? Surely even the worst of them would turn over their entire stock in a matter of days, so you'll never be buying particularly old fuel.

Yes you are right - I was just making the point that gas is not all equivalent.

Our price per gallon is competitive with gas stations in your area (actually a bit below the AAA average).

Lower than Costco?

The density of gas stations is high enough that it works just fine to take a little detour to one of the several gas stations on the way between anywhere and anywhere when the dashboard light comes on.

This might be more useful if gas stations begin to fold because of electric cars.

I think gas stations will gradually turn into something else. Already in Australia the serious ones are developing beyond just car refuelling.

I think it's similar in America; AM-PM and 7-11 usually have "food" and also sell gas.

Huh? I remember this being the case in the 1990s. In UK at least

It's developing here to have co-branded outlets under one roof, looking very premium, sometimes sharing staff to minimise costs.

Down the track, they may become distribution/pick-up hubs. Most of them are very well located.

I take advantage of fuel stops to check the oil, coolant levels, etc. and generally eyeball stuff under the hood, like the drive belts for alternator, AC, etc. I glance at the tires too. It's a nice way to do something productive while the pump is running and saves me from having to do that separately at home.

$15/month on top of gas fees? Not interested. Without the monthly fee though, very interested. There's almost always a wait for gas stations when I go, so this service makes sense.

Furthermore, Uber solved a problem in a market with inefficiencies and use regulation arbitrage to do it. This is just an on demand service betting on the fact that people are lazy enough to not want to put gas into their car. IMO, there are bigger (or actual) problems to solve.

Honestly, I wonder why they didn't launch in Chicago or Boston in the winter when weather would make people not want to bother going outside.

> Furthermore, Uber solved a problem in a market with inefficiencies and use regulation arbitrage to do it.

What is "regulation arbitrage?"

Ignoring regulations and using your influence to try to force governments to change regulations when they finally come calling.

How is that arbitrage? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrage

because you're working the margin between legal risk and financial gain.

Profiting from legal loopholes[1], esp where two things accomplish the same goal, but one of them is more vigorously enforced/regulated than the other.

In this case, both taxis and limo/livery services[2] provide the same good -- "rides to somewhere" -- but taxis are more regulated in terms of rate, driver training, equipment, and how many can be active (medallion limits). Limo/livery services (or something passed off as one), by contrast, are less regulated, and what regulations they have aren't as closely monitored because (until recently) no one cared.

The analogy to arbitrage is that it's a case of same good, but different prices on different "markets". (Whether you market it as a "livery" or "taxi" service.)

Side note: IMHO, such arbitrage can't fully account for the success of Uber/Lyft, which have actually obeyed the major "no street hails" rule. They provided a better service (reliability and seeing when your ride is coming), squeezed out enormous efficiencies from harnessing IT, and solved major public goods/incentive problems that the regs were failing at -- how to fairly allocate the undesirable fares and get people to provide feedback on bad drivers.

[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-arbitrage.asp

[2] The legal difference between the two is that a taxi can do street hails -- on-the-spot arrangements found by line of sight -- while limo/livery services must be pre-arranged through some booking service that logs the specific driver/vehicle assigned to chauffeur a specific person + guests to another place.

I think [2] is the regulation arbitrage/loophole. In many places those cars must still be licensed & regulated. It's more than just the driver/ booking service keeping a log.

Regulatory arbitrage includes differentials in enforcement, which I think is true here: even when a limo needs a license, you can operate a lot longer before anyone bothers to do anything.

Don't they have full service stations in Chicago or Boston?

They don't in Chicago.

> I'm also skeptical of the long-term prospects of this business model based on the rise of transportation-as-a-service and the inevitable demise of gasoline in favor of EV's. Both of those factors will be especially pronounced in the Bay Area, where this startup hopes to gain a foothold.

IIRC they're also pushing for traction in Tennessee where one of the founders is originally from, so they've split their eggs into at least 2 markedly different baskets.

I can stop for gas, go in for a cup of Starbucks and be back to my car that now has a full tank in less than 5 minutes.

Would I pay $15 a month for this even though my normal routine doesn't suck? Maybe. But what about the actual gas cost? That's more important than the $15 subscription fee if the spread is large enough and I'm guessing it is since they have to pay for the drivers, carry some kind of insurance I presume, and whatever other costs are involved.

You're not supposed to leave a running gas pump unattended. The auto shutoff doesn't always work.

Some US states require a pump attendant to do it for you.

If you buy a Starbucks coffee every time at the gas station, doesn't that also add up to $15/month?

I agree with your points. The only way i'd subscribe to this service is if the delivery went something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUQ-ds9LIvw

*EDIT: off topic, Always Sunny In Philadelphia solution to this problem.

This comment says nothing for the people not willing to go watch random youtube videos to hear your point. Could you have not articulated it with a bit of text and used the link to further clarify what you mean?

meh

He was making a joke.

Seriously. Is it really that painful to stop for gas like twice a month?

Not to mention many people like to stop for gas for an excuse to grab a snack or drink.

For most no. For some, probably.

Twice a month? Try 2x per week.

I have a decent commute plus after work commitments and I fill my 70 litre tank once a week. It still isn't that much of a pain point, but if I were busier and less interested in cars I could see the appeal.

Agreed. What would be better is if they were full service and actually had good coffee that they'd bring to your window.

Hm, I like this idea. But our customers aren't usually at their cars while we're filling them up, so the coffee might often get cold

I meant for regular gas stations. I'm in NJ so I'm used to sitting while getting full service refueling.

I can see this being a great service. Yeah maybe bike packed, dense SF is not going to be their ideal market, but places like LA where there are more cars than sands on a beach can definitely benefit from a service like this. An average commuter in LA has to fill up their tank every one or two weeks. Not having to think about gas ever is a game changer. I also never really enjoyed going to greasy gas stations.

If you're filling up once every 1 or 2 weeks, that's not much thinking at all, so it doesn't seem like a game changer to me. Not all gas stations are greasy either--many are clean and shiny. Sure, you'd have to pay 20-40 cents more per gallon, but it's still a better deal than Yoshi.

Not having to think about gas ever is a game changer.

Then maybe the solution is not yet-another-subscription, but an electric car. I mean if it's that big a deal to you, such that you would describe it as "a game changer".

Personally, meh, it's an additional five minutes every couple of weeks. Since the only gas vehicle I regularly drive is a motorcycle, I don't even have to "exit" my vehicle, just zip the card through the reader, shove nozzle in tank.

Additionally, what about liability? Even though the chances of a static electricity induced explosion from metal to metal contact during refueling is infinitesimal, it exposes all the other cars in the area to that risk unwittingly.

Is that any different (legally) than if you refill your own car with a gas can?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com