Ford Says Its AVs Wil Last Just Four Years | Hacker News Reader

Ford Says Its AVs Wil Last Just Four Years

techcrunch.com

16 pointsWMCRUN23 comments

If you assume a ridesharing model for AVs, this makes a fair bit of sense. Your typical family car gets maybe 2-3 hours of driving a day, if you live in a long-commute area. An autonomous vehicle will probably get 12-14 hours of driving each day. If you assume it's traveling at an average of 20 mph for 12.5 hours/day, that's 250 miles/day, or 90,000 miles/year, about 5-9x the mileage a typical family car gets. A 4-year lifespan is fairly generous under those conditions.

One thing I was surprised out with robot lawn mowers vs normal lawn mowers and robot vacuums vs normal vacuums is how many hours they are used for. I am sure cars are the same way.

My non-autonomous is 10 years old and has 140,000 miles, so 4,000 hours (at average 35 MPH) or 400 hours per year (about 5% of a year). An autonomous car could be driving for much longer, even bumping up to a 15% utilization would now mean my 140,000 miles/4,000 hours would be hit at 3 years!

Using years as a comparison point between the lifespan of autonomous vehicles and manually driven vehicles doesn't make sense. Autonomous vehicles will be on the road most of the day while manually driven vehicles generally sit parked most of the day. We should be talking about miles driven as a point of comparison since use is the primary factor that wears out a vehicle rather than simply the passage of time. Whatever that number is for autonomous cars, it will certainly be more in line with what we expect from manual cars than the 4 year comparison.

That's certainly true.

There are other factors as well that no one really knows the answer to as well. How quickly will the autonomous systems get outdated and be considered out of compliance? Will fully autonomous systems even be sold as opposed to leased with mandatory maintenance schedule? Etc.

Right but they compared that to taxicabs which take a beating and those on ave are 3.8 years old. (Some are rather old some just off the dealer lot). So if the ave is going to be roughly 2years (recycled at 4years of service) that seems comparatively low.

> It’s more surprising compared with the nearly 12 years that the average U.S. car owner hangs on to a vehicle. In fact, Americans are maintaining their cars longer in part because the technology used to make and operate them has advanced meaningfully

Was this a mistype? Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest people hang on to their cars for longer, because cars have -not- made meaningful advancements?

Unless they mean that the cars are lasting longer because of technological advancements in manufacturing making them more durable? They're definitely not easier to maintain for the layperson, so I'm certain it's not the Automotive industry choosing to empower consumers into keeping their cars longer...

> Today’s vehicles spend most of the day parked. To develop a profitable, viable business model for [autonomous vehicles], they need to be running almost the entire day.

This is making sense. If you're running the vehicles like they're commercial vehicles, you're going to induce wear that a consumer would never come close to. Four years lines up pretty well with other commercial vehicle turnover, like delivery vans, utility company vehicles and so on. The article mentions the median lifecycle for taxis is pretty similar, at 3.8 years.

I took it to mean they can last longer without running into significant repair costs, because the technology used to manufacture them has gotten better.

But your interpretation seems valid as well.

No, it means that cars just break down far less than they used to and thus their useful life is longer.

I find this to be certainly true. Modern cars are less repairable, but there's less need for repairs.

Cars used to last only 6 or so years. Recently (in the 2ks) they have now stretched in average to 12 years or more. One of these is the new computers which I think we're mandated around 2002 which have the computer alter and optimize how the car behaves over time. But also other things. All of this adds up to the car lasting longer on average by basically double what they did in the 90s and before.

No the wording isn't wrong.

12 years didn’t seem right to me for the amount of time people keep cars.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/content.autotrader.com/content/...

The average age of a car people drive is close to 12 years but people keep cars for a little over 6.

No they are talking about reliability and longevity. I’d say most cars in this century are generally very reliable. Toyota started it in the 80s with their superior manufacturing techniques and defect controls.

You’re talking about features like Bluetooth, hands free, and driving assistance.

I was thinking of core vehicle usefulness, as in cars haven't made any great leaps in usefulness outside of safety improvements, so perhaps people were holding onto them for longer. People were very excited for power steering, air conditioning, all wheel drive and safety features. Most cars are really great at being cars now, any from the last 12 years would do the trick so long as it's still running.

Cash for clunkers took a large number of used cars off the road. Also post 2000 (even mid 90s), quality went up for a lot of models also a lot of cars basically don't need much repair and easily last 150k miles which if you have a 12.5k year mileage puts replacement at 12 years on average. If the engine, transmission and cooling system haven't exploded you may be in good shape. A large SUV like a Suburban, Tahoe, Explorer, F150, Excursion, Expedition also can easily go 200k miles with maintenance. These vehicles are quite expensive new but in high demand (even used). Also the average new car price of $35k doesn't help things.

There are so many questionable statements in this article. First is the 4-year scrap cycle, which seems to be based on nothing. Then there's the claim that running on-board tech and climate control will cut battery life in half, which might make sense if your battery is ridiculously small (Nvidia's full Drive system fits in a 500 watt TDP). And the cherry on top is the claim of no charging infrastructure (dubious, but even if true, why not build some for a few million of investment?) combined with the claim that fast charging degrades battery life (better not tell Tesla).

I had to look up John Rich on LinkedIn. He's a Ford lifer with no actual electric or software experience as far as I can tell. I'm disappointed.

50 % of range used up by on board tech!?

does that mean that if I switch off the radio in my Model S I'll get ~600 km instead of ~300 km range?

Well there's some tradeoff there but no, not that ratio. In general, yes, all of those features that are not the drivetrain still impact your range.

Probably something like (mostly wild guesses here):

Heater > AC > resistive-heat rear defrost > LCD/LED display(s) > bluetooth/LTE features > FM radio > headlights > wipers

And the air conditioner and the computer.

Elon Musk in the last investor call mentioned that they watch the power consumption of their "neural engine" very carefully, because it is not an insignificant part (don't remember whether he mentioned actual numbers).

Presumably this relates to everything from air-con to fancy maps displays using the GPS as well as the entertainment systems.

It’s the AC that eats up power.

I think the maximum is about 6 kW in my Model S so if it were running flat out I think I would use about 25% more than if the climate control were switched off. My care typically uses between 180 and 220 Wh per kilometer, say 18 to 22 kW at 100 km/h.

For autonomous, you're maybe running 2-4 kilowatts continuous load for the computing? At least no more than that?

Then you have 2 kW for the air conditioning, probably 2 kW for cooling of the battery pack when running hard? Depends on whether you include those in onboard tech.

Seems like the Model S does around 35 kWh/100 miles, at 50 mph that's 17 kW average power draw at highway speeds. If you're stuck in traffic, however, it's far less.

The linked article says that the "average age" of a car is 11.6 years. This implies to me that the typical lifespan of a car is almost double that. The average will be skewed by people who have plates on 100 year old cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com