Smart phones when launched cost less than $1200 which a majority of people could afford. Cars that have this technology onboard would cost upwards of $65000 which almost no one can afford comparatively.
This is not going to be a fast rollout.
This is not going to be a fast rollout.
In addition, each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars, if it is sufficiently cheap and convenient.
Electric cars are heavy, so expect more suspension failures. Running gear doesn't really change. AC is identical but with electric motors (prone to failure). Electrics will be worse if anything.
Tire wear may increase, but a robotaxi can also optimize driving style to reduce it.
None of those costs matter, compared to ICE. EVs just have less things that can break, and even less things that result in EOL or catastrophic failure. The more miles a taxi runs for, the more money it makes. Even if costs increased, the profit would easily make up for it.
Only because we regularly service them by replacing bushings, CV joints and ball joints regularly. And shock absorber failures are still commonplace.
> EVs aren't that much heavier
They're much heavier. It's obviously hard to make a direct comparison because there's no such thing as "equivalent but with an ICE engine" but a Golf E weighs about 250kg more than a Golf GTI.
> there are plenty of crazy heavy ICE vehicles that work without issue
And they have heavier duty components which require more servicing and are more expensive to replace.
> None of those costs matter, compared to ICE.
Can you show me some evidence for this? I am not making the claim that EVs are more expensive to maintain than ICE cars, but you made the claim that wear and tear costs (aka maintenance costs) on EVs are "negligible". You will need to show some receipts for a claim like that.
For an apples to oranges comparison, a Tesla Model 3 is 3,648 to 4,250 lbs; a Honda Accord is 3,150 to 3,430 lbs. Totally difference cars, but same-ish external size class. Those battery packs are heavy!
Personally I'd call 10% tiny.
Also you save a third of that when you remove the driver.
According to RepairPal, the average Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That compares to an average of $652 per year for all car models sold in the United States. Depending on which services your Tesla needs, you may end up spending much more than the average car owner on yearly maintenance needs.
Also, Tesla's aren't known for their reliability:
Though not much information exists yet about the overall reliability of Tesla models, early results aren’t encouraging. In the J.D. Power 2021 U.S. Vehicle Dependability StudySM, Tesla ranked 30th of 33 car brands for overall reliability. That’s better than only Jaguar, Alfa Romeo, and Land Rover among all automakers across the country.
J.D. Power reported an average of 176 mechanical issues per 100 Tesla vehicles, compared to an industry average of 121 issues. The organization notes, though, that it doesn’t rank the electric car brand with other major automakers because it doesn’t meet the study’s criteria.
What can be known is that Tesla models break down relatively regularly and that Tesla maintenance costs are pretty steep.
https://jalopnik.com/advisor/tesla-maintenance-cost/
Unreliable cars and a pretty steep per year cost to maintain them, along with steep repair costs (a broken door handle will run you about 1K plus labor)? This doesn't sound like the pipedream you're selling me here.
I would be very careful before relying on those maintenance cost figures - they are very dependant upon the age of the vehicles and neither figure sounds realistic, if you look at the following information.
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-most-and-least-expe...
The link shows the cheapest average cost to maintain a vehicle over 10 years was $550/annum for a Toyota in 2016, and the most expensive was $1780/annum for BMW.
More importantly, further down, the article shows the cost increase over time for maintenance is about +$150/annum. At age 10 years the average maintenance is $1500, and it plateaus at about $2000/annum (because people retire vehicles when they get too expensive to maintain).
A Tesla doesn’t have oil changes or combustion engine problems, so some maintenance costs are reduced. However the battery eventually needs replacing, which is a large expense, so you must know whether the battery replacement is included in average yearly maintenance costs or not, before the figure is useable over the long term.
Your source seems to argue in favor of the numbers as well. If we just look at your Toyota and BMW numbers, the average holds true if there are 11 Toyotas to every BWM. That sounds plausible.
Gotta love how these numbers are both a decent sized integer multiple away from what you would think they are if you got your advice from the internet.
True reliability metrics are average years on the road and miles driven.
I wonder whether the average amount spent on non-warranty repairs would be a good metric to add to "average years on the road and miles driven". That would hopefully remove initial defects from the first few years and also remove defects that are so minor that most people won't pay to have them fixed.
Therefore Tesla's reliability might be even worse.
Also, if there is an unused resource for most of the day, capitalism will find a use for it!
Maybe the demand would be even higher than that - I'm thinking of all people that cannot drive (e.g. because of age in a few years for my parents & other relatives), the ones that don't own a car (too costly, don't want it, whatever), introverted people that don't like driving in a taxi/uber (that's me! hehe), etc... .
Of course alternatives exist already now but often they lack something (e.g. bus to remote location X drives only once every few hours and/or only up to a certain time, taxi is very expensive and/or availability is unreliable) => a cheap robotaxi would be a game changer, there would be many indirect consequences (and in my opinion many would be positive, like less parking spaces needed, more mobility for old people, more flexibility about where-to-go-for-what, room in the trunk, etc...).
> Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation
Especially thinking about an idle taxi vs. robotaxi (waiting for somebody wanting a ride): unbeatable, as the driver's cost not generating any revernue would not exist anymore (only vehicle deprecation based on time and cost of capital used to buy the vehicle, which are both very low) => the difference related to fixed costs would be incredible (but I assume that some additional/new cost will show up, e.g. some data-exchange-service to keep maps/routes extremely up-to-date, coverage for remote-assisted driver in the case that the car would get stuck, etc..., but that would probably still not increase costs a lot).
Another thing that would increase demand would be the cheaper cost of AI driven miles compared to human driven ones. Today, it's somewhat expensive to get anything delivered from local shops, due to how expensive it is to do local point to point delivery. But if the local bakery or restaurant could deliver for a dollar or two, that would change a lot of behaviors.
How does autonomy reduce fuel consumption and wear?
I don't understand this line of thought. Ownership will be relegated to ultra-luxury status if cars can drive themselves.
"FSD" is another 12k IIRC
Total 59k