Hacker News Reader

Comment by laidoffamazon | Hacker News Reader

The RoboTaxi looks neat, but I don't get why it only seats 2 rather than just updating the Model 3? What's the utility of an entirely new production line for a car that is less flexible than the existing model that's built at scale?

View on HN

It's much easier to explain to shareholders why these things have endless delays even though "the tech is already there!" if they are a new chassis rather than an existing one. That way, when they haven't released anything in the next 5-10 years, they can still keep the music going.

The entire plan hinges on low cost high volume. That means reducing parts and complexity. Stainless steel body so no paint shop or variations to worry about, or paint maintenance, etc. removing steering wheel, removing glass roof, removing doors, and more.

For high density you have the robovan.

Vehicles are dominated by the production costs of producing anything. You save surprisingly little producing smaller vehicles because the expensive bits are all the things you don't majorly save on like the production lines, the battery, the mechanicals, the wiring, the electronics, etc. Nicer interiors, paint options, and other consumer upgrades have extremely low marginal costs. They're pure profit for the manufacturer.

It's strictly more expensive if you're limited to say, the typical NHTSA autonomous vehicle production limit of 2,500 vehicles per year.

Just look at traditional USA automakers and why they are scaling up their vehicles. Bigger vehicles can justify bigger prices thus bigger margins. Even if the manufacturing price is not that much different.

If you go down to basic physical material costs, Surface area of car, Metal cost, Glass cost etc, are the things which will determine car price in long run, So car which is weighting let's say 25% percent less can be be built cheaper compared to car weighting more. Less doors, less glass use, less paint, less material, less battery needed for same amount of distance, which brings down to cost.

I can assure you that you don't save 25%. Yes, there are small savings, but they're dominated by the fixed costs of producing a vehicle at all.

Ok, lets think of it other way, all things equal, if you are tasked with cutting costs of vehicle without cutting back things which makes your brand unique, and without reducing margin or running on loss how will you do it? You make vehicle simpler, with less expensive parts. That's how hardware design works. Cutting back on quality or software expense is not a option for Tesla as that will make Tesla equal to any other Chinese EV brand.

Look upthread. I would reuse an existing vehicle platform because it's cheaper at any realistic volume.

yeah, share as much as possible. anything new comes with an extra cost which needs to justify itself woth returns.

Also using old and already amortized tech is another option. Dacia mastered this art in the recent past.

Raw material is less than half of the price of a vehicle, right? Assuming it’s 50%, a 25% smaller car would save 12.5%. I would be surprised if raw material is even 50% of the cost.

Paint shop is the most expensive line by far. Maybe 20% higher than stamping capex.

Why wasn’t the Model X not just a Model S chassis with higher ground clearance and an SUV body?

Because it was a halo vehicle, and it worked out very well. The Model Y is literally a lifted and heightened model 3 because it's not a halo vehicle.

They are doing both; one doesn't exclude the other. Unsupervised FSD is also coming to the model y and model 3. They actually had a few model y's cruising around unsupervised at the event even. And they also have the 20 people robovan thing.

If you look at regular taxis, the only part that is used by passengers is typically the back seat. Which fits two, maybe three people at best. So, it's not such a crazy form factor for a taxi because most taxis are also two passenger vehicles right now.

The point of this car is that it's smaller and cheaper (less parts, battery, etc.) and optimized for being an autonomous taxi. And the reason for that is productizing unsupervised FSD. The car is just a means to that end. If you are going to build a self driving taxi, a two seater is the logical choice. IMHO it's actually too big. They could make it a lot shorter.

Don't worry. This thing will never come out.

Graphic on Twitter says that ~90% of car trips consist of 1-2 people.

That's a huge amount of capex to spend for a low marginal cost though.

One could make the point this is better for the environment that hauling a multi-ton SUV around. /European perspective

Reply on news.ycombinator.com