Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Robotaxis Might Mitigate Electric Car Depreciation (robohub.org)

Posted by timothy on from the chasing-bottlenecks dept.

Hallie Siegel writes: Autonomous car expert Brad Templeton argues that we're in for a period of about 5 years in electric cars where each year's new model is a lot better, and that could be a problem for people trying to sell them. Further exacerbating Moore's Law for cars is that autonomous features (like traffic jam assist) rely heavily on computers. Unfortunately cars cost a lot more than computers or cell phones, so throwing them away before the end of their lifespan is a bit of a problem. How do get over the depreciation problem while autonomous cars and electric cars are going through this period of rapid development? Templeton suggests that a taxi model could be the answer, since use is so much more intense that with a private ownership model, that the cars are likely to wear out before they become worthless from a resale perspective.

111 comments

  1. Good idea but by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Good idea but autonomous cars is about 40 years away from being realistic. I am sure people will protest "but Google has a car that works now!". No. They really don't. They have a car that can navigate through heavily pre-mapped city streets. If they turn that car loose in the middle of Chicago it won't work. But the idea of using electric cars for human-driven taxis is a good one. In fact that is one of the reasons why so many taxis are hybrids already. Another reason is that hybrids can use the HOV in some areas.

    1. Re:Good idea but by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      How is the middle of Chicago not composed of heavily-mapped city streets?

      Disclaimer: As a pedestrian I've interacted with Google's self-driving car as it tools around in Austin. It managed not to murder me.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Good idea but by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      The Google car requires pre-mapping beyond the basic Google maps style mapping. That is the dirty secret they don't mention.

    3. Re:Good idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. Said car actually behaved better than almost any Austin driver on the roads. Is it 100% safe? Nope. However, as a ped or cyclist, I'd trust my life any day to one of those than a normal Austin driver who is likely drunk, stoned, road raging, coked up, looking at a cellphone, watching a movie, asleep, putting on makeup, shaving, or all the above.

    4. Re:Good idea but by TheSkepticCanuck · · Score: 0

      Worse still, the middle of Chicago in the middle of a snow storm, when the road is covered in slippery snow, and the road markings are not visible. A human can guess where the road lanes are, or simply follow the tire ruts from the cars ahead of them, but robo-cars are not quite ready for bad weather yet.

    5. Re: Good idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way more, like centimeters instead of meters, and with live updates.

    6. Re:Good idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen in Minneapolis, humans can't even tell where the driving lanes are.

    7. Re:Good idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and that's exactly what makes dense cities like "middle of Chicago" the best case scenario for them. Mapping millions of square miles of countryside at the data density needed for self-driving cars is what's going to keep them away from rural areas for some time, but a city is doable. Also, cities have a lot of cab traffic so there's a market there.

    8. Re:Good idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lying about what the GP said shows that you have no confidence in your own position.

    9. Re:Good idea but by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Chicago? Come on now. That thing will get car-jacked in 10 minutes. They'll find the frame up on blocks with the tires, battery pack, and electronics all gone.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Good idea but by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If it's heavily-mapped, the car will know where the line markings are a lot better than a human, even if they are invisible under the snow. You can't have this argument both ways...

  2. Don't buy new. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I buy a car from the dealership for $50,000 and then try to sell it 10 minutes later it's now worth $25,000 at most.

    If I buy a used vehicle from someone for $15,000 and try to sell it 10 minutes later it's still worth about $15,000.

    Why take the hit?

    Also a car that is worn out still has a pretty poor resale value even if it is just a year old.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Don't buy new. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      That is because of dealer markup. Taxi companies don't pay that markup when they refresh their fleets.

    2. Re:Don't buy new. by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Also a car that is worn out still has a pretty poor resale value even if it is just a year old.

      The point is that you've already used up it's value so resale value is not important. If a car is good for 200k miles and you drive 20k miles per year but the car is obsolete in 3 years then you're throwing away a perfectly good car which can still be driven 160k miles. On the other hand, if you drive 100k miles per year then the car is used up before it has a chance to become obsolete.

      As far as your other point, new cars are not as bad of a deal as alot of people seem to think. There is a small hit for "new vs used" but there are many people that are just fine buying a car with only 5k miles on it and even a "new" car usually has a few hundred miles on it. As a total dollar amount, a new car might depreciates faster than a used car but as far as percentage of car price it's about the same. I believe it's about 20% a year (assuming the normal 1k miles/month) so whether you buy a new car or a used car for $50k, after 1 year it's worth about $40k. Likewise, a $5k car is worth about $4k after 1 year.

    3. Re:Don't buy new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question of 'why buy new?' is always a great question due to immediate depreciation...but for those of us that don't want or need the 'newest' its really nice that there are a lot of people that don't understand the true value of that vehicle otherwise there wouldn't be such a great resale/used car market where we can get a really nice vehicle that's maybe a few years old at 1/2 the original price or less!

    4. Re:Don't buy new. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

      If I buy a car from the dealership for $50,000 and then try to sell it 10 minutes later it's now worth $25,000 at most.

      If I buy a used vehicle from someone for $15,000 and try to sell it 10 minutes later it's still worth about $15,000.

      Why take the hit?

      Also a car that is worn out still has a pretty poor resale value even if it is just a year old.

      Maybe it's that I'm coming at this from a different usage pattern than yours, but new cars make a lot of sense to me. I bought a new Subaru in 2001. I put 230,000 miles on it, and when I got rid of it, the head gaskets were leaking, two CV joints were failing, the center differential limited slip clutch pack was no longer working, the shocks were shot, and it was way overdue for new timing belts, the cumulative cost of which far exceeded the car's value, so it went off to a junkyard. The previous Subaru I had was totaled. Before that I had a Nissan, that was totaled. I've never sold a car to anything but a junkyard for scrap value, so while the depreciation on a new car is high, it's also meaningless to me.
      In contrast, when the last Soob went off to the junkyard, I bought a used Subaru, and over the last three years I've had to replace the transmission, two CV joints, the shocks, and am about to have to replace the u-joint/cv joint (I haven't taken it out yet so I don't know which) that goes to the rear wheels, none of which I had to do on the new car, because it was new. While it was busy depreciating, I was busy driving it rather than fixing it.
      For my use case, new cars are significantly cheaper, have higher availability, and I don't end up spending weekends in the snow replacing CV joints.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Don't buy new. by njnnja · · Score: 1

      In general, cars are not sold 10 minutes after being bought from a dealership. So when one is, it is reasonable to think that there is something very wrong with the car, or else why would somebody get rid of it so quickly? Therefore the potential buyer demands a huge discount from getting a perfectly new and clean one from the dealership.

      This is why "certified pre-owned" cars are more expensive than used cars that aren't. In theory, there is much less of a chance of something wrong with the car, so the discount is "only" the actual depreciation that the first owner used up.

    6. Re:Don't buy new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's different degrees of used though. I bought a 2012 model year car, with 49k kilometers on it, for half the price it was new. It's still under warranty, and nothing's gone wrong in the first 20k kilometers I've driven. I see no advantage had I purchased a new car, it would wear out at the same time.

    7. Re:Don't buy new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      In contrast, when the last Soob went off to the junkyard, I bought a used Subaru, and over the last three years I've had to replace the transmission, two CV joints, the shocks, and am about to have to replace the u-joint/cv joint...

      An important distinction between buying used vs new is risk. Those that are good at minimizing the risk can come out way ahead buying used vs. new over a series of purchases. The key with used is to get a good deal to start with (which means patience and saying no), so that even if you have a large repair expense you still come out ahead, and make sure the car is a reliable model and in great shape.

      I have a Camry I bought almost 4 years ago, have put 50,000 miles on it, have had no costly repairs, and could sell it for about $2,000 less than I paid very easily.

    8. Re:Don't buy new. by DesertNomad · · Score: 1

      Source please for your claim?

      See Edmunds here.

      http://www.edmunds.com/car-buy...

      Maybe you're overpaying...

    9. Re:Don't buy new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this is true to a certain extent, your example is a complete exaggeration. Most cars, properly taken care of and driven average miles, lose around 50% of their value in the first three years of ownership in the US. Some cars do better, others considerably worse. That's why it is always wise to look at the complete cost of a car over the course of time that you plan to keep it, which includes resale value.

      As an example, a few years ago my grandfather bought a new Buick and sold it after three years. He bought it for ~$42,000, and sold it private party three years later for $16,000. He only drove it ~11,000 miles. During that time he paid for oil changes and other maintenance, but not tires.

      At the same time, I bought a BMW M3 for ~$72,000. Three years later, I sold it to a private party with ~26,000 miles for $55,000. During that time I did not pay for any maintenance, but I did replace the rear tires.

      My cost for three years of use, including tires, was under $18,000 for a BMW M3. His cost for a shitty Buick that he drove less than half as much was over $27,000. So his cost per mile ($2.46) was almost four times more than mine ($0.69), despite the fact his car was nearly half the price new. So many people are deceived by the purchase price of a vehicle, when they should be considering the overall cost. It can be cheaper to drive a more expensive car. The same isn't true of every model. For example, I would never buy a BMW 7 series because the resale is always terrible. If I were in that market, I would probably get an S-Class, which holds its value better (still not great though). I would never buy a Jaguar (which is now a very reliable car), because the resale value is horrid.

      There's no argument that a vehicle's greatest depreciation is in its first year, so it is much more prudent to buy a used car when you consider the overall cost of ownership. But even then it can vary considerably depending on which make and model you choose and the market you are in.

    10. Re:Don't buy new. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, dealers don't really rake in that much off of their new stock... it's the used cars (along with their Parts&Service and F&I departments) that really rake in the bucks.

      F&I gives them big margins because there is a bumper crop of people who don't pre-qualify at their bank/credit-union, instead financing at the dealership. F&I is also the place where additional warranties, undercoating, etc can get tacked-on.

      Parts&Service get an average 50% margin on selling genuine brand parts to body shops, auto repair joints, etc. Oh, and there's a tidy income from folks who take their car to the dealership for service and non-covered repairs out of fear of voiding their mfr. warranty.

      Used Cars is where the big margins come in. Trade-ins on-site are lowballed as hard as possible, and auctions abound at way-below-bluebook pricing (bank repos, rental fleet refreshes, sell-off of vehicles confiscated by the local constabularies, etc)... you can easily buy a decent vehicle at auction for, say, $5k, then mark it up to $9-12k very easily with a quart of Motor Honey, a stray ancillary part or two, and a bit of detailing.

      New cars on the other hand? Yeah - they get a markup, but those are also the big-ticket items, usually bought by people who know how to talk a price down... and unless it's a specialty dealership (Benz, Ferrari, Porsche, etc), there's always competition to keep you honest.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Don't buy new. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      The key with used is to get a good deal to start with (which means patience and saying no)...

      ...and having enough mechanical/electrical ability to know when you're purchasing something that will hold up, or if you're about to buy a rolling money pit.

      If you know what to look for, you can avoid the latter most of the time.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:Don't buy new. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Marketing is part of the "certified pre-owned" markup, but there is the (promised) pre-replacement of parts that are near the end of their useful lifespan, and a limited warranty to back that up (which you are also paying for in the markup).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    13. Re:Don't buy new. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If I buy a car from the dealership for $50,000 and then try to sell it 10 minutes later it's now worth $25,000 at most.

      Let me guess, trying to sell it back to the dealer that just sold it to you? Odds are if you're trying to sell it back 10 minutes later you wrecked it or something, discovered it's a lemon/shitty car, and the dealer needs markup.

      Meanwhile, last time I went car shopping I discovered that used cars 1-2 years old were 80-90% of the price of a brand spanking new car, and because the interest rates are a couple points higher on loans, the new car was cheaper, at least for me. Maintenance was also iffy. Was the car in an accident? Smoked in? Etc...

      Now, if you have bad credit, the situation might be flipped.

      Mind you, I still own my truck 8 years later, so the 'hit' has depreciated out. Two more years and I might consider selling it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Don't buy new. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Those that are good at minimizing the risk can come out way ahead buying used vs. new over a series of purchases

      The same can be said for buying new. Wait for a good deal to come up, don't pay sticker, and if you're a driver that actually takes care of your vehicle as opposed to deciding you're going to sell it in 2 years and thus skip things like oil changes, you can get a vehicle that lasts substantially longer.

      My truck is now 8 years old and still hasn't needed major maintenance.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  3. No just have open source cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really just make it so components can be swapped out for new ones, even new technology ones. Problem solved. Really how hard can this be?

    1. Re:No just have open source cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I just swapped out OpenRC for Systemd. Easy, seamless, everything just worked! Open Source fixes everything.

    2. Re:No just have open source cars by castionsosa · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Something as common as a water pump or an air filter can have thousands of different styles for all the makes/models out there. It would be nice to have some standards, even if it just one model of car. The closest to this is probably a Jeep, here in the US.

      It would be interesting to have one standards-compliant model. It may not look as good as the others or have the latest bells/whistles... but like a LTS release of software, it will still be kicking 10-20 years from now.

    3. Re:No just have open source cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know much about cars, do you?

    4. Re:No just have open source cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any swap will most likely include the computational hardware as well as the software. A better analogy is would be swapping out your tower but keeping your monitor, keyboard, speakers, etc. Simply standardizing the inputs/outputs would allow easy upgrades, kind of like swapping the Ignition control modules on some cars, its just a cable or two and a couple screws.

    5. Re:No just have open source cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still right. I just replaced my closed source iPad with iOS for an open source Andriod tablet. Easy, seamless, and all my game software just worked! Once again, Open Source fixes everything!

    6. Re:No just have open source cars by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, "open source Andriod tablet"? Perhaps you need to check the definition of "open source". And in any case, the comparison we're looking for is jelly bean vs. honeycomb (or whatever the versions were being named), If you buy something that works on one version of an iPad or Android, it's quite likely to work on another. This despite the fact that neither of them are open source.

      OTOH, where open source would actually come in was if you wanted to port an application from an iPod to an Android. If it were open source, it's quite plausible that someone would have already done it, so you wouldn't need to, but you could (in principle) do it yourself. In fact you could port it to run on MSWind or BSD or Linux. Some of them would require a lot more effort, however, and often a phone app had no value on a desktop, so it's quite likely that nobody else would have bothered to do so.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:No just have open source cars by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I just noticed a point of possible confusion (as it was confused in the post to which I am replying, so let me rephrase:

      If you buy something that works on one version of an iPad or Android, it's quite likely to work on another.

      to

      If you buy something that works on one version of an iPad it's quite likely to work on another version of an iPad, and if you buy something that works on one version of an Android it's quite likely to work on another version of an Android.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. Component Upgrades by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a computer were too expensive, I would replace components until it made financial sense to purchase a full system.

    Something similar could happen with automobiles. The manufacturer could provide a refit program at least once during the typical life of the vehicle (perhaps 3 or 4 years in). It would bring in much of the latest technology for a much lower cost than purchasing a new vehicle, keeping customers happy and less likely to look at a competitor's latest model.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    1. Re:Component Upgrades by buals3 · · Score: 1

      Also less likely to buy the manufacturer's latest model. I think the auto manufacturers rely very heavily on people purchasing their new models and anything that cuts into that would be avoided like the plague.

    2. Re:Component Upgrades by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Just because they haven't worked out the business model (ie how much people are ready to pay for it:

      1. Sell new car
      2. Profit
      3. Sell technology parts upgrade
      4. Profit again

      Sounds like a wonderful idea.

    3. Re:Component Upgrades by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If a computer were too expensive, I would replace components until it made financial sense to purchase a full system.

      Something similar could happen with automobiles. The manufacturer could provide a refit program at least once during the typical life of the vehicle (perhaps 3 or 4 years in). It would bring in much of the latest technology for a much lower cost than purchasing a new vehicle, keeping customers happy and less likely to look at a competitor's latest model.

      The manufacturer doesn't want you to do that, they want you to get a lopsided finance agreement to get a new car rather than fixing your old car.

      However the process of refitting cars has been going on for ages without the manufacturers. Many cars get refitted with more modern equipment from infotainment systems to entire engines. There are a lot of popular swaps such as 2JZ and LS1 swaps into older cars. I've seen 2JZ's swapped into newer cars.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Component Upgrades by toddestan · · Score: 1

      1. Sell new car.
      2. Profit.
      3. Sell another new car.
      4. Profit again.
      5. Sell trade-in as certified pre-owned.
      6. More profit!

  5. Lease, Don't Buy by captjc · · Score: 2

    OK, so lease an electric car. Do not buy an electric car. Gotcha.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    1. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by metageek · · Score: 1

      that's what I did, 2 year lease and 7500miles/year. Really cheap and in 2 years I'll lease a much better model

      --
      metageek
    2. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Leasing doesn't magically make depreciation disappear. It just hides it and/or rearranges it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if there is a wild miscalculation in terms of the residual value, it's the leasing company that loses. Of course they charge a fee for taking that risk, but it's a form of insurance that makes sense for many people.

    4. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      I'm leasing, and even though I think leasing is generally a scam, the deal was impossible to beat. Thing is, the article is wrong. Really. I leased a 2015 Volkswagen eGolf. I love it, although there's obvious room for improvement. But the 2016 model is almost the exact same thing as the 2015, except with an improved entertainment system. Same range, same basic engine, etc. Nissan Leaf is basically the same car for the past 3 years as well.

      Given the rate of technological advance, I don't think there's really room for major yearly improvements. Just as with gas engines, it'll incrementally improve, and maybe they'll come up with cool new design decisions during a model re-design. There is certainly no comparison to Moore's Law.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    5. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by shilly · · Score: 2

      In the UK, there's an arrangement called PCP (personal car purchase). It's perfect: you pay a deposit and small monthly charges, and you hand the keys back after two or three years. (If you wanted to keep the car, you'd have to pay a large balloon payment, but why would you do that when you can get a new model that will be much better?)

      The monthly costs can be really low. For our shiny new Renault Zoe, we're paying £180 (~$250) per month. Upfront payment was about £2k (~$3k). It's a small car, and the range is only ~80miles, but we don't commute by car nor do many long journeys, so this is very rarely going to be an issue for us.

    6. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by khallow · · Score: 1

      Leasing doesn't magically make depreciation disappear. It just hides it and/or rearranges it.

      Well, that is the point. Leasing rearranges depreciation so that it becomes not your problem, unless you were dumb enough to sign a bad contract.

    7. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's nothing to do with whose problem it is. If something is 40k new and worth 22k after three years, what's the absolute minimum the monthly charge can be? Assume the lessor intends staying in business.

      You shouldn't need a calculator.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by khallow · · Score: 1

      what's the absolute minimum the monthly charge can be?

      And there you go. It's not my problem anymore. I just decide whether or not I will pay the monthly charge.

    9. Re:Lease, Don't Buy by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      For chassis, motor, batteries, etc. I agree with you. For the autonomous part, I think that is incorrect. The field is moving so fast right now, with new features being added (with their own hardware requirements), that next year's autonomous feature will not work with this year's model. Tesla's self-driving (whatever they are calling it) on the highway, self-parking, etc. are not backwards compatible. that will happen repeatedly over the next decade or so.

      I don't know why this is only relevant to electric vehicles though.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  6. Lease. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do get over the depreciation problem while autonomous cars and electric cars are going through this period of rapid development?

    Lease, don't buy.

  7. Call me a moron, but I remember the 90s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When computers were obsolete the minute you bought it, that was not bad for the people who sold them. Now that computers are "good enough" for half a decade or more, the industry seems to be in much more trouble.

    1. Re:Call me a moron, but I remember the 90s by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      That is why the industry is pushing so heavily into the cloud/SaaS/pay monthly model. It is more profitable to get everyone to pay a (many) fee(s) per month to use their computer. It really is a corporations dream.

    2. Re:Call me a moron, but I remember the 90s by TWX · · Score: 1

      When computers were obsolete the minute you bought it, that was not bad for the people who sold them. Now that computers are "good enough" for half a decade or more, the industry seems to be in much more trouble.

      In the nineties comptuers were, "good enough," too, even though marketing didn't want to say that, or could be made good-enough through well planned simple upgrades. I had a 350MHz machine (Pentium III? can't remember for certian) that kept up with my friends' machines with GHz processors because I had a 1.5GB RAM while most of them were in the 128MB-256MB range, and I had a really nice video card, for the time.

      As for cars, once electric cars have a range about the same as what a half a tank of gasoline gives a gas-powered car, which is usually around 150 miles, electric cars will be viable for a lot of the population. Sure, technology will improve and the cars may get better, but my buddy's '73 Dart with its two barrel carburetor, manual windows, fully hydraulic transmission without overdrive, and bench seat gets him around just fine.

      If anything, simpler electric cars may be better cars for people of less means. Again looking at gasoline-powered cars, simple gas-powered cars are usually easier to repair than complex luxury cars as they have less parts. They also might be less prone to breaking as there are less things that can break.

      I don't think it's nearly as dire as the summary makes it sound.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Call me a moron, but I remember the 90s by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm calling BS on your computer. Very few computers back then would accept that much memory (pretty much would have to be a high end server board), and to actually put 1.5GB of ram in it would cost a fortune. And if you used Windows, it would have been wasted anyway because Windows back then really didn't know what to do with more than about 512MB.

      Also, "good enough" would be a bit different. In the late 90's, the WWW was all the rage, but it would be painfully slow on a computer from the early 90's. Even if you upgraded it as much as you could, you'd maybe have a Pentium Overdrive and 32MB of ram. Not going to cut it.

  8. Cities by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    Fleet vehicle usage is almost always going to be higher than personally owned vehicle usage (regardless of whether the driver is a robot or a human) because in one case, the car is a return producing asset that makes no money when it's not working, and in the other case, it's more of a convenience item. That said, the taxi model works significantly better in cities (high population density) than it does in flyover country, so I fail to see how this is a "solution" to the "problem."

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    1. Re:Cities by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but 80% of the US population lives in urban areas. The other 20% will just have to choose if they want a depreciating electric car or a (possibly less quickly depreciating) normal car.

    2. Re:Cities by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Check the Census folks to see what they consider urban. 1500 people in a town is urban. 2500 if they have a residential institution like a nursing home or jail.

      I see this quite a bit. Urban is not what you think it is.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  9. what is the motive ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric cars should last 500,000 miles or more with no maintenance. Because a few things get outdated doesn't mean they're not useful and worth something. Hence, car makers should not really be interested. So what is behind it ?

    But then, inexpensive gas cars should last 300,000 miles with virtually no maintenance if added the cost of a dime for better bearings and seals, and brakes/rotors. But the car makers ( including Japanese ) won't go there yet. I don't know what the hidden motives are behind GM, but vehicles with lower maintenance is not in the cards.

    What is the business model for a vehicle that needs no maintenance for 20 years ? There isn't any, except perhaps to keep lease/capital value up the same as a house, which we've seen in recent years in the vehicle industry.

  10. Recharge? by harrkev · · Score: 2

    So, a taxi driver is supposed to drive around for about four or five hours, and then sit around for a few hours to recharge? Yeah, there goes his income. Or, we could have TWICE as many of them so that the driver can swap out cars after four hours. That is economical!

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    1. Re:Recharge? by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      The subject is robotaxis. There are no drivers. The car can drive itself around for about four or five hours, then sit around all by itself for a few hours to recharge.

      Or, more likely, they would use superchargers to recharge in 30 minutes in the mid-afternoon lull, then recharge fully overnight to be ready for the next morning.

      Other options, like swappable batteries or electric cables strung over the streets to power the motors, seem less likely.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Recharge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmm....if those are your only two options than sure...but first off it would not be hard to 'stagger fleet usage' so while a taxi company might need more vehicles it's entirely unlikely to be 'twice as many'...maybe 1/3rd more or thereabouts seems more reasonable...and how is this really any different than having a certain number of vehicles out of commission due to 'regular maintenance'.

      Furthermore the need to recharge the batteries is not based on 'time' but 'range'. So provided the taxi driver isn't driving all over the place when not carrying a passenger the length of time any given vehicle is 'actively available' could be quite variable (though presumably predictable given enough data). Since taxi drivers tend to remain in one place awaiting a call this is eminently reasonable.

      But push comes to shove the premise of the summary & the article (yes I read it) is flawed in several ways...I would NOT buy the argument that the 'computer is the most important part of the vehicle'! Perhaps if & when they do actually become 'autonomous' that may be the case but that's a long way off & even than that's not clear to me at all. Secondly if it's a valid argument than that's true with gas powered vehicles as well so it can't be an argument about depreciation of electric vehicles being 'out dated quickly'. In fact the most important part of an electric vehicle is the BATTERY or 'fuel system' (for fuel-cell technology) if you would. All the other fancy electronics to allow 'self-parking' & 'self-driving' apply to all vehicles regardless.

      In any case back on the taxi question...if taxi companies determine that electric vehicles are cost effective for them I'm sure they'll use them but until or if they are they won't.

    3. Re:Recharge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      charging stations built into places where taxis line up to pick up people at the airport or other popular locations seems reasonable though... be it a wireless using the road as a charging mat, or overhead lines/maglock drops, or a arrangement on the curb that hooks into something on the side of the car.

    4. Re:Recharge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just swap-able batteries.. its not like it isn't being done already..... please think for more than 2 seconds before posting

    5. Re:Recharge? by meza · · Score: 1

      In Stockholm there are apparently at least two Taxis running Tesla already (http://teslaclubsweden.se/taxi-stockholms-tesla-model-s/, sorry in Swedish). According to the article they expect to save about 15kUSD just in fuel every year and possibly more from reduced service. [personally I feel more statistics is needed before we know if electric cars really are cheaper to service than ICE cars]. The car can go more on one charge than the average distance a Taxi travels during one day (50km for a car used by two drivers). So, yeah...

    6. Re:Recharge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the major cities the taxi fleet design is controlled by local government the same way it dictates how city buses and trains work. It may not OWN them, but it gets to say "You can't operate in my city without obeying these rules" and so they have to. In London for example the Conditions of Fitness are obeyed by only two vehicles, the TX4 iteration of the classic "London taxi" design, and a larger Mercedes van-style taxi cab with rear-wheel counter-steer to let it approach the TX4's legendary tight turning circle.

      This means the city can dictate a specific power plant. If they don't want any more diesels, they can require an all-electric fleet. And not in 10-25 years as you might with private vehicles, they can do it as quickly as they like, opposed only by licensees not the general public.

    7. Re:Recharge? by meza · · Score: 1

      oops, correction. The average distance traveled for a Taxi in Stockholm is 500 km (50 Swedish mile).

    8. Re:Recharge? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, they would use superchargers to recharge in 30 minutes in the mid-afternoon lull,

      By midafternoon lull, I assume you mean Peak Pricing?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Recharge? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, a taxi driver is supposed to drive around for about four or five hours, and then sit around for a few hours to recharge? Yeah, there goes his income. Or, we could have TWICE as many of them so that the driver can swap out cars after four hours. That is economical!

      Yes this would never work.

      Except in the Netherlands where the last Taxi I took was a Tesla. I actually asked the Taxi driver exactly this question and the answer was quite simple, he had to eat at some point so he did so at the supercharger which his various fares would take him close to many times during the day. He's never had range anxiety and when he picked me up he had over 400km range showing on his dash.

      We talked a bit longer and found out fleet based taxi services are even better suited to this. Schiphol airport is changing their entire sedan taxi fleet to Teslas (everything expect for the minivans or people movers). They pay their taxi drivers a wage, and they mandate lunch breaks back at the airport. While on lunch the cars are on charge. No range anxiety even though there's no Supercharger at Schiphol.

      Yep this would never work for a Taxi except where it does.

    10. Re:Recharge? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      So, a taxi driver is supposed to drive around for about four or five hours, and then sit around for a few hours to recharge? Yeah, there goes his income. Or, we could have TWICE as many of them so that the driver can swap out cars after four hours. That is economical!

      Modular battery packs that could be swapped out in a charging garage?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  11. Or.... Upgrades. by adameros · · Score: 1

    Tesla, has the battery tech has improved has offered upgrades. If the cars are designed with modular electronic components there is no reason the computers, sensors, and batteries couldn't be kept current to extend the life of the vehicle and shore up the resale value.

  12. upgradeables are long overdue by swschrad · · Score: 1

    the manufacturers make running changes all the time, that's why when you go in to buy a part, and they look it up, it crosses to a new number. which may cross to another one.

    so why can't they change the labelling to, say, "mode 3 autosteer processor, required plug G-C-F-T-L depending on make." that's pretty much how the carmakers are buying the train loads of those modules from Continental or Adelphi. government testing will have to change, also, to a modular approach.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  13. But what about.... by Discgolferusa · · Score: 1

    If your electric robotaxi needs to charge while you're in it, do you get charged for the 9 hours your waiting? If it runs out of charge at your home, are you obligated to charge it? Do you get refunded for the cost of electricity if you do? I must have answers!!!

    1. Re:But what about.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate Mother Earth so much? Sure, you have to wait 9 hours to complete your ride, but in exchange you get a clean environment. Don't be so selfish!

    2. Re:But what about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My town generates electricity by burning coal and waste (which former Governor O'Malley calls "renewable").

      Walking and biking are my only clean alternatives.

    3. Re:But what about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your taxi runs out of gas while it's driving you somewhere, what happens?

    4. Re:But what about.... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      1. If it's that low on charge, it doesn't pick you up.
      2. Battery swap, takes ~90 seconds.
      3. You get another taxi
      4. Supercharger station for 'just long enough'
      etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:But what about.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It takes all of 3 minutes for the driver to put gas in the tank between runs. Not nearly that with electric cars.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:But what about.... by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Another fully charged robotaxi meets you and you swap vehicles, with your fare carrying forward into the new vehicle.

    7. Re:But what about.... by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Since there is no driver in a robotaxi the time to charge the driver per driver is infinitely small.

    8. Re:But what about.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The driver is the computer controlling the robotaxi. The time to charge is not infinitely small even for our CPU overlords.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  14. Nathan the spamming blue twat has a sister? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    the cars are likely to wear out before they become worthless from a resale perspective.

    Nope. They'll become worthless before they wear out.

    Who writes this drivel? His name is suspiciously like Bennet Haselton.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Well by DrYak · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am sure people will protest "but Google has a car that works now!". No. They really don't. They have a car that can navigate through heavily pre-mapped city streets.

    Well, not exactly. If you pay attention to Google latest TED talks:
    - that used to be the case at beginning.
    - but even heavily pre-maped city streets aren't perfect: new construction works that haven't been mapped, new pot hole, etc.
    - thus this ultra-high detail maps would need to be constantly update with very tiny details (which would have been a very fastidious and expensive work if actually done).
    - one could better automatically crowd-source the updates: cars automatically submits them as they encounter them.
    - this requires automatic interpretation of the data (to avoid overloading the human curator with constant influx of data) and also requires a bunch of very high detail sensors on each car.
    - if you have the sensors and the automatic processing power, you might as well decide to directly feed the gathered data to car's autonomous driving system, instead of having to wait for a whole rountrip to the mother ship and the data coming back a map update.

    In other ways:
    - efforts and technological challenge to keep ultra the insane-level-of-detail maps as up-to-date as possible ~= efforts and techonological challenge to have the car aware of its environment and properly react on changes like a new construction work.

    So in fact, this can work with high quality maps similar to high-range GPS devices (the kind that can make distinction between lanes, and knows which lanes (are supposed) to lead where), combined with a fuckton of sensors and a skynet-worth of signal processing and interpretation.

    In lay terms: you don't actually need a map of all the pot-holes, when you need a technology able to autonomously detect them to update pot-hole map and keep it as close to the reality as possible. You can as well skip the middle step and directly use your pot-hole detecting equipement to avoid the pot-holes, "map free".

    So ...

    They have a car that can navigate through heavily pre-mapped city streets.

    To be more correct: Google has car that *used to* rely on heavily pre-mapped city street maps. Google has now a car that might not get and manage to react to unexpected situation, in the small subset of all things that the cars has seen up until now and was programmed to handle.

    That means that the car already can react in some really weird and unexpected situation, some times bordering on surrealism:
    - The TED presentation showed the car correctly detecting a cyclist coming out of simingly no where and cycle completely across a road crossing, passing in front of cars, right just when the traffic lights turn green. The google car stayed and waited the cycling to pass along his erratic part. That wasn't the case of the meat-controlled cars nearby (luckily none ran over the cyclist).
    - The TED presentation showed the car correctly reacting to a lady on a motorized wheelchair, chasing a duck in circles in the middle of a street. (again both the grand ma and duck end up safe).

    That also means that the car has NOT being tested and will probably fail (not gracefully) on tons of other situations which weren't accounted for and designed-in yet.
    - snow is often given as an exemple. Google Cars are currently being tested in California, and have clocked KMs of experience in situation where the street markings are not visible (e.g.: due to weather).

    That's also the argument behind Mercedes Benz current research in autonomous cars: they are trying to test their cars in a as many different conditions as possible accross whole Europe.

    In short: Google Cars aren't ready yet. But it's not because we need more detailled map of all potholes, but because the cars are only able to see and detect the potholes by themselves, they might be completely oblivious to snowmen as far as we know, and we still need to test (and develop) to that.

    But the idea of using electric cars for human-driven taxis is a good one. In fact that is one of the reasons why so many taxis are hybrids already.

    Same here around.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, so Google's plan for electric cars depends on people being completely open with their use of the cars, where the cars are, and basically not only being fully tracked, but also tracking and recording everything in the vicinity of where the car is and has been? And, of course, the government will have full access to the data any time they feel the need.

      And this is going to actually take off?

      Wow. Google has drunk their own kool-aid for sure, this time.

    2. Re:Well by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      so the cars are in an early alpha test, to use a software analogy?

    3. Re:Well by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, so Google's plan for electric cars depends on people being completely open with their use of the cars, where the cars are, and basically not only being fully tracked, but also tracking and recording everything in the vicinity of where the car is and has been? And, of course, the government will have full access to the data any time they feel the need.

      And this is going to actually take off?

      Wow. Google has drunk their own kool-aid for sure, this time.

      No, Google has seen how well voluntary crowd sourcing like Waze has completely changed the world of driving directions.

      Now that Google owns Waze, they just wants to do the exact same thing, except this time let the computer do the driving. How is that so hard to understand?

      People who expect self-driving cars to work better than humans without communicating with each other are just foolish.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  16. Nonsense by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Demand is primarily need-driven, if you buy an electric car today because it works for your commute now it'll still work for people "like you" in five years. It's not like the car 5 years from now will drive the same commute significantly better or faster, maybe it can drive longer but that's for a different market. And the quasi-autonomous driving still requires an alert licensed driver in the seat 100% of the time, until that changes it's just bling. Oh and imagine the regulatory hurdles of getting a car model approved for autonomous driving, it'll be that specific sensor package on this particular model and the chances of anything being "backported" is slim to none.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  17. Not that much by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is because of dealer markup.

    Not quite. The dealer don't have actually that high margins on new cars.

    It's really the market price falling with the perception of the cars being in pristine conditions or not.
    (It's the same kind of consideration as that to a fan or a collector, it's REALLY important if a good was unboxed / if the packaging has already been cut open or not.)

    On the other hand: you can count the dealers to milk your wallet as much as they can get with it. Specially for periodic controls. But also at the slightest warning light going orange / the slightest warning message on the dashboard. Or even for simple firmware update. Or even if the offered services don't make any sense (e.g.: car dealer selling care packages including a few oil changes. On an electric vehicle. (which has a sealed electric motor and thus no possibility to touch the oil).
    That's why car dealers are pissed by dealership-free cars companies like Tesla Motors (With automatic OTA update that don't require a "technician" and are offered for free instead of being charged. And with fewer parts requiring actual service)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  18. Wrong in so many ways... by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    People buying Tesla don't give a damn about depreciation.
    People buying smaller electric cars (Nissan Leaf etc.) clearly don't care too much about value for money either.
    Electric cars (pure, not hybrid) could be a great solution for polluted city centres, but unless the Renault-touted replaceable battery pack concept takes off, (it has not so far), I don't see that a cab driver is going to tolerate cutting earnings in half every day while they wait for the car to charge...
    Finally, pure elec cars have much fewer, and simpler mechanical components, so in theory they should be economically viable to repair for much longer.
    A more compelling argument would have been:
    "Have an open Systems architecture that makes hardware and software upgrades trivial."
    Tesla manages to push software upgrades that add significant function without breaking stuff so it's clearly possible...
    Also, make the only truly expensive bit of hardware that definitely does wear out - the battery pack - easy to replace.

    1. Re:Wrong in so many ways... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      People buying Tesla don't give a damn about depreciation.
      Of course they do. Plenty of car enthusiasts plan to only have their car for a few years before moving on to the latest and greatest.

      People buying smaller electric cars (Nissan Leaf etc.) clearly don't care too much about value for money either.
      Of course they do, unless they lease (very common with small electric cars).

      I don't see that a cab driver is going to tolerate cutting earnings in half every day while they wait for the car to charge...
      This article is about Robo-Taxis. You can't really compare it to what's out now, because it imagines a future where most vehicle traffic is robo-taxi. So it makes general sense that cars would drive during rush-hour and then would recharge during business hours or at night.

      Even if it wasn't about robotaxis, it comes down to economics. If electricity is cheaper than gas, and electricity can be easily re-charged during taxi downtime (most Uber Drivers spend most of their time idling), then electricity is a great replacement for gas.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Wrong in so many ways... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I don't see that a cab driver is going to tolerate cutting earnings in half every day while they wait for the car to charge...

      I'd see a taxi company in larger locations such as NYC being large enough to invest in their OWN battery swap stations. For example, if Musk ever targets the taxi industry, it could be that the driver picks up a car with a fully charged battery, stops at a recharge station for lunch, then drops the car off where the battery is swapped before it's issued to the next driver. Tesla already has a fully developed swap station available.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  19. Some start to do it by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The manufacturer could provide a refit program at least once during the typical life of the vehicle (perhaps 3 or 4 years in).

    Tesla motor for example has tried to retrofit a couple of technologies into previous models that didn't have the option.
    (As much software as possible, Armor sheilding the battery, etc.)

    The "Autopilot" was notorious for being the first technology where Tesla did need to explicitely state that they can't retrofit it on older models.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  20. Beware the Robot Axis by robogoofers · · Score: 3, Funny

    I read the headline and got scared.

    1. Re:Beware the Robot Axis by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I've just had a nasty bout of robotaxis.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  21. Autonomous cars = preys for thieves ? by Eric.pl · · Score: 1

    Video cameras, computers, batteries, radars, etc. Interesting stuff for thieves.

    Ok, robotaxis would either be driving to the next customer or safe at base.
    But would anyone buy/lease a personal autonomous car and leave it parked in the street ?

    1. Re:Autonomous cars = preys for thieves ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The computer can alredy recognize pedestrians, just add some weapons

    2. Re:Autonomous cars = preys for thieves ? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You mean video cameras that can send a live feed to the police it calls when it detects that something hooky is going on? The battery that requires a life and at least a serious cart to move?

      Current cars are just as interesting to thieves for their parts, if not more.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  22. Totally flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the type of article you get when someone attempts to apply their 'expertise' to an entirely different problem. So this guy is 'autonomous car expert'...what exactly has that got to do with being an 'electric car expert'? That doesn't invalidate him being able to have an opinion but clearly his arguments are colored by his supposed 'expertise' & leading him to entirely WRONG conclusions & suggestions.

    First off the 'computer' is not & will not be the 'most important part of the vehicle' but even if you buy that it is this applies to gasoline vehicles as well as electrics. The argument being made is that 'so many new features are being added every year that buying new makes your car almost immediately obsolete'...e.g. 'Moore's law applied to vehicles" sorry but WHHHHATTT? Moore's law states that CPUs will double in speed every 18 months,'speed' being the primary point of the 'quality' of a CPU...I highly doubt vehicles are 'doubling in their quality/primary ability' every 18 months. Adding a bunch of 'autonomous features' to new vehicles or touch screens or other 'cool electronic features' does NOT add significantly to the depreciation of a car. The point of a car is to be able to drive places as economically as possible...all other 'cool features' are just that 'cool features', I can get them or not as the case may be & I can even retrofit vehicles to add a lot of the features.

    So then, back to the electric car argument in particular...the only 'feature' or attribute of an electric vehicle that would make it 'obsolete' quickly is its BATTERY RANGE! If the author wants to make that argument than fine & dandy but state that & than prove that battery technology is on a "Moore's law curve"...and if it is fine & dandy but than wouldn't this point to the idea that the most important consideration when buying a new electric vehicle would be the ability to retrofit/replace the batteries/fuel system with better ones in the future @ an economical price...e.g. the argument here shouldn't be that electric vehicles owners should view the purchase from a 'taxi model' point of view but rather they should view their BATTERIES from the view of whether or not they can be easily upgraded/replaced @ a good price.

    In fact if battery technology really is getting significantly better every year I would argue the single best 'advancement' that could be made is a 'quick change battery pack' that every manufacturer standardizes on such that if I pull up to a 'service station' they can quickly & easily swap out my battery pack for a fully charged one & away I go exactly like I can do with gasoline. In this way as battery technology gets better I automatically get the 'upgrades' & extend my range. If there were real & significant advancements in this area that would be a major game changer. It would drop the price of an electric vehicle significantly (you wouldn't be 'buying' the batteries only the car), it would extend the 'total useful range' of the vehicle potentially making it immediately possible to drive across country without a care or thought other than 'where's the next service station' (O look, just like a gasoline powered vehicle)...and lets be clear on this...the development of gas stations strategically placed to allow driving all over the place happened organically as fuel efficiency & size of fuel tanks grew. Why would/should that not be the same with electric vehicles?

    Now, It is very likely I'm totally missing something in terms of the engineering & infrastructure needed to develop 'easily swappable battery packs' because it seems like such a 'self evident' design need that the fact no EV manufacturer adds this 'feature' & that it doesn't seem to get a lot of press must mean that its not at all easy or potentially even 'doable'.

  23. Bad idea bit by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    It is a bad idea. Oh, taxis might be a decent idea in large filthy urban areas, but if they were the taxi companies could figure that out, but so far they realize that the inflated price of electric vehicles (and eventual replacement of very expensive battery packs) makes the choice of non-electric vehicles much better economically. And that will remain true with the foreseeable future of the oil market. But most of the country is far less concentrated than the cancer of our urban areas. In more spread out areas expecting people to use taxis is not economically feasible.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  24. Several false assumptions by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    1) That computer upgrades are always 'necessary'. Most computer upgrades are caused by new TYPES of programs, not upgrades of existing ones. That is, we update our computer to handle video, etc. Old Word processing programs from the 70's still work fine on old 70 computers. But you can't live stream to them.

    2) That most robotic cars will not be thrown away every 2 years. Many well off people buy a new car every 2 years. At least in the beginning, that's where the market will be. As time goes on (40 years from now), upgraded computers won't be as necessary.

    Yes, taxis - and other non-personal vehicles, such as busses, garbage trucks, police cars, etc. - will probably be early users of computerized vehicles. But so will the wealthier upscale luxury market. Eventually it will trickle down to the lower scale markets and being out-dated won't be a serious issue by then.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  25. Used Nissan Leaf -- good buy? by eriks · · Score: 1

    I've seen reference to this before, that the used market for the Leaf is a buyer's market, because they depreciate much faster than their gasoline-powered brethren; at least that's one way to look at it. I guess the tech-advancement from year-to-year at least partly explains the high depreciation -- but for someone that may be in the market (in the next few years) for a used Leaf, it looks like a boon for me, at least if the current trend holds. As a second car that gets used for a 15 mile (third shift, i.e. the car sits in the driveway all day when the sun is shining) daily commute and occasional shopping trips, combined with a (soon to be installed) on-site solar PV system, a used leaf is looking very attractive, even if it only has a 50-60 mile range, as we also have a gas-powered car for longer trips.

    I wonder if other people who work 2nd or 3rd shift have had similar thoughts?

    1. Re:Used Nissan Leaf -- good buy? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      I think it's a pretty decent deal, honestly. There are a few factors making the Nissan Leaf a good deal. Doug Demuro had a nice post on Jalopnik outlining some of the reasons why they've become so cheap. Admittedly, he exaggerates for humor in his articles, but it's pretty on-the-nose. The man used to manage a Porsche dealership, so he does understand the automotive market reasonably well.

  26. Robotaxis? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Do they fight the Robotallies?

    1. Re:Robotaxis? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      only when he was playing for the Kings.

  27. Calm Your Speculation. Just wait for the cars. by eepok · · Score: 1

    It's all still conjecture. It seems as though there's a new article every day trying to find additional reasons to stay hyped about self-driving automobiles. Self-driving autos will come, eventually, but we all need to accept that, when they do come, it's not going to happen en masse. And the critical mass for autonomous cars is still a decade out. At least.

    No one's willing to fully insure a purely automated vehicle and remove any humans onboard of all liability yet. There are still massive legal restrictions against them. Why? Because they don't work yet. They kinda work. They work on all roads for very small values of "all".

    So enough with the theoretical uses of a tech that is still really quite theoretical.

  28. Not to worry by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Not to worry, the electronic components in any device always fail before the mechanical devices, so the electronics will fail and the car will be bricked long before the vehicle is fully depreciated.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  29. An electric taxi that has appreicated in value... by matbury · · Score: 1

    Here's one of 75 electric taxis that operated in London in the late 1800s. They're worth considerably more now than when they were first sold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ...and, electric taxis? Modern and innovative? Seriously?

  30. Re:An electric taxi that has appreicated in value. by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Comparing those taxis to modern electric vehicles is ridiculous. Yes, they both are "electric", have wheels, and carry people for money, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Your feigned indignation is very transparent.

  31. Alpha car software analogy by DrYak · · Score: 1

    so the cars are in an early alpha test, to use a software analogy?

    Yes, and this alpha-car softrware analofy works MARVELOUSLY well, FULLY AUTOMATICALLY, requiring absolutely ZERO USER INTERVENTION / OPERATOR SUPERVISION...
    ...on the small test dataset.
    Which is exactly a 1mb sized file.

    But we're sure that one day we'll be able to plug this software analogy into the data center to service gigabytes of data per second.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  32. IBM Sales Reps by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Give them to IBM Sales Reps that way you cut out the only section of their working life where they are required to think. Also the car will be thrashed in six months (As long as the autonomous car can emulate a sales rep's driving technique)

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  33. Re:An electric taxi that has appreicated in value. by matbury · · Score: 1

    Comparing those taxis to modern electric vehicles is ridiculous. Yes, they both are "electric", have wheels, and carry people for money, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Your feigned indignation is very transparent.

    Your lack of sense of irony and humour is also very transparent.

    Also, until recently, the UK had fleets of milk-floats; almost silent electric vehicles that delivered milk to everyone's doorstep every morning; and how long have we had electric trains and trams?

    Antique taxis aside, the point is, electric vehicles are nothing new. We're just being sold the idea that they're something modern and innovative by Tesla, Google, Nissan, et al.