Blog Bob Lutz Says ‘Kiss the Good Times Goodbye,’ Automotive Era at End

Former General Motors executive Bob Lutz has written an article for Automotive News that stresses that the end of the automotive era is near. Soon “it will be the well-to-do, to the amazement of all their friends, who still know how to drive.”

In fact, Lutz boldly predicts that the human-driven automobile, its repair facilities, its dealerships, and the media surrounding it all will be gone in 20 years.

So auto retailing will be OK for the next 10, maybe 15 years as the auto companies make autonomous vehicles that still carry the manufacturer’s brand and are still on the highway.

But dealerships are ultimately doomed. And I think Automotive News is doomed. Car and Driver is done; Road & Track is done. They are all facing a finite future. They’ll be replaced by a magazine called Battery and Module read by the big fleets.

Lutz said public acceptance of autonomous vehicles is not the first step to adoption. Instead, big fleets owned by Uber, Lyft, FedEx, UPS, the U.S. Postal Service, utility companies, and delivery services will bring autonomous vehicles to the roads in the millions.

These modules won’t be branded Chevrolet, Ford or Toyota. They’ll be branded Uber or Lyft or who-ever else is competing in the market.

The manufacturers of the modules will be much like Nokia — basically building handsets. But that’s not where the value is going to be in the future. The value is going to be captured by the companies with the fully autonomous fleets.

Lutz said that unless automakers develop superior technical capability, they become the “handset providers” with specifications set by the big transportation companies. He believes this transition will be complete in 20 years.

“I think probably everybody sees it coming, but no one wants to talk about it,” he said.

Lutz’s career in the car industry included positions at BMW, Chrysler, Ford and GM, where he served as vice chairman. In 2008, Lutz said that “the electrification of the automobile is inevitable,” but has been skeptical of automakers like Tesla’s ability to turn a profit.

 

[larmor]

Former General Motors executive Bob Lutz has written an article for Automotive News that stresses that the end of the automotive era is near. Soon “it will be the well-to-do, to the amazement of all their friends, who still know how to drive.” In fact, Lutz boldly predicts that the human-driven automobile, its repair facilities, its...

awww... Where is my tiny violin?

 

[croman]

I really hate that man.

 

[MHarrigan]

Lutz is just trying to get a job at Tesla! He's been a Tesla fan-boy since 2006 when the roadster was revealed. Tesla could do worse ;-)

 

[Zythryn]

Lutz is just trying to get a job at Tesla! He's been a Tesla fan-boy since 2006 when the roadster was revealed. Tesla could do worse ;-)

Worse??
...

Scott Pruitt?

 

[jimmy_d]

Luckily for us he doesn't have to live in a world without the Buick LeSabre, he can just die. I mean it's about time for him isn't it? All the other dinosaurs are waiting for him after all. Besides, his life has been downhill ever since he banged that cheerleader in the backseat of his dad's rumbler. About time for him to move on.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I don't like the guy either, but he does raise an interesting vision here. I think in this instance he actually is making sense from a Tesla perspective too, no?

Many traditional ways and product categories have disappeared surprisingly fast when a disruptive change happens. If and when autonomous really happens, it might change the operators in the market in ways beyond just the ICE vs. BEV question. It might well be more about fleets and much less about cars...

Interesting vision.

 

[FlatSix911]

Former General Motors executive Bob Lutz has written an article for Automotive News that stresses that the end of the automotive era is near. Soon “it will be the well-to-do, to the amazement of all their friends, who still know how to drive.” In fact, Lutz boldly predicts that the human-driven automobile, its repair facilities, its...
[WPURI="https://teslamotorsclub.com/blog/2017/11/06/bob-lutz-says-kiss-the-good-times-goodbye-automotive-era-at-end/"]READ FULL ARTICLE[/WPURI]

 

[wdolson]

I have noticed over the years that experts have made bold predictions about things and the world went a different way. A few predictions that flopped:
15 Worst Tech Predictions Of All Time

People predict that because ride sharing services will be cheaper than owning a car with autonomous cars and especially electric drivetrains that very few people will want to own a car. For those who can barely afford a car now, or can't afford one, cheap ride sharing will be a transportation boon and will likely put most bus routes out of business. However for those with the income to afford a car, I think they will still own at least one because the autonomous ride shared vehicles are going to many times be filthy. Even with cameras watching the passengers, they are going to do things they wouldn't do in a car with a driver. And the car companies are going to clean them as little they can get way with.

People do a lot of things that aren't economically the best choice. The fashion industry thrives because of it.

I was thinking the other day that in a world where 100% of cars are autonomous, there is no need for cars that can get above the speed limit. Cars would become utilitarian and there would be no need for anything with any kind of performance. I don't see that happening though. Millennials are less into cars than previous generations, but even among Millennials there are lots of people into cars. Go to any car show, race track, or anything else involving motor sports and maybe there aren't as many people there under 30 as in previous generations, but a significant percentage of the attendees will be younger.

Another thing is a lot of people like adrenaline rushes and while amusement parks can create artificial environments for them, most people into that sort of thing like creating their own. Driving a car yourself at speed is one of the highest velocity adrenaline hits accessible to most people.

I was also thinking that the acceptance of autonomous vehicles may never be universal. People can get very hinky about machines obviously in control of their safety (even though there are many places where people do blindly trust machines too). Airliners have been automated enough and safe enough they could operate with only one pilot quite easily, but that is not allowed to a large degree because of people's perceptions. Most of an airline pilot's job today is to sit there and watch the plane fly itself.

Outside of cities, I don't see ride sharing taking off, at least not for some time. If the population density is too thin, a ride sharing car has to spend at least half its time deadheading (running without a fare). Whereas in a city the next fare may only be blocks away. New tech can take a long time to penetrate rural areas. FDR started the Rural Electrification Administration to bring electric power to rural areas. Today a lot of rural areas have much slower internet speeds than cities. The exceptions being places where there was some kind of infrastructure put there for some other purpose that was opened to civilian use.

The pundits may be right. Tech predictions are sometimes true, but the experts have missed a lot of predictions too.

 

[boonedocks]

Bob lutz the DUTZ just needs to go away to his happy place and *sugar* his cigar rancid mouth

 

[Xenius]

For a second there I was afraid we weren't going to hear something stupid from Lutz this month!

 

[electracity]

What Lutz misses is that people a still going to want to travel in a customized space that they design and they own. Someone in LA who spends three hours a day commuting is going to want to travel to the office in a mobile office.

How about an RV that travels while the occupants sleep? How about people living in communities where the bedrooms are these new RV's.

The car eliminated the local horse, but was not just a more efficient and faster horse. It was far more. Autonomous vehicles will be creatively used in a vast number of ways.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

People predict that because ride sharing services will be cheaper than owning a car with autonomous cars and especially electric drivetrains that very few people will want to own a car. For those who can barely afford a car now, or can't afford one, cheap ride sharing will be a transportation boon and will likely put most bus routes out of business. However for those with the income to afford a car, I think they will still own at least one because the autonomous ride shared vehicles are going to many times be filthy. Even with cameras watching the passengers, they are going to do things they wouldn't do in a car with a driver. And the car companies are going to clean them as little they can get way with.

People do a lot of things that aren't economically the best choice. The fashion industry thrives because of it.

If you can afford to pay a premium to have your own car, you could also afford to pay a premium for a clean autonomous taxi. I'd bet that autonomous taxi firms will take advantage of charging people for making a mess.

Also, a lot would depend on the cost of the autonomous system itself. There's a huge difference between a choice of autonomous taxi or driving your own car, and a choice of autonomous taxi or owning your own autonomous car.

I was thinking the other day that in a world where 100% of cars are autonomous, there is no need for cars that can get above the speed limit. Cars would become utilitarian and there would be no need for anything with any kind of performance. I don't see that happening though. Millennials are less into cars than previous generations, but even among Millennials there are lots of people into cars. Go to any car show, race track, or anything else involving motor sports and maybe there aren't as many people there under 30 as in previous generations, but a significant percentage of the attendees will be younger.

If you want fun, you'll be able to rent it. If you want fun in your own car, you'll be able to buy your own car. But most people don't really want fun in their own car. It's just a chore.

Another thing is a lot of people like adrenaline rushes and while amusement parks can create artificial environments for them, most people into that sort of thing like creating their own. Driving a car yourself at speed is one of the highest velocity adrenaline hits accessible to most people.

You can rent that fun.

In relation to that, one particularly good thing about cheap autonomy is that removing the economic necessity of driving would remove a lot of dangerous and uninsured drivers from the roads. Expect tougher penalties for OUI and traffic violations.

I was also thinking that the acceptance of autonomous vehicles may never be universal. People can get very hinky about machines obviously in control of their safety (even though there are many places where people do blindly trust machines too). Airliners have been automated enough and safe enough they could operate with only one pilot quite easily, but that is not allowed to a large degree because of people's perceptions. Most of an airline pilot's job today is to sit there and watch the plane fly itself.

Autopilots are far from perfect. Pilots are there because autopilots can't handle every situation and when they can't handle a situation, not having a pilot means near certain death.

Cars are much more likely to have an escape route.

Outside of cities, I don't see ride sharing taking off, at least not for some time. If the population density is too thin, a ride sharing car has to spend at least half its time deadheading (running without a fare). Whereas in a city the next fare may only be blocks away. New tech can take a long time to penetrate rural areas. FDR started the Rural Electrification Administration to bring electric power to rural areas. Today a lot of rural areas have much slower internet speeds than cities. The exceptions being places where there was some kind of infrastructure put there for some other purpose that was opened to civilian use.

In the USA 80% of people live in urban areas. So it really doesn't matter that much.

The pundits may be right. Tech predictions are sometimes true, but the experts have missed a lot of predictions too.

Affordable autonomous systems would significantly lower the cost of taxis, which would mean much cheaper point-to-point travel available without having to drive, park, buy, make payments on, title, register, insure, inspect, maintain, repair and sell cars. If the system cost is relatively low, then for the majority of people it will be cheaper to use the taxis/rental cars than own. Smartphones will make it easy to reserve and share rides and will be able to make the cost savings clear. Ride-sharing in autonomous taxis will save more money than and be more flexible than regular carpooling.

Such a dramatic shift in convenience and cost can only be expected to lead to a dramatic shift in the market.

 

[wdolson]

If you can afford to pay a premium to have your own car, you could also afford to pay a premium for a clean autonomous taxi. I'd bet that autonomous taxi firms will take advantage of charging people for making a mess.

Also, a lot would depend on the cost of the autonomous system itself. There's a huge difference between a choice of autonomous taxi or driving your own car, and a choice of autonomous taxi or owning your own autonomous car.

I think a fair number of people who choose to own a car will have one with an autonomous system. At some point it will become mandatory to have it, then there will be roads where it is mandatory.

If you want fun, you'll be able to rent it. If you want fun in your own car, you'll be able to buy your own car. But most people don't really want fun in their own car. It's just a chore.

There is a huge culture dedicated to customizing cars. Some of those cats aren't very driveable, they are for show. I grew up in the home of the low rider, East LA. Having a highly customized Chevy was a major status symbol.

Commuting is a chore for everyone who has to do it, but you don't see many custom cars on the Hollywood Freeway at rush hour. You do see a lot on the weekends though.

In relation to that, one particularly good thing about cheap autonomy is that removing the economic necessity of driving would remove a lot of dangerous and uninsured drivers from the roads. Expect tougher penalties for OUI and traffic violations.

Having an alternative would keep at least some of the most dangerous drivers off the road. Some people seemed determined to drive no matter their status. As the penalties for DUIs went up, it did get some drunks off the road, but there comes a point where more penalties won't stop a crime. American society has cranked the penalties for some crimes to insane levels, but it hasn't stopped the crimes from happening.

Autopilots are far from perfect. Pilots are there because autopilots can't handle every situation and when they can't handle a situation, not having a pilot means near certain death.

50% of all airliner accidents are caused by pilot error. Another 9% are from acts of war (terrorism or shot down), and 7% by other human error like air traffic controllers messing up.

I worked in avionics at Boeing from the late 80s into the mid-90s. The lab I worked for did all the engineering testing for all the electronics that went on the planes. Plus there was a lab where working airline pilots came in to give feedback about flight deck layouts. Those were the ultimate video game. I got to fly one a couple of times.

Even back then it was widely acknowledged that airliners only needed one pilot and many times the pilot was the problem.

A highly skilled pilot thrown into an emergency situation can pull off a miracle, but all it takes is one slight mistake at the wrong moment and the plane is doomed. The 777 crash in San Francisco was caused by a green copilot who came in too low and they didn't realize it until a second before hitting the breakwater at the end of the runway. The Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic and was lost without a trace for over a year was again caused by a green copilot who didn't understand what his instruments were telling him. A design flaw in the flight controls on Airbus jets contributed to the crash. The pilot realized what was going on just before impact, his last words were "you've killed us all".

Cars are much more likely to have an escape route.

True. It's the reason aircraft are built to more stringent standards.

In the USA 80% of people live in urban areas. So it really doesn't matter that much.

Actually the breakdown is 26 urban, 53 suburban, and 21 percent rural. That suburban group has a wide range of population densities. I technically live in a suburban part of Portland, but population density is too low for cost effective mass transit of any kind. Neighborhoods closer in to downtown have more options.

Affordable autonomous systems would significantly lower the cost of taxis, which would mean much cheaper point-to-point travel available without having to drive, park, buy, make payments on, title, register, insure, inspect, maintain, repair and sell cars. If the system cost is relatively low, then for the majority of people it will be cheaper to use the taxis/rental cars than own. Smartphones will make it easy to reserve and share rides and will be able to make the cost savings clear. Ride-sharing in autonomous taxis will save more money than and be more flexible than regular carpooling.

Such a dramatic shift in convenience and cost can only be expected to lead to a dramatic shift in the market.

My point is people don't always make the most economic choice. If they did everyone would buy their clothes at Walmart or Costco. But the price ranges of the fashion industry is extremely wide with lots of different price points from the cheapest stuff made by slave labor in Bangladesh at Walmart to the really expensive stuff (sometimes still made by slave labor in Bangladesh) at expensive boutiques.

Fashion is the most extreme example, but the car industry today is another example of this. In new cars you have econo boxes on wheels costing $15K to Bugattis and Rolls costing over $1 million. There is also a wide selection of used cars out there including classic cars our grandparents and sometimes great-grandparents drove.

The car customization world is also very, very lucrative. You can see it on this forum. I have seen threads of someone who repainted his Model S copper colored, a pink Model X, there are vendors here selling all sorts of custom trim for Teslas. Other places I've seen some other exotic Tesla mods including one this last week where someone in California took a Model S, painted it pink and did it up with Batman details including big bat wings on the rear fenders. For some reason he had custom wheels with the Google Chrome logo in the center.

Someone in Europe is making a kit to make a shooting brake (low profile wagon) version of the Model S.

People like to do things to stand out and many use their stuff to reflect it.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I think a fair number of people who choose to own a car will have one with an autonomous system

I think more likely "the majority" rather than "a fair number". I regard myself as a keen driver, but the majority of my driving is humdrum. Provided I had confidence that autonomous would do a good job then its welcome to drive instead of me. No worse than me entrusting driving responsibility to my wife, or allowing a mate to get behind the wheel.

 

[DragonWatch]

According to Lutz (nuts?) Tesla is not going to produce my Tesla pickup:-(

What is a man/woman to do without a pickup? Call someone who cares?

I think not ~ notice Lutz has no holdings in Tesla, and owns nothing but fossil fuel disasters waiting to happen. I’ll go wit Nuts.