I'm not talking about the roads you drive, I'm talking about where you live. You aren't going suddenly find yourself out in the middle of the wilderness and think, hey I need to go to the grocery store. And there is a huge amount in-between urban areas and remote mountain roads. Everybody (including me) has said that it won't be applicable everywhere, just for most people. By definition most people don't live way out in the boondocks (or they wouldn't be boondocks).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'm not talking about the roads you drive, I'm talking about where you live. You aren't going suddenly find yourself out in the middle of the wilderness and think, hey I need to go to the grocery store. And there is a huge amount in-between urban areas and remote mountain roads. Everybody (including me) has said that it won't be applicable everywhere, just for most people. By definition most people don't live way out in the boondocks (or they wouldn't be boondocks).
I expect autonomous cars will phase in slowly. There will be special lanes for autonomous only cars and maybe other incentives that encourage people to use them. As more and more of these cars become available, entire highways will got full autonomous. It will become necessary to buy an autonomous car in some areas if you want to get to work on time. For example if most of the freeways in the Los Angeles area were autonomous only, people who had non-autonomous cars could drive surface streets, but anyone who wanted to get anywhere at a decent rate would go autonomous.
There will be holdouts with older people who don't trust the technology and some young people who really like driving themselves. There will also be classic car lovers who restore old cars and take them to shows and such. Today we have cars on the road occasionally from as far back as the 1910s or 1920s. They aren't capable of the speeds of modern cars, nor do they have anything like modern safety features, but they are allowed on the roads too. Sometimes with limitations. There are a lot more classic cars from the 50s and 60s on the roads and some are daily drivers.
In the world of aircraft there are a fair number of classic aircraft from WW II and earlier flying. Many times these planes have limitations put on how they are operated, such as being limited to good visibility conditions only (no night flying and only in good weather). This is to limit the chances of these planes flying into a more modern plane which does have the current safety gear and/or ground obstructions. The world of aviation will probably be the model used as a template for incorporating self driving cars. The issues in aviation aren't all the same, but there are enough overlaps to be worth studying.
In any case, we're going to have to support non-autonomous cars in some way for at least 20-30 years. In places that salt the roads, cars fall apart fairly quickly, but in places where roads aren't salted (all of the western US and warmer regions), the body on a car can last virtually forever and the poorest people are driving the oldest cars for the most part. I saw a 1970s Camaro a couple of weeks ago. It's also not unusual to see 1970s pickup trucks and cars from the 80s around here. At this point, probably 80-90% of the cars on the road locally were built in the last 20 years, but I drive a Buick that's almost 24 years old and it's in pretty good shape.
There will be holdouts with older people who don't trust the technology and some young people who really like driving themselves. There will also be classic car lovers who restore old cars and take them to shows and such. Today we have cars on the road occasionally from as far back as the 1910s or 1920s. They aren't capable of the speeds of modern cars, nor do they have anything like modern safety features, but they are allowed on the roads too. Sometimes with limitations. There are a lot more classic cars from the 50s and 60s on the roads and some are daily drivers.
In the world of aircraft there are a fair number of classic aircraft from WW II and earlier flying. Many times these planes have limitations put on how they are operated, such as being limited to good visibility conditions only (no night flying and only in good weather). This is to limit the chances of these planes flying into a more modern plane which does have the current safety gear and/or ground obstructions. The world of aviation will probably be the model used as a template for incorporating self driving cars. The issues in aviation aren't all the same, but there are enough overlaps to be worth studying.
In any case, we're going to have to support non-autonomous cars in some way for at least 20-30 years. In places that salt the roads, cars fall apart fairly quickly, but in places where roads aren't salted (all of the western US and warmer regions), the body on a car can last virtually forever and the poorest people are driving the oldest cars for the most part. I saw a 1970s Camaro a couple of weeks ago. It's also not unusual to see 1970s pickup trucks and cars from the 80s around here. At this point, probably 80-90% of the cars on the road locally were built in the last 20 years, but I drive a Buick that's almost 24 years old and it's in pretty good shape.
See I don't buy that driving will be allowed. When autonomy is fully available, drivers will be a real drag. The LA freeway is the best example. The current average speed on freeways in the LA basin is probably 25 mph. With no drivers, it could be 60 mph. (WAG)
So the 10% holdouts will be overwhelmed by the 90% that don't want to waste their time in traffic.
The insurance industry will help of course. Autonomous car $150 a year. Driver $2000 a year. Interest on that new car seems very reasonable now doesn't it?
I suspect CARB will eventually help in CA. Higher registration costs for ICEs. Super high costs as cars get older.
Then there is the money equals power argument. The folks that drive 10 yo cars (with the exception of classic cars) have no money and no power. On average. Not always.
I still think the right way to do autonomy is to remove drivers. Makes autonomy much easier. Hard to accomplish for sure. But what does the AARP want? 20 yo drivers or mobility for the elderly?
Again politically tough. Easier to never give someone a license than take them away. Raise the age - I have 10 years.
So the 10% holdouts will be overwhelmed by the 90% that don't want to waste their time in traffic.
The insurance industry will help of course. Autonomous car $150 a year. Driver $2000 a year. Interest on that new car seems very reasonable now doesn't it?
I suspect CARB will eventually help in CA. Higher registration costs for ICEs. Super high costs as cars get older.
Then there is the money equals power argument. The folks that drive 10 yo cars (with the exception of classic cars) have no money and no power. On average. Not always.
I still think the right way to do autonomy is to remove drivers. Makes autonomy much easier. Hard to accomplish for sure. But what does the AARP want? 20 yo drivers or mobility for the elderly?
Again politically tough. Easier to never give someone a license than take them away. Raise the age - I have 10 years.
I assume you mean higher registration costs for non-autonomous. ICE != non-autonomous. You could build an autonomous car with either ICE or EV.
There is a video out there that runs the numbers on how long it takes to just replace 50% of the cars on the road, they came up with 10 years just for 50%. The average age of new car buyers in the US is 49 years old because younger people don't have the money for new cars and buy used and the millennials are said to be the first generation in US history who will not make as much money as their parents. That means that unless something drastically changes in the US economy, the younger generations will be driving older cars longer than their parents did and that will slow down the introduction of autonomous only roads.
The poorest segments of the population unfortunately get screwed in the end, but there are a lot of working poor who can't take public transport for one reason or another and need to drive an old beater to work. If the roads convert to autonomous only too quickly a lot of places like Silicon Valley will find themselves trying to get by with no janitors, fast food workers, or other service workers. You can claim that a lot of those jobs in 10-20 years might be taken by machines, but that will just make life even worse for the poorest segment of the population and when the options for work get too severe for these people, it will likely lead to civil unrest.
The economic factors lean towards it taking more than 20 years rather than less.
Interesting article - but full of plenty of conventional thinking.
Obviously an ICE has constraints that limit the aerodynamics that don't apply to Tesla. The article didn't mention mirrors at all which I thought was strange.
Look - the S is .24 and I would think .2 is approachable/reachable with better nose cone (ala X), no side mirrors, aerodynamic rims, and tighter seams. Perhaps wheel well covers - eventually this should happen
Obviously an ICE has constraints that limit the aerodynamics that don't apply to Tesla. The article didn't mention mirrors at all which I thought was strange.
Look - the S is .24 and I would think .2 is approachable/reachable with better nose cone (ala X), no side mirrors, aerodynamic rims, and tighter seams. Perhaps wheel well covers - eventually this should happen
Getting rid of the mirrors has a lot of legal hurdles and it's a drag factor car designers just have to live with until enough jurisdictions change their laws to make it possible. I don't think any country or any other jurisdiction has changed their laws on external mirrors yet.
Well, since the stats it gives as the current best matches the XL1 stats, which is definitely the current most extreme low consumption car and was released only two years ago I would say the article is fairly recent. (I do agree in general that I find it very frustrating on these sorts of articles to not know whether it's current or really old. All articles really should have a date.)
That would be an engineering nightmare, especially if the fenders have any curves in them. It would likely make the fenders very clunky looking to accommodate a panel sliding back into them. It would also require space be taken up by the actuator motors. If they did anything like that for the Model 3, it would not be available on the base model and would likely cost a couple of thousand at least.
It probably wouldn't look better because of the design compromises needed to allow the covers to retract into the fenders. They have to store somewhere when not in use. Additionally, you would be designing a very complex mechanism that needs to operate in the part of a car most subject to collecting muck which would likely result in them jamming a lot.
The falcon wing door design was a major factor in the delays with the Model X. This idea is possibly more complex.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
I believe the BOLT was designed as an ICE replacement for the SONIC to compete against Honda FIT, Nissan QUBE, Kia SOUL, and Scion xB... But someone at GM decided to make it fully electric instead once Tesla Motors made a big splash in the automotive industry. And BOLT is definitely designed to NOT sell in numbers that would endanger either the Chevrolet CRUZE or MALIBU.
Excellent argument that I, nevertheless, must disagree with... In case the EPA pulls a fast one, and decides to change their testing procedures in a manner that greatly favors ICE or ICE Hybrid vehicles, Tesla Motors must make sure that there is far more energy reserve than is absolutely necessary to reach their range target. Bare minimum for Tesla Model ≡ should be 60 kWh capacity with 48-to-54 kWh useable, to ensure a 200+ mile range in the Real World. I'm talking 194-to-243 Wh per mile on average in 'eco' mode... And perhaps 216-to-270 Wh per mile in 'normal' mode. Though really, I pray for a 100 kWh battery pack that allows 250 miles of range even at 330 Wh per mile.
Sure, if Tesla Motors target were the bottom-of-the-line varieties of 3-Series and A4, that might work. But I seriously doubt that Elon Musk believes a 180 HP drivetrain would be 'compelling'. I expect that the base configuration of Model ≡ will need enough capacity to both get the range, and power a capable motor. Something that would be on par with 335i/340i in performance, for 320i/320d money. That makes the line in the sand as a 60 kWh battery pack, paired with a 300+ HP motor.
+42! Quoted for Absolute Truth!
Correctomundo! Plus, that happens to be a weakness that would be shared with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, as well as the aluminum oxide catalyst fuel cell notions that people have kept coming up with as 'range extenders'... There is absolutely no need to add such disadvantages to a fully electric car.
Yup! Such systems are best suited to stationary applications instead. There are places in the world where they may work well, and others where they barely work at all.
When GM gets off their butts and makes a fully EV version of the ELECTRA, that can have side skirts. They'll go great with the Landau top, whitewall tires on Daytons, and curb feelers.
Here the problem is... Tesla Motors has already learned that attempting to allow a bargain basement entry point for their cars does not work. After delivering around 2,500 of the Model S, their 10,000 outstanding Reservations had not dropped to 7,500. It had grown to 13,000. And the take for the Model S 40 was still less than 5% of the total. People who were interested in driving electric opted primarily for the highest available capacity. They will do the same with Model ≡. The baseline threshold is 200+ miles of range with Supercharger access and compelling performance, not <~150 miles without Supercharging or breakneck first impressions, as some continue to argue.
Agreed. Estimates for Tesla Motors' current internal cost for battery cells ranges from $180 per kWh to as high as $240 per kWh. Assuming a 30% initial improvement in cost by way of the Gigafactory, that would drop to $126 per kWh to $168 per kWh. But Elon Musk is often misquoted, because the 30% amount is strictly an improvement based upon having local supply, instead of having components manufactured in Japan, shipped to China for assembly as battery cells, then shipped to Fremont for completion as battery packs. He has since stated that he expects the decrease in cost to be closer to the 40%-to-50% range. That is once a change in chemistry, improvements in design, and a new cell format are implemented.
Correct. This is the sort of comparison that people who lobby for low capacity battery packs never seem to get. They never recognize, for instance, that the Toyota RAV4 EV actually had a 50 kWh battery pack, with slightly over 40 kWh of available capacity for driving. And that car only had a 103 mile EPA rated range. This, even though it was around 400 lbs lighter than the Model S 40 -- which got a 139 mile range -- and the RAV4 EV had the best Coefficient of Drag for any SUV offered in the US.
Further, people who expect they will get 'more range' with a vehicle that has a lower power electric motor that is 'not performance oriented' are similarly proven wrong. The RAV4 EV only had a 154 HP motor, while both the Model S 40 and Model S 60 had 300+ HP motors. The old-school strategy of using a wimpy motor in a front wheel drive configuration to significantly improve economy doesn't apply to electric vehicles, because they are vastly more efficient than ICE already.
Yes, but that was a mistake. Their cars were designed to meet certain EPA range goals under the 2-cycle testing scheme. But they achieved lower results because there was a different, 5-cycle test in place by the time of their release. So, the Model S 40 had a 139 mile range, instead of the 160 mile range they hoped for originally. Tesla Motors is fully aware now that it is the capability of the vehicle that is most important to Customers. Not its relative economy due to price point. They fully expected the Model S 40 would be their best seller. They were wrong. Instead, the grand majority of buyers got the Model S 85. They will not make that mistake with the Model ≡. Tesla Motors will make the greatest possible amount of range available for $35,000 in the base configuration. I expect that will yield in the neighborhood of 250 miles range.
Tesla Motors cannot bother to worry about those people who can't afford their cars at all. They build Premium cars. They will be marketing the Model ≡ to people who are considering Cadillac ATS, AUDI A4, Jaguar XE, Lexus IS, and specifically the BMW 3-Series. Those cars are almost NEVER available on the lots of an 'independent franchised dealership' in their actual, manufacturer specified, base configuration. Instead, they will be loaded to the hilt with luxo packages that push their prices several thousands above the mark. You will be able to order a Tesla Model ≡ with ZERO options if you want. That is the proper option for those to whom $1,000 'makes a difference' -- they must exercise self control. Meanwhile, Tesla Motors will offer compelling products.
Last edited:
