-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elon is an ass investing TSLA
I think it's interesting to think about how Tesla EV and Self-Drive future will be disruptive to the industry. But perhaps the bigger effects are with the disruption to what the market will be based on the new dynamics with human needs. If the true cost of moving the vehicle mirror Electrical costs (vs fuel consumption)- especially assuming Electrical costs are largely Solar-Storage (very low costs looking forward)- then the cost of moving the vehicle are nearly the same as the cost of a stationary vehicle. This is similar in concept to a moving-home or moving personal environment I think will be the transformation we see eventually. If so, one of the biggest transformations we might see is a reduction in the number of cars (market size reduction). Once a car is self driving and as cheap to move as sit in place, there's reduced demand for cars per household. It's moving to household member's daily schedule for transpiration. Other factor may interfere with this and it may not come to pass, but it's a vision I've had for a while regarding where we might be headed. Been coming across some articles surfacing recently that are now talking about some of that as well as the self-drive and EV benefits begin showing themselves. Here an interesting take for example.
Self-Driving Vehicles Could Cut Car Ownership Nearly in Half, Report Finds
nothing going to happen quickly of course- but I find long term predictions a more interesting mental endeavor - and this is the long term thread
My expectation is that the future society will be much less car dependent than we are today. I also expect future citizens to be less keen on car ownership than we are today. I already see the emergence of such trends and these may strengthen going forward.
Developments that will feed into undermining the dependence on personal car ownership:
1. Education is migrating online; video classrooms or video one to one tutorials may replace current setups; perhaps future little school people will congregate on a need basis, for learning and excursion trips. Such group travels are unlikely to be done with personal cars.
2. Options to work from home; The increasing number of jobs will require connectivity and a workstation that can be anywhere. Many employees already have the option to work from home from time to time.
3. Business to business video conferencing is reducing the need for travels and visits. This is a great time-saver (and petrol saver). Suppliers can provide a video feed of their goods and services. Even job interviews are increasingly happening over a video link or skype.
4. Migration of numerous face to face services and over the counter services to online contact and service. Banking, health, real estate, professional consultations, etc. Use your imagination...
5. Online shopping and deliveries
6. Environmental concerns and changing values; many people will opt out of a car ownership if they can go through life without one.
7. Preference for fun rides on a single or two person craft, like hover fly machine, powered rollers, powered bikes, etc.
8. Share rides, share ownership
The single strongest factor feeding into cutting out the need for personal cars is connectivity. Changing values, consequent different lifestyles may also have a considerable impact.
On the other side of the argument, we have increased affordability and cheaper transport costs.
It might be that in the near future, increased affordability and cheaper running costs might push ownership up, until the long term trends 1 - 8 further develop and prevail in the long term.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
Auzie, all these trends are certainly in play right now. They are mostly consequencies of the internet and moble internet devices. So welcome to the hype-connected world.
Most of these trends are rooted in decoupling economic activity from the location of the economic participant. This decoupling is mediated by informational connectivity that presents lower cost alternative to being physically present. There is an economic tradeoff between the cost of travel (both financially and in terms lifestyle) and the richness of physical presence. Our culture will need figure out what physical presence is really worth. I think we are headed to a crisis of place. We all have to ask ourselves where do we really want to be. If all our economic needs could be satisfied with electronic connectivity, why would we go anywhere? Sure, I could travel to Paris, but I could also absorb all kinds of media online that gives me a sense of what I might find in Paris. Moreover, in a hyper-connected Paris, what would I find. Maybe all the cafes, restaunts and markets have closed down because virtual businesses have replaced them. All the museums have been digitized and shut down. Music streams from every device, so there's no need to go to a concert or show. If all I want to do is smell flowers, I can enjoy my own little garden at home. So is it possible that there is no place worth going to? I suspect the next generation will discover that the hyper-connected world is not worth living in, and rediscover the value of place, not because they are driven by economic needs to travel, but cultural needs to be physically present. But they will want physical contact with all locations. So as the many layers of the cost of travel come down, they might just become a hyper-mobile generation always going somewhere, just as millenials have become the hyper-connected generation, always connected somewhere else with moble devices.
Most of these trends are rooted in decoupling economic activity from the location of the economic participant. This decoupling is mediated by informational connectivity that presents lower cost alternative to being physically present. There is an economic tradeoff between the cost of travel (both financially and in terms lifestyle) and the richness of physical presence. Our culture will need figure out what physical presence is really worth. I think we are headed to a crisis of place. We all have to ask ourselves where do we really want to be. If all our economic needs could be satisfied with electronic connectivity, why would we go anywhere? Sure, I could travel to Paris, but I could also absorb all kinds of media online that gives me a sense of what I might find in Paris. Moreover, in a hyper-connected Paris, what would I find. Maybe all the cafes, restaunts and markets have closed down because virtual businesses have replaced them. All the museums have been digitized and shut down. Music streams from every device, so there's no need to go to a concert or show. If all I want to do is smell flowers, I can enjoy my own little garden at home. So is it possible that there is no place worth going to? I suspect the next generation will discover that the hyper-connected world is not worth living in, and rediscover the value of place, not because they are driven by economic needs to travel, but cultural needs to be physically present. But they will want physical contact with all locations. So as the many layers of the cost of travel come down, they might just become a hyper-mobile generation always going somewhere, just as millenials have become the hyper-connected generation, always connected somewhere else with moble devices.
Some good questions there jhm.
I tend to disagree that the hyper connected world is not worth living in, I find connected world far better place than disconnected one. Connectivity fosters transparency. Transparency acts as a powerful social ethics enforcer. If anything we do leaves a digital trail, transgressions are just too risky and expensive.
Your question, if one can easily be anywhere, where does one choose to be, that is personal and depends on personal preferences. One of the places I like is this forum, so I keep coming back to it, so many fun people are here:biggrin:
Today's youth out of school tend to travel a lot, 'to see the world', but they do not go around the world with a car. They seem to prefer 'gypsy' way of travel whilst discovering physical places.
I already see strong trends of car ownership avoidance in that generation. That seems to be driven by both different values and economic reasons.
It may be decades before we see the car sales numbers reflecting these trends.
I tend to disagree that the hyper connected world is not worth living in, I find connected world far better place than disconnected one. Connectivity fosters transparency. Transparency acts as a powerful social ethics enforcer. If anything we do leaves a digital trail, transgressions are just too risky and expensive.
Your question, if one can easily be anywhere, where does one choose to be, that is personal and depends on personal preferences. One of the places I like is this forum, so I keep coming back to it, so many fun people are here:biggrin:
Today's youth out of school tend to travel a lot, 'to see the world', but they do not go around the world with a car. They seem to prefer 'gypsy' way of travel whilst discovering physical places.
I already see strong trends of car ownership avoidance in that generation. That seems to be driven by both different values and economic reasons.
It may be decades before we see the car sales numbers reflecting these trends.
Regarding cities:
I took a class on this at University...and University was a lot more recent for me than most people on these boards. But basically the class dealt with cities. One thing that's been happening for decades is that people have surmised that, as the world gets smaller due to improvements in telecommunications and transportation, city population would decrease as people found it less necessary to live in cities. However, over that time period, in fact city population has *increased*. So much so that, as of this moment in time, over half the population of the world lives in cities. The crossover happened a few years ago and the trend shows no particular sign of decreasing.
Will self-driving cars change that? Maybe. But cellphones, videoconferencing, airplanes, trains, automobiles, etc. were all supposed to change it and didn't really. So I don't think this will change.
I see miles driven per car and per capita going up or staying stable (on the one hand, self-driving means more miles driven, but on the other hand more people in cities and hopefully better public transport means less miles driven), and number of cars owned per capita (or maybe per mile driven?) going down. People will still own cars in significant numbers, but there will be less cars owned by individuals as uber-self-driving-taxis start to exist, and as people continue to migrate towards cities, which I expect will keep happening. I don't think there will be a flight from cities. City migration has been driven by advances in agriculture more than anything. Cities are more interesting and people generally like to be around people, so if we have less demand for farming (as farming gets more efficient, and transportation networks can more efficiently deliver that food to cities), we have more demand for city living.
I took a class on this at University...and University was a lot more recent for me than most people on these boards. But basically the class dealt with cities. One thing that's been happening for decades is that people have surmised that, as the world gets smaller due to improvements in telecommunications and transportation, city population would decrease as people found it less necessary to live in cities. However, over that time period, in fact city population has *increased*. So much so that, as of this moment in time, over half the population of the world lives in cities. The crossover happened a few years ago and the trend shows no particular sign of decreasing.
Will self-driving cars change that? Maybe. But cellphones, videoconferencing, airplanes, trains, automobiles, etc. were all supposed to change it and didn't really. So I don't think this will change.
I see miles driven per car and per capita going up or staying stable (on the one hand, self-driving means more miles driven, but on the other hand more people in cities and hopefully better public transport means less miles driven), and number of cars owned per capita (or maybe per mile driven?) going down. People will still own cars in significant numbers, but there will be less cars owned by individuals as uber-self-driving-taxis start to exist, and as people continue to migrate towards cities, which I expect will keep happening. I don't think there will be a flight from cities. City migration has been driven by advances in agriculture more than anything. Cities are more interesting and people generally like to be around people, so if we have less demand for farming (as farming gets more efficient, and transportation networks can more efficiently deliver that food to cities), we have more demand for city living.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
This is all very true and the tendency for humans to cluster together in cities has been ever increasing since the start of your civilizations so I agree with you: It's very hard to find any reasons as to why city dwelling would decrease in the future. It's not really like people are forced, against their will but driven by the need to find work, to move in to the cities. If there really were enough people who wanted to live in sparsely populated areas I'm sure they'd find ways to do that and support themselves, but there are few who choose it.
I foresee the age of the automobile is just getting started, and that combustion powered automobile are mere prototypes for the real deal.
Autonomous cars, will they make more taxis, or will they extinct the Taxi?
EVs, will they encourage more public transport, or do they extinct public transit?
consider USA, public transport is limited because it generally sucks unless parking sucks more.
now allow vehicles to drive themselves and make fuel costs a no issue.
RIP public transport.
Autonomous, electric cars make the road system even more useful and more valuable, people judge the future of vehicles as if they are ICE vehicles. How many mass transit trains would still be allowed if they were not already electrically powered?
There is a reason why the far left in France abhors Bollore blue car, while the far right have toned their skepticism of the Bollore blue car. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/france-paris-autos-idUSL5N0D53GX20130419
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
Driverless vehicles: Fewer cars, more miles | UMTRI - University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
This study looks at the potential for families to share self-driving vehicles with return-to-home functionality. This is a rather limited scope, but shows potential to reduce private ownership by 43% while increasing annual mile per vehicle by 75%, not counting the return-to-home miles required to make the car sharing scheme work. Depending on the proximity of non-home destinations, I figure that return-to-home trips could add an extra 50% to 100% to annual miles per vehicle. Thus, annual miles per vehicle could go from 12k to 20k, excluding return-to-home trips, to 36k including those trips. This sort of study assumes no change in the demand for trips.
I think the basic implication of this sort of study for Tesla investors is that miles per vehicle potentially goes way up. Thus, a low cost per mile to operate and maintain a car will be quite attractive. Moreover, the ability of a self-driving Tesla to avail itself to free charging at Superchargers or other locations is compelling as well. Putting 30k to 40k per year on a car also means you want that car to last more than 200k miles. Cars that fall apart after 120k miles will be quite undesirable. Longevity is potentially a plus for Tesla. Batteries with a long range and fast charging will be advantageous when average daily use is more than 100 miles and when the turn around time between trips can be short. And finally, these cars must be programmed very well, highly connected and enjoyable to ride. I think on all these points Tesla can compete quite well. Gas vehicles are too expensive to fuel and maintain. They also cannot fuel themselves, and engines tend not to last 200k miles or more. A short range EV like the LEAF does not have the range or charge rate to handle this kind of daily load, and the battery may wear out too quickly with excessive deep cycling. Finally, only Tesla has free Superchargers, and as a bonus, self-charging Teslas solve the urban charging problem. So why would Tesla not want to lead the industry to fully autonomous vehicles?
This study looks at the potential for families to share self-driving vehicles with return-to-home functionality. This is a rather limited scope, but shows potential to reduce private ownership by 43% while increasing annual mile per vehicle by 75%, not counting the return-to-home miles required to make the car sharing scheme work. Depending on the proximity of non-home destinations, I figure that return-to-home trips could add an extra 50% to 100% to annual miles per vehicle. Thus, annual miles per vehicle could go from 12k to 20k, excluding return-to-home trips, to 36k including those trips. This sort of study assumes no change in the demand for trips.
I think the basic implication of this sort of study for Tesla investors is that miles per vehicle potentially goes way up. Thus, a low cost per mile to operate and maintain a car will be quite attractive. Moreover, the ability of a self-driving Tesla to avail itself to free charging at Superchargers or other locations is compelling as well. Putting 30k to 40k per year on a car also means you want that car to last more than 200k miles. Cars that fall apart after 120k miles will be quite undesirable. Longevity is potentially a plus for Tesla. Batteries with a long range and fast charging will be advantageous when average daily use is more than 100 miles and when the turn around time between trips can be short. And finally, these cars must be programmed very well, highly connected and enjoyable to ride. I think on all these points Tesla can compete quite well. Gas vehicles are too expensive to fuel and maintain. They also cannot fuel themselves, and engines tend not to last 200k miles or more. A short range EV like the LEAF does not have the range or charge rate to handle this kind of daily load, and the battery may wear out too quickly with excessive deep cycling. Finally, only Tesla has free Superchargers, and as a bonus, self-charging Teslas solve the urban charging problem. So why would Tesla not want to lead the industry to fully autonomous vehicles?
EVs lower the cost of transportation services (or, they will once capital costs come down), so it increases the quantity demanded of transport services. But self-driving tech increases the amount of transportation services each vehicle can supply. So we are left with an uncertain impact on the quantity of cars demanded.
I don't underestimate the value of ownership/control of a car. I'm always anxious when I've called a cab about when it will get there (an anxiety that tech is helping to address, now that Uber and some cab companies have apps that let you see where exactly your cab is). There's a clear anxiety reduction in having your faithful car waiting for you, not having to figure out exactly when you'll be ready to go, etc. So, I don't think car ownership evaporates into a "all taxis, all the time" model.
The self-driving feature will be particularly helpful in reducing the number of cars a family needs. The car can take Mom to work, return and take the kids to school, and then be back to take Dad to the gym. One car can do what today would use three.
I don't underestimate the value of ownership/control of a car. I'm always anxious when I've called a cab about when it will get there (an anxiety that tech is helping to address, now that Uber and some cab companies have apps that let you see where exactly your cab is). There's a clear anxiety reduction in having your faithful car waiting for you, not having to figure out exactly when you'll be ready to go, etc. So, I don't think car ownership evaporates into a "all taxis, all the time" model.
The self-driving feature will be particularly helpful in reducing the number of cars a family needs. The car can take Mom to work, return and take the kids to school, and then be back to take Dad to the gym. One car can do what today would use three.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
One thing I never see mentioned (though I've mentioned it a few times), is the disruptive factor when it comes to how we age. I imagine there are a great deal of people on this forum dreading the day that they will take keys away from an aging parent. Imagine if, instead, you were able to hand them their independence by handing them keys to a self-driving car?
Then think about reasons why people end up in assisted living and other senior facilities ... they have to leave their homes where quality of life is highest, usually because even though services can be brought to them, it's difficult for them to get out and still have some of a social life (necessary for healthy aging). Depression is a common outcome when seniors lose their independence. Imagine all of that ... gone.
Self-driving cars will have a HUGE impact not only on how people age, but will totally disrupt the market that provides support to the aging. More long-term care will be in the home, less will be in facilities. Care in the home is cheaper than care in a facility, quality of life is higher. It's going to be huge.
Then think about reasons why people end up in assisted living and other senior facilities ... they have to leave their homes where quality of life is highest, usually because even though services can be brought to them, it's difficult for them to get out and still have some of a social life (necessary for healthy aging). Depression is a common outcome when seniors lose their independence. Imagine all of that ... gone.
Self-driving cars will have a HUGE impact not only on how people age, but will totally disrupt the market that provides support to the aging. More long-term care will be in the home, less will be in facilities. Care in the home is cheaper than care in a facility, quality of life is higher. It's going to be huge.
Cabs are a problem but so are cars. I am anxious about scratches, these are so expensive to fix and easy to get in parking lots. Car as a capital investment is one of the worst investments there is as most cars quickly loose value. As investment, car is heavily underutilized for most owners as it is used only occassionaly. Most assets need to be used most hours of the day to pay for themselves.
This will be resolved as a personal trade off, which anxiety is greater for individuals.
That is helpful if kids go to physical rather than online school and there is no school bus, mum does not run business from home and dad prefers gym to jogging or biking:wink:
jhm
Well-Known Member
This is a great observation. Autopilot features may also ease the transition as well as vision, attention and reflex issues begin to emerge. I would love to see infrared included on Teslas to help with nightvision issues. All these active safety features can help avoid accidents before a person comes to realize that they should no longer drive. Moreover, if they are comfortable with autopilot features first, they may become much more ready for ceding even more control to the car. I would think that feeling safe with the car self-driving while feeling more in control and independent about where the car goes would make this whole transition easier.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I tend to disagree with both of those statements, preferring natural spaces with low population density, but I guess the growing trend of urbanization means I get more of both :wink:
Wouldn't the caregiver in the home be able to drive them anyway? Or do you mean an individual who can still care for themselves without help but just can't drive any longer?
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Sure, but that's not what happens on a regular basis. Loss of independence is a huge issue for the aging. Relying on someone else to give a ride is something most people would rather not do. Isolation leads to depression.
A full-time caregiver in the home is not usually needed. As an example, my mom is 94 and I've arranged for someone to come by daily both to dress her for the day and then help her settle in for the night. Someone stops in midday to ensure she has a meal on the table and hasn't forgotten any meds. I monitor her apartment for appropriate movement. She would hate having someone hovering about full-time. And she HATES having to rely on relatives to pick her up for family get togethers or friends to take her to a doctor appointment (small town, no other options).
But there are many classifications of 'seniors'. It's not just the 94 year old needing help with basic tasks like dressing. Let's say you're not capable of driving, but you're capable of taking care of your daily needs. Maybe it's your eyesight that isn't so great. Or maybe you need a walker and shouldn't drive. But you'd still like to meet friends at a restaurant for lunch, maybe go on a short weekend trip with a close friend, etc.
Use of technology to enable aging in place is becoming a huge industry. Self-driving cars will solve a problem.
I think she means the latter, even though in reality it would be more efficient for society as a whole to have people move through different developments according to need.
Anyway, as an anecdote my wife's grandmother gradually declined, and went through a couple of years where although she lived somewhere where she depended on a car, she could no longer drive, which made it harder to function.
Over time I think that the impact of this will decrease as an increasing proportion of people use the Internet, which has helped physical isolation not be social isolation.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Agree somewhat, but the last 15 years of my career have been focused on the impact of technology on the aging process. It may be more efficient, as you say, to move people through different developments according to need ... but it's a quality of life issue. The further someone moves from the home (home - senior community - assisted living - nursing home - hospice), the lower the quality of life and the more expensive it is to deliver care. We're not warehousing the aging, at least not yet.
They're people with the right to make decisions about their future, not a commodity to be handled in the most efficient manner.The internet has an impact on people like you and I, but internet usage is just not as high worldwide (nor will it be) as people think. And certainly delivery of health care services cannot all be done online.
What's the most powerful lobbying group in the US? Yep, AARP. People underestimate the size of this population, but the largest bolus of US population, the baby boomers, are entering this group right now. Huge market and just having access to the internet does not solve all the issues. Nor will a self-driving car, but it's obvious to those in this industry that returning independence to seniors will have a huge impact.
I agree with you 100% on this. My 89 year old grandfather, who sadly passed away a few weeks ago, had leg problems for years and made it hard for him to walk. He slowly cut back on his driving to the mall year by year and wouldn't drive at night. This past Christmas was the first time they didn't make it to the family gathering, which is like 45 minutes from their house, because he couldn't drive anymore and didn't want his 80 year old wife driving at night. He also hated others having to come pick them up and didn't want to use a wheelchair because of his pride.
This would have been a great example where they could have put in the destination address and let the car take them there to enjoy the holidays with family.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
From AARP, published Jan 2015 (http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html)
Don't underestimate the size of this market ...
Don't underestimate the size of this market ...
From AARP, published Jan 2015 (http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html)
Don't underestimate the size of this market ...
I would imagine that this large future market segment might be the most significant market for self driving cars, as that option seems to best fit their unique needs.
I am just not convinced that this population would own rather than share.
Similar threads
- Locked
