... Or, or would seem, the local community vs. Uber?
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay...artners-with-hillsborough-transit-agency.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay...artners-with-hillsborough-transit-agency.html
-
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 really surprised I haven't seem more people try to do the math on what a Tesla will earn them. I mean, if the car cost 35k and could bring in 20k a year if driving full time it seems like it would be the best investment anyone could make today. 20k a year @ 2.5 dollars an hour is only about 11 months of driving 24 hours a day. 2.5 bucks an hour would be 14 cents a mile profit if average 35 miles an hour and only having a passenger half the time. This seems like a no brainer investment.... 57% annual ROI? That's just unheard of.
14 cents a mile is a very low estimate on profit IMO. As is 2.5 USD an hour. Uber drivers make between 17-35 dollars an hour on average and charge a buck a mile, plus minimum fares of 4.5 bucks. I live in Ann Arbor and I can tell you kids take Uber everywhere. Lets say minimum fare would be 1.50. That would easily bring in 15 dollars an hour here during the day.
14 cents a mile is a very low estimate on profit IMO. As is 2.5 USD an hour. Uber drivers make between 17-35 dollars an hour on average and charge a buck a mile, plus minimum fares of 4.5 bucks. I live in Ann Arbor and I can tell you kids take Uber everywhere. Lets say minimum fare would be 1.50. That would easily bring in 15 dollars an hour here during the day.
if you are buying it as an investment and not as a personal vehicle. Or if you want a personal vehicle buy 2 model 3s pay back the 1600/month on the financing (800 per car) and then take the remaining 1600 a month in profit and get a model s or x for personal use.
Even for a "demand saturated" market, assuming 91% billable time is aggressive. For example, no downtime for charging and travel to/from charging location?
Drove uber for awhile, was pretty much 100% of the time I was on I was getting pings. And 2.5 USD an hour was an average estimate, not an hourly rate. Considering Uber drivers bring in 17-35 an hour I think 2.5 an hour on a 24 hour clock is a reasonable average.
Thats what the 0.89 months is for. I could also have phrased it 22 hours a day 365 days a year, 2 hours for charging and cleaning a day.
Had to turn off the app or Id get some irritated customer because I spent 5 minutes fueling up.
Musk suggested he wants to get it down to 15 minutes a full charge, but from what I've read charging at a supercharger can be ~277 mile for an hour of charging? I imagine by the time the model 3 comes out supercharging will be at its next tier of speed, maybe not 15 minutes but if your going to mass produce a self driving taxi fleet refueling times is a priority in the design I would imagine.
So what would your estimates be? Not just charging but potential revenue from owning a full time self driving tesla.
These studies were done assuming Tesla owned the vehicles. But they are spot on to my estimates.
Studies suggest a driverless Tesla Model 3 fleet could be highly profitable, obtain significant market share
- "Assuming costs of"...I don't see depreciation discussed, but that's definitely part of any model I would build.
- In table 5, why doesn't AvgDailyMilesPerVeh / AvgDailyTripsPerVeh == AvgTripDistance?
- I don't see them estimating 11mo x 24hr yearly billable time in their analysis. Maybe I'm misreading it. I only skimmed.
My numbers were my own simplified version. They also include costs of supercharging infrastructure and such into the model. And this is over 8 months old so things like the price of the model 3 (which they estimated higher) were not available yet. They also suggested that empty car time would be roughly 7% whereas I estimated 50%.
I just realized that the study estimated base cost of 66 cents a mile including paying off the car an chargers so they estimate it's even more profitable than I did.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
I don't have specific numbers to contribute - just an observation. The sorts of return you're seeing @Green Pete might occur when cars first are able to run themselves autonomously. But anything in the world with low risk and returns in that range is going to start a gold rush, and quickly lower that return to something more typically available in the market.
We might also see the prices continue down below a good investment level as people buy cars for personal use and as long as they're getting more back than they're spending on fuel, they'll put them in the network and take what they can get (possibly even to the point that they're earning less after fuel than they spend on annual maintenance).
This latter dynamic is something we see in markets where people aren't good about accounting for all of their costs (they see revenue, not profit). Another example is keeping chickens and trying to sell eggs for more than the food costs that the chickens eat.
I don't know how fast this pricing trend will happen, and clearly it will be limited by how availability of autonomous vehicles, followed by how common / ubiquitous those autonomous vehicles are. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a free car's worth of profit over the first few years of availability, but I don't see this business plan continuing to work 10 years after initial availability (too many M3's on the road by then). So more than 1 year and less than 10 years of pretty good profit is my own guess. Whether it stabilizes at a level that continues to permit reasonable profit or not is totally a guess for me.
We might also see the prices continue down below a good investment level as people buy cars for personal use and as long as they're getting more back than they're spending on fuel, they'll put them in the network and take what they can get (possibly even to the point that they're earning less after fuel than they spend on annual maintenance).
This latter dynamic is something we see in markets where people aren't good about accounting for all of their costs (they see revenue, not profit). Another example is keeping chickens and trying to sell eggs for more than the food costs that the chickens eat.
I don't know how fast this pricing trend will happen, and clearly it will be limited by how availability of autonomous vehicles, followed by how common / ubiquitous those autonomous vehicles are. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a free car's worth of profit over the first few years of availability, but I don't see this business plan continuing to work 10 years after initial availability (too many M3's on the road by then). So more than 1 year and less than 10 years of pretty good profit is my own guess. Whether it stabilizes at a level that continues to permit reasonable profit or not is totally a guess for me.
think that is a entirely fair assessment. I love tesla and have encouraged as many people as I can to preorder model 3s. But I dont expect to ever use mine for personal use. It seems like a waste considering the potential margins, and as you point out, probably not going to last more than ~5years. For example, estimating Teslas production: 500,000 yr1 + 1mil yr2 + 1.5 mil yr3 + 2mil yr4 + 2 mil yr 4 = 7 million self driving taxis worldwide by 2022. Uber has like 300,000 drivers that can only work 40 hr weeks. So effectively tesla network would be 100 times bigger than Uber is today. That would be a pretty saturated supply of self driving cars. Granted with the exception of national boarders they could self organize and make sure the distribution of taxis was equal all over if permitted, so you'd have service in the middle of Kansas potentially. I imagine at that point tesla would be paying you an hourly rate rather than people that actually got in your car, just to maintain market share everywhere they could. But at some point soon after that Im betting cars will be rolling off the factory line either being a tesla owned taxi (because theyd have a ton of money by then) or be a personal vehicle but models produced after x date wouldnt be allowed to drive on TN.
That is less likely with the smaller battery packs of the Model 3.
With current battery technology they are somewhat limited to the rate of charge. Tesla is already VERY aggressive with SuperCharging at 120 kW. With a 90 kwh battery pack, that is already about 1.3 C. Anything over 1.0 C is considered aggressive in terms of the rate of the recharge. Yeah, you can do it, but it isn't good for the battery pack.
With a larger battery pack and more cells to spread the energy over, you can go higher. But with the Model S they are likely going with a smaller battery pack. It certainly won't have a 100 kwh battery pack when it is released. To get the 200 miles of range with the lighter car and to keep cost under control, we will likely see a 60 or 70 kwh battery pack for the Model S. So 120 kW would be almost 2 C.
From my reading on this topic, that is too much. A Model 3 may be able to use SuperCharging, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is governed to max out at about 75% (90 kW) of what the current SuperChargers can deliver.
Tesla Superchargers have had 145kwh capacity for awhile now, (Also, musk sets long term target of 10 minute full charge)
Tesla quietly upgraded its Superchargers for faster charging, now capable of 145 kW
Supercharging wears down battery less than slow charging
Charged EVs | Model S fan builds database of battery degradation data
Similar threads
- Article
