This might be true and I guess we will probably know more on 8/8. But even if the robotaxi vehicle is easily converted to a consumer vehicle, I don't think Elon will tell us. Both internally and externally, Elon will want everyone focused on autonomy.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
This might be true and I guess we will probably know more on 8/8. But even if the robotaxi vehicle is easily converted to a consumer vehicle, I don't think Elon will tell us. Both internally and externally, Elon will want everyone focused on autonomy.
Where I live, family often have 2 cars, even if only one of the parents works. The "second" car is used for groceries, errands, etc. If everything goes well, a true robotaxi service could replace this second car.
I'm in a town without a taxi service, and if with few euros I could just book a ride and go to the nearest supermarket, I could easily think about getting rid of the car. I mean, the savings would be *incredible*.
People buy multiple cars out of habit and necessity but if a slightly more inconvenient but massively cheaper alternative could happen, I see a world of opportunity. Money is king. You are talking hundreds of dollars a year VS thousands. A couple robotaxis in my town could actually suffice for 90% of demand.
All of this of course if the software is good enough and the service is cheap enough.
I'm in a town without a taxi service, and if with few euros I could just book a ride and go to the nearest supermarket, I could easily think about getting rid of the car. I mean, the savings would be *incredible*.
People buy multiple cars out of habit and necessity but if a slightly more inconvenient but massively cheaper alternative could happen, I see a world of opportunity. Money is king. You are talking hundreds of dollars a year VS thousands. A couple robotaxis in my town could actually suffice for 90% of demand.
All of this of course if the software is good enough and the service is cheap enough.
Yep. I don't see any middle ground at all.
What is the "napkin sketch" USD 4000 scenario, if you have one?
JupiterMan
Active Member
Whilst I think I get the point you're driving at, to fully be on board with this point of view you would have to believe, pretty much, that outside of rush hours there is no traffic on the streets.
This is fundamentally not the case, sure roads are busier in rush hours, but there is still plenty of traffic throughout the day. Of course not everyone works in an office 9am-5pm. Some travel for their work, see clients, have meetings etc, so there will be demand through the day, just less, and much of that demand will likely be quite centralized in city centers, rather than commuting in/out of the city.
Optimization of the RT network will be needed to make sure the cars are in the right places, and there will likely be peak/off peak pricing to help promote a wider spread of usage through the day, particularly where there is surplus vehicle supply.
Clever algorithms will likely dictate how many RT's are needed to be kept near city centers off peak, and when other RT's which are surplus to forecast demand will need to park (and where), so some parking will likely be needed in centers and some out of town.
However, if you factor that a single RoboTaxi has say 20 peak trips a day(?), that would otherwise have been done by an owners vehicle rather than taxi or public transport, then that is still a ratio of 20:1 on less car parking spaces needed, or 10:1 if you factor in returns trips home at end of the day.
This ratio could be thrown on its head however with people moving from public transport to RT, which I think would be inevitable over time from a convenience, price and safety point of view.
I guess that is why The Boring Company exists - demand for such tunnels could accelerate exponentially.
$4000 isn't a real number based on analysis. Neither is $40. I was just throwing out a contrast there to make a point.
I do think Tesla is easily 100x more valuable if robotaxi plays out the way Elon intends. It's a transformative technology that others are unlikely to match.
I think most of us have seen others' analysis of Tesla's possible robotaxi profits. Even the conservative estimates are crazy high.
Speaking of simple math, have you figured out yet that Tesla's gross profits have actually decreased?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Probably for the same reason certain people keep using the name Model 2 despite Elon himself explicitly saying they wouldn't be making a car with that name.
They seemed pretty clear on the last earnings call that all the low-hanging fruit to reduce costs on existing models had been picked? That any future cost reduction would be, while non-zero, relatively quite small
TBF those same analysts heard it'd be in service for sure by end of 2020, and...not so much.
FWIW I agree many folks are overestimating RTs addressable market- especially in the US..... I think they'll replace existing rideshares/ubers on a cost basis VERY quickly (once operational).... and they'll probably replace 2nd/3rd household cars moderately quickly... in that not everyone will rush out to dump theirs for RT, but will probably choose not to replace them as they reach end of life.
I don't think they replace primary cars for most people basically ever... certainly not for at least a generation or more... and I think the sheer # you'd need to cover rush-hours (AND have them positioned properly for that, both ways) would leave you with an inefficient number NOT doing rides the rest of the day.... on top of that- where are all those RTs parked for the morning rush hour? Today those are vehicles parked in garages and driveways for the most part- but assuming it's not all privately owned RTs (in which case you're NOT replacing private ownership) those RTs now need to all be massed on the streets someplace ready for morning workers....Likewise the ones who used to be in parking lots now need to stage SOMEWHERE for the return home drive.
That's not even getting into the massive increase in superchargers you'd need to support an RT fleet replacing even half the vehicles in the US today- and that they'd need to all be inductive (plus having some method to clean them out regularly-- Optimus maybe?)
One thing I often point to is NYC-- where despite being the best case scenario for owning a car is dumb (parking is super expensive, mass transit is by US standards excellent, most neighborhoods have a lot of local stuff walkable, traffic is awful) nearly half the households STILL choose to own cars.
This is why (IF it turns out true) that a consumer next-gen is being postponed in favor of an RT-only model I think it's a significant mistake--- apart from the risk of FSD getting to L4 taking longer than expected (as it already has, by many years) I think there'd still be a market for many millions of inexpensive personally-owned cars that the next-gen vehicle could be selling to and if it doesn't exist people will keep buying from someone else instead- and likely inferior cars, and likely in whole or in part burning gasoline... which seems counter-mission to me.
Last edited:
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
USA folk will take longer to move across than other countries because most of us can walk to the shops etc.
There are many USA families with 4 cars. This will soon drop to 2 or even 1. The final vehicle won't go until there are 5 unused RTs round the clock within a mile or two. One reason why I believe in this below as those rarely used RTs will still have purpose:
V2G in a robotaxi world
Extreme optimism: TaaS. This is the 20 million per year version of Robotaxi and what Elon sees as the future where people give up the need to own a car.
Extreme pessimism: Tesla will never reach L4/5 and Robotaxi will fail.
The middle and likely closer to reality: Tesla will create a RT that will be able to do all of the things that Waymo can do at a fraction of the cost, but we aren't anyway near a world where people give up car ownership. RT will compete with Uber and Lyft the same way that Waymo, Zoox, or Gravity does in NYC. There's still a long road to make RT something that blast Tesla to "100x more valuable". Not only do they need to build the vehicles, but they need to establish the infrastructure and customer base. It will take a long time to replace all cabs/human drivers in NYC, much less North America and there will always be people who prefer a person driving. Until there's an initiate that forces all taxis to be automated, which absolutely could happen in places like LA or NYC (not everywhere in the US) there's going to be a ton of competition.
The next big challenge is obviously getting FSD/RT approved to even operate in places like the EU.
I guess my point is that; Yes, Tesla will make a RT that will be automated. People not owning personal cars on a mass scale isn't realistic in the near future (10 years), but even with a RT there's still a long road to win market share and even more road to take over the market. The RT take off will likely be on the same S Curve as the EV revolution in the US.
I think that's why so many huge Tesla fans are nervous about "going all-in on RTs", because that's a longer path to success and to the mission than a $25k car would be. IMO, if Tesla could produce 1,000 RT per day today at L5 with all the issues/questions sorted out with charging, it would still take a few years to really become a dominant player. Very similar to the EV adoption curve.
I'm not sure that vehicle ownership will decrease on average once RT is a reality. I think people will have dedicated personal vehicles for themselves and a fleet of vehicles to work on the RT network so long as it remains a profitable endeavor.
This sort of concept is 10+ years away. I think it's fine to look to that future, but it's not imminent and there will be pushback from the market, especially in the US.
I hope you mean "targeted marketing..." since that includes the entire range of potentially cost effective and precise solicitation of actual qualified purchasers/lessors and their primary influencers. They do NOT need generic non-precise publicity-style advertising.
'overall customer service needs' includes;
1. the entire delivery process which has steadily deteriorated since 2019,
2. inquiry management (present store buyer attention is abysmal in many places,
3. vehicle preparation and presentation (distinct from delivery).
4. Response to queries or even contact. Essential minimal response to shareholder queries, customer queries.
5. All of (4) applies times multiples for TE. I have never had even a minimal response to Tesla Energy inquiries, including two for large commercial projects (both went to other major Energy project vendors).
I do not question the wisdom of a staff realignment and reduction. I do not have enough information to judge that one accurately.
I do question the steady deterioration in basic prospect and customer management. That is partly not enough staff in some areas, but primarily lack of training and orientation by staff coupled with attention to cash flow (which as everyone knows, I applaud) that extends to making cash buyers wait for months for Tesla to process cash payments due to customers, then sending by snail mail physical checks. That is an example of single-minded denial while ignoring cash customer and shareholder needs., so;
6. Now Tesla pays attention to some social media influencer shareholders but, regardless of shareholding level completely ignores shareholder services. That would be a very simple, very lucrative way to gain incremental sales too, because;
7. Recognize that in automotive and energy alike the best customers are almost likely incremental purchases from existing ones. Tesla now gives a trivialized 'referral program' that encourages the less affluent and ignores the most lucrative repeat buyer category.
This is a brief list that they should have been being doing for some time. Tesla once had quite superb direct marketing prowess, almost invisible outside qualified prospects. Now they seem to have forgotten all they knew.
For the record, I rate this post with 'dislike' because it makes me unhappy to see these things.
These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
JusRelax
Active Member
For those assuming that FSD would never work in population dense areas, this was pretty impressive to me although probably still not aggressive enough. Granted, it's not India or Vietnam, but it still does a good job of sohwing that FSD can actually make progress in population dense areas:
A $4,000 stock price - without further dilution - implies a $14tn market cap.
Because some time has passed since the action, I should report that I am now no longer a TSLA shareholder. That action is generating some major capital gains, so no fiscal pain, other than taxes. I hope very much that this will prove to have been a mistake.
I plan to continue to post here, if my action has not made me ineligible for commentary.
My last previous posts pretty much explain why I took the action some time ago.
I plan to continue to post here, if my action has not made me ineligible for commentary.
My last previous posts pretty much explain why I took the action some time ago.
Last edited:
Firing 14k+ employees and two days later asking for a $47 billion comp package certainly is a choice.
It's about $3.3m per fired employee, if the number is exactly 14,000.
As an intermediate step to robotaxi, isn't there a world where driver assist technology with a certaion level of functionality gets mandated as required safety functionality for every car the same way seatbelts and airtbags are?
In that case, if the technical requirements of the system are high enough, could we imagine Tesla sells its system to other automakers, ala providing the Supercharger network, because some of them they choose to not make the investment to reach that level and simply license with Tesla? If it's simply autobraking, then most car companies will have it - but if it's something definitively more, perhaps drive the occupant to medical facility if an unconscious drive is detected (making that up), then maybe the path some manufacturers take will be licensing through Tesla.
In that case, if the technical requirements of the system are high enough, could we imagine Tesla sells its system to other automakers, ala providing the Supercharger network, because some of them they choose to not make the investment to reach that level and simply license with Tesla? If it's simply autobraking, then most car companies will have it - but if it's something definitively more, perhaps drive the occupant to medical facility if an unconscious drive is detected (making that up), then maybe the path some manufacturers take will be licensing through Tesla.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
