bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
The Waymoites in the Waymo thread had a fit when I pointed out similar poor experiences in SF.
-
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
The Waymoites in the Waymo thread had a fit when I pointed out similar poor experiences in SF.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
FUD is exemplified by consistently writing about perceived problems without considering all the facts and never offering any reasonable solution, alternative point of view, nor bringing to the table anything but bad news chock full of fear, uncertainty, and doubt on your part.
That might be the sort of thing considered as being intellectually lazy.
It has always seemed to me that people who focus on the negative are rewarded in their search. Mostly because they are unable to see anything else. If you set the filters for your reality to only let disappointment through, don't be surprised when you find it.
Last edited:
Ok how do you pick that number out of ...well where ever you picked it. "in a fully mature system robotaxi are 10-60% fo the global fleet". I mean...how can you type something about the future and make any such assertion about something that has never been done. Besides which that number is just meaningless. Might as well say it is 1-99% somewhere in that bounded area.
Waymo is contracting with Greely. I million cars would be 50 billion or so. About 8 months of Google profits. How long does it take greely to deliver ...I would guess 4-6 years. Just a hairy guess but they are building a custom robotaxi sans driver platform.
A very good post from an investment POV.
I personally think that Tesla makes money on FSD for chauffeur type experiences for car owners but never really gets into the robotaxi space as it will be crowded in all the profitable spaces.
Show me a profitable robotaxi company and then we can discuss FSD competitors. Elon has made this very simple and his prediction on robotaxi is spot on.
1. The car must be cheap and of abundance using the cheapest hardware.
2. The operating expense needs to be close to nothing, probably best to have the people carry most of the operating expense while Tesla makes money from the app by taking a percentage off the top.
3. The car must work everywhere, which means it will be able to take the most optimal route competitive to public transportation, self driving, or ride hailing. Every minute longer the occupant is in the car compared to regular driving = lost opportunity cost and kills demand.
Missing any of the key component above and Robotaxi is DOA as a service and DOA as a business. I know people are sick and tired to Elon promising FSD but honestly there are zero competitors out there with all or any of the above. This is why user experience is terrible, being stuck in a car 2-3x longer than it needs to be, why all of them are losing billions a year, and why Elon is 100% sure all will license, steal, or switch to Tesla FSD once it's solved as there's no other path to profitability. Wishing Elon start ride hailing today with geo fencing just to prove they also have some kind of L4 is foolish and I rather not see (-) cash flow on their earnings call.
Bu is it more "cab forward"?
The drivers sear is roughly the same distance to the front bumper in both the F150 and CT. Tesla has the frunk and HVAC, air suspension, etc behind a massive dash while the F150 has a much smaller dash but longer hood.
The different design should yield much better aero, but front all pictures and measurements the sight lines and driver positions will be similar if not the same.
There are some comparison pictures in the CT forum.
Nope. I refused to sign the NDA, which later was dropped, but too late for them anyway.
Saw several Youtubes sitting there waiting for help. I drive near them everyday. Applied as a driver, rejected because I was too aware of Tesla FSD. True Story.
This has the appearance of growth, but I see it as doubling down with high risk, and will require tons more cash.
Edit: Again, more bullish yet.
Last edited:
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
Cruise and Waymo both made this decision because Uber has finally shown profitability:Cruise and Waymo are expanding real robo-taxi services.
Self-Driving Taxis Took Over San Francisco. Guess Where They’re Going Now?
After pilot programs in a few cities, autonomous vehicles are about to expand in a big way.slate.com
This is problematic for TSLA investors, as margins have been compressed, many of this forum have changed their tune to focusing more on FSD as the main driver of future earnings growth.
Yes Waymo and Cruise rely on Lidar and HD maps (big nothingburgers) and bigger computers that cost more $$$, but they are beginning to capture the hearts and minds of people who experience this new technology. Unlike sexy EVs, Tesla is not at the forefront and will not be the brand associated with the tech.
Meanwhile Tesla is nowhere close to starting robotaxi services. Even if the software improves 10x, it won't be good enough for robotaxi. It likely needs to get 100x better, so that's going to take a few years. And then on top of that, its going to take time to actually ramp robotaxi services (and work out the kinks) even after the software is a safe driver.
So Cruise and Waymo are going to have another 2-3 years of easy expansion (much like Tesla did in EVs for a decade).
While Tesla may overcome this at some point, I don't see how this could be good for valuation in the next few years. How will investors gain confidence Tesla can actually secure much of this market when they see competitors way out ahead earning robotaxi revenue and growing services rapidly?
Uber is now a profitable, cash-generating machine | TechCrunch
It is Cruise and Waymo that are falling behind.
They have less than 1% marketshare of taxi rides in the city they are in but yea it's a good idea to expand.
Cruise made 2,783 rides in a quarter in San Francisco. Total ride hailing rides per DAY is 170k in the bay area. This doesn't even include taxi, just ride hailing.
TNCs Today (2017)
This report provides the first comprehensive estimates of Uber and Lyft activity in the city.
Last edited:
GhostSkater
Member
Cruise is leading guys, it's perfect, never makes mistakes on the places it operate
Mary led
Mary led
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
I'm not sure what your point is. No one has demonstrated how to make robotaxis profitable. At least Uber can make their ride share operation profitable, even if it did require assuming billions in debt and take an endless amount of time. Is the expense related to the driver the main reason for this? Time will tell.
Without profitability, the robotaxi concept is right there in the tech dustbin along with 3D television.
The point is there's no demand for robotaxies but they keep expanding cities..which was a sarcastic remark to the person I was replying to, agreeing that these companies are just appearing to expand but are actually just bleeding cash.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
I provided a broad range of numbers due to the uncertainty.
I ruled out 100% or close to 100%, because I think a declining minority will prefer to own their own cars.
In developed countries many 2-3 car households will go down to 1-2 cars, those that don't have a drivers licence and have never owned a car will simply not bother with car ownership, avoiding the expenditure of a lot of time and money.
In developing countries a Robotaxi model makes shared ownership of a car possible, and people that don't have a license, don't have a garage/parking space and can't afford a car, can use a Robotaxi.
Estimates are each Robotaxi can take 5-10 private owned cars off the road, in developed countries this will often being older less reliable cars that young people would typically buy as their first car, In developing countries it may tend to counteract that trend by expanding the global fleet size as more people who previously didn't have convenient transport, now have it.
For the Waymo model I am unsure about how it scales, by that I mean all aspects of it scaling, mapping, vehicle parts, finished vehicles, finance, return on investment. I do accept that Tesla and Waymo are aiming for the same end destination. But I have always thought that fleet size determines the perceived quality of the service more than any other metric, because customer wants a car to turn up instantly where ever they happen it be in a city, state or country.
To replace private cars, a Robotaxi fleet has to approach the convivence of private car ownership, to the point where to most people private car ownership doesn't have any significant additional advantages.
Since a large fleet is important, it follows that the cost of building the fleet is important and good customer service requires lower average asset utilisation.
IMO for Tesla FSD is 95%+ of the Robotaxi solution, the remaining parts are not overly hard and can be done relatively quickly. Waymo needs to develop Robotaxi via a different (more expensive) route. I doubt that being first to market will generate significant customer loyalty. When trying a different service is as easy as downloading a smart phone app. most customers will try all alternatives, and price will be a consideration.
I'm not convinced that Waymo with a higher fleet cost, and/or a smaller fleet, can out complete Tesla on a $ per mile basis and still be profitable. Surely Google isn't intending to burn $50 Billion just because they can?
Last edited:
People always say Teslas are safe.
I was driving on I-280 today and saw the Cybertruck for the first time. And it was that "camoflauged" one.
I couldn't believe my eyes. I nearly steered right off the road.
Clearly Teslas are a danger to us all.
I was driving on I-280 today and saw the Cybertruck for the first time. And it was that "camoflauged" one.
I couldn't believe my eyes. I nearly steered right off the road.
Clearly Teslas are a danger to us all.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Threads of the day:
Off topic galore Fight club update
Tesla Insurance Forgotten business that will be big
Tesla Litigation Department Elon showing his X teeth
EV and Battery Credits Used car credit for M3
Off topic galore Fight club update
Tesla Insurance Forgotten business that will be big
Tesla Litigation Department Elon showing his X teeth
EV and Battery Credits Used car credit for M3
cliff harris
Member
...and yet, the supercharger network does actually generate a profit.
How about waymo and cruise? whats the profit margin for them? I love how you use the term 'not a big profit generator' for something that actually exists, but hand-wave away the ludicrously loss-making cash-burning mess that is waymo and cruise because.... reasons.
- If waymo actually had the same number of driverless miles as Tesla I'd be worried (they are below 0.1% as I recall?)
- If waymo currently made a profit I'd be worried
- If waymo actually made their own cars and didn't have to pay a profit-margin to a 3rd party I'd be worried.
I am so not worried. I'm very bearish on FSD. I think robotaxi is many years away. I have zero doubt Tesla get their first. HD maps are out of date the nanosecond they are recorded, and LIDAR sucks in bad weather. There is NO answer to these criticisms of the ridiculous waymo model. They are doomed by design and will never get free of their local maxima.
So @Green did tie HW4 (which is the version of the FSD Computer) to the configuration of the infotainment system in that particular implementation in the Model Y in his post.
I do think that's confusing, however. While there are undoubtedly some dependencies (the infotainment system needs at least XX RAM and YY GPU in order to display FSD visualizations, for example), I don't believe there's any specific reason the FSD system would dictate infotainment capability above those minimums.
Thus, I don't think "HW4 infotainment" is really a thing. It's quite possible another implementation (the CT for instance) may have HW4 and an infotainment system with greater specs.
Agreed about the waymo model being doomed. Not so sure about FSD L-5 being years away (means 5-10 years). Just drove to NE on .4. Significant improvement. Only one takeover on a one lane both ways construction zone (out of the six times--3 zones times 2 ways). This was the first time that the car made it on the turn through Oklahoma City without a takeover. I'm even finding that I'm using it most of the time on surface streets around DFW--works great in almost all cases if you don't use the Nav system--urban only, trip always use Nav. Still urban surface, there is still a significant problem with map-vs-vision (weird lane changes, often turns one corner too soon, doesn't stay a fixed distance from the centre line, takes too many minor streets compared to more trafficked streets, wants to do the speed limit rather than a safe speed on those minor streets. Minor means residential with cars parked on both sides leaving only one lane for both directions).
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
