You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
True. Let’s hope future customers weren’t buying teslas just because of the charging. Because that’s what there yakin about in the various groups. Time will tell.
I’m as bad as the rest. We are interested in a Rivian. Tesla has been good too us but a smaller truck or SUV is intriguing for us. It’s a lot more intriguing now that it can charge at a supercharger.
True. Let’s hope future customers weren’t buying teslas just because of the charging. Because that’s what there yakin about in the various groups. Time will tell.
I’m as bad as the rest. We are interested in a Rivian. Tesla has been good too us but a smaller truck or SUV is intriguing for us. It’s a lot more intriguing now that it can charge at a supercharger.
Jokes on them, Tesla charges 13/month plus electricity for them to charge. They will end up making more profits per Rivian and MachE over the course of 10 years than they ever hope to make per car sold (that's if they ever get to a positive gross margin..yikes). In fact Tesla already made more money on Rivian than Rivian themselves (as well as most children lemonade stands in my neighborhood).
I suspect that over time, comparing your EV to a Tesla, and the charging experience specifically, will overall help sales.
But, as the other posts mention, if it helps the mission, then it's net gain... and the greater adoption/acceptance of EV's will also be good for Tesla... a rising tide raises all boats...
Jokes on them, Tesla charges 13/month plus electricity for them to charge. They will end up making more profits per Rivian and MachE over the course of 10 years than they ever hope to make per car sold (that's if they ever get to a positive gross margin..yikes). In fact Tesla already made more money on Rivian than Rivian themselves (as well as most children lemonade stands in my neighborhood).
I suspect that over time, comparing your EV to a Tesla, and the charging experience specifically, will overall help sales.
But, as the other posts mention, if it helps the mission, then it's net gain... and the greater adoption/acceptance of EV's will also be good for Tesla... a rising tide raises all boats...
Each state has its own set of regulations. It takes time to work through them. My understanding is that new insurance companies never make money at the start.
True. Let’s hope future customers weren’t buying teslas just because of the charging. Because that’s what there yakin about in the various groups. Time will tell.
I’m as bad as the rest. We are interested in a Rivian. Tesla has been good too us but a smaller truck or SUV is intriguing for us. It’s a lot more intriguing now that it can charge at a supercharger.
The charging situation in North America absolutely needed to get sorted to a standard.
Tesla and Elon were smart in using their strength to get things to go their way. Much better than the risk 5-6 years out the government deciding CCS was the standard.
A.) It’s yet to be determined if Rivian is going to be staying in business
B.) It’s yet to be determined the outcome of Ford’s EV division with its terrible financials and poor sales
C.) The people making the comments had no intention of buying a Tesla, if and until they were forced to - some charging obstacles hadn’t gotten them to buy a Tesla in the first place
D.) You’re concerned about something you have no way of predicting, that you have no control over, and you’re falling into the age old human habit of - I can imagine the most horrible outcome to this situation despite the fact that historically it never turns out half as bad as my imagination can conjure
A.) It’s yet to be determined if Rivian is going to be staying in business
B.) It’s yet to be determined the outcome of Ford’s EV division with its terrible financials and poor sales
C.) The people making the comments had no intention of buying a Tesla, if and until they were forced to - some charging obstacles hadn’t gotten them to buy a Tesla in the first place
D.) You’re concerned about something you have no way of predicting, that you have no control over, and you’re falling into the age old human habit of - I can imagine the most horrible outcome to this situation despite the fact that historically it never turns out half as bad as my imagination can conjure
You make it sound complicated for Tesla to achieve because Waymo has to work with lawyers and the city to navigate road markings? These are automatic with Tesla, no need to coordinate road markings. They're digging up our streets now and V12 is doing very well so far, as is. And quickly too.
I've been sour on Waymo for hiding things from public view since the very start. I signed up but then declined the offer when I learned that I had to sign their NDA. That left a really bad culture after-taste; I did not sign it. Then the LIDAR thing... I've owned two precision 3D scanners and modeled plenty of 3D. I can say from experience that if they coated the town in baby powder it would absolutely improve the scans, thanks but no thanks.
And how many times were they rated highest on a scale of 1-10 that didn't include Tesla, ever. They took the quick path to something operational ASAP, threw costs and efficiencies out the window (ICE)... I mean, is the business model profitable yet? Then expanding to other cities - why? Because Cruise did? Are they trying to sell the company again?
IMO, it's worthless starting tomorrow morning. Discounted experimental van sale, coming soon.
No was talking about multiple separate things, apologies if it read that I was linking legal & regulatory directly to potential infrastructure adjustments like road markings. Adjusting infrastructure is just one of many things to be considered.
Some of the things in regards to legal & regulatory I am interested in (regardless of which driverless service encounters them first):
- liability issues for accidents etc, any stand down & review period, and who does the safety review?
- municipality requirements to be made for human intervention for interrupted robotaxis whether its from a software or physical hardware break. (minimum amount of humans on standby, minimum response times & distance etc).
- Weather restrictions or minimum technical capability in weather (does a territory restrict usage in bad weather if service failure rates are higher, or is it the opposite and a territory requires a service to be able to operate in bad weather before granting permission to operate given that the service will likely eliminate competing human driven services).
- how accommodating are authorities in what and how many driverless vehicles they actually let operate in their territory. When the main cost of operating a service disappears (drivers), then it will be tempting to flood the streets with as many cars as possible for companies with plenty of capital to spend, and more than one company will presumably want to operate on the same territory
- how many services will be allowed to operate in one territory? Many cities limit the e-bike/e-scooter services, will they do the same with robotaxi fleets to avoid crowding of roads?
- will their be a financial requirement to be paid to a city to be able to operate? A high annual fee or revenue share?
- will their be limits on where 10000s of robotaxis can park/wait for service in a city? Will they be allowed to simply roam the streets until a ride is requested?
- will they be allowed to operate as automated cargo/food delivery services?
There are a whole bunch of unique new things that Robotaxis bring up that cities haven’t had to contemplate before, the impacts will be an order of magnitude greater than what happened with Uber.
Don’t read it. Remove yourself from the situation that causes aggravation. Most of it is just ‘talk’ to see themselves in print and they just egg each other on.
No was talking about multiple separate things, apologies if it read that I was linking legal & regulatory directly to potential infrastructure adjustments like road markings. Adjusting infrastructure is just one of many things to be considered.
Some of the things in regards to legal & regulatory I am interested in (regardless of which driverless service encounters them first):
- liability issues for accidents etc, any stand down & review period, and who does the safety review?
- municipality requirements to be made for human intervention for interrupted robotaxis whether its from a software or physical hardware break. (minimum amount of humans on standby, minimum response times & distance etc).
- Weather restrictions or minimum technical capability in weather (does a territory restrict usage in bad weather if service failure rates are higher, or is it the opposite and a territory requires a service to be able to operate in bad weather before granting permission to operate given that the service will likely eliminate competing human driven services).
- how accommodating are authorities in what and how many driverless vehicles they actually let operate in their territory. When the main cost of operating a service disappears (drivers), then it will be tempting to flood the streets with as many cars as possible for companies with plenty of capital to spend, and more than one company will presumably want to operate on the same territory
- how many services will be allowed to operate in one territory? Many cities limit the e-bike/e-scooter services, will they do the same with robotaxi fleets to avoid crowding of roads?
- will their be a financial requirement to be paid to a city to be able to operate? A high annual fee or revenue share?
- will their be limits on where 10000s of robotaxis can park/wait for service in a city? Will they be allowed to simply roam the streets until a ride is requested?
- will they be allowed to operate as automated cargo/food delivery services?
There are a whole bunch of unique new things that Robotaxis bring up that cities haven’t had to contemplate before, the impacts will be an order of magnitude greater than what happened with Uber.
Cool. I would venture to guess that Tesla already has many of those plans either prepared, in process, or complete. Can't really know, but it does look complicated. That's a deep dive laid out there, good questions.
Depreciation issue: They probably bought all the cars at whatever price it was at the time of agreement and did not purchase any future vehicles when they got discounted
Repair costs: Not related to the actual warranty but rather maybe accidents, etc that the daily insurance they offered was too little and did not cover the repairs fully.
This was all a cluster f&*k that Hertz rolled out from the beginning, not enough training, education for staff, which in turn got passed to the consumer, which in turn lowered demand for their EV rentals.
When fsd proves 10 safer than a human, car insurance cost will likely come down.
The car injury lawyers may feel the effect, and that may further reduce car insurance premiums.
Stay positive, something good always happens.
Ugh. All the FB ford and Rivian groups are bubbling today about their ability to charge at superchargers now. And how they’ll never have to even think about buying a tesla again. Ugh. Hope this doesn’t come back to snap tesla in the Assets.
fortune.com
