Then I’m doubly glad I’ve got my Cybertruck already!Maybe the Robotaxi is the van not the M2. You heard it here first.
A CT in the garage is worth two in the bush.
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.
Then I’m doubly glad I’ve got my Cybertruck already!Maybe the Robotaxi is the van not the M2. You heard it here first.
No, I wouldn’t think so. Even if Tesla wanted to devote all their next gen production to robotaxis in one market, there will be other markets where robotaxis aren’t yet legal. I’d think Tesla would want to sell the next gen vehicles into the latter markets on the assumption that some owners would place them in the Tesla Network when robotaxis became legal in that market.So DID Tesla scrap their cheap model? I get there’s a robotaxi reveal, but isn’t this 2 different things?
There's nothing woke up the physics of what's happening to our planet. The data is there. He needs to go back to "first principles" thinking.
Ummmm, you say prioritize, but the Reuters article literally says "Tesla has canceled the long-promised inexpensive car that investors have been counting on"...Anyway, the story appears correct - Tesla is prioritizing RT.
I don't see these two ideas as competing. We probably need some measure of both austerity and technological innovation.There are two competing visions of a sustainable future.
The first is built on the idea that the only way to survive as a species is to limit growth, cut consumption, and live austerely.
The second is built on the idea that technological innovation can enable both sustainability and growth.
Tesla stands for the second one.
Does anyone know what the situation is with the Tesla and CATL partnership to make batteries in the US? This tweet by Troy is concerning. I know he gets a lot of criticism but he has been the best on the P&D #s and is generally credible I think:
None of those are hard to solve. Not hard at all.To summarize this far, we have these unknowns for RT:
1) door closing (probably an easy solve);
2) automated charging (more difficult);
3) liability and regulatory issues
I’m sure more items are out there, so my suspicion is that whatever we see on 8/8 will be quite a ways off from deployment.
If it’s a 2 seater that is going to limit its use case… ie, going to the airport with family and luggage.
Hacks on Tap podcastI think this is ok to post, even though politics plays a big role in this episode (I promise to not get political). Autoline interviews Mike Murphy, who was previously a GOP operative/pollster, but now is a EV evangelist. He discusses the role politics plays in EVs and provides some recommendations on how to get past the 'red wall.' I found the discussion very enlightening.
I find the polling data pretty interesting although not surprising.
And there is a short segment and polling data on Elon. What strikes me is how aligned the polling data is with Elon's recent behavior. Murphy suggests that Republicans as a group are not favorable towards EVs (we already know this), but the way to make inroads is to (1) have them try EVs (as we know, butts in seats...), and (2) don't focus on climate as a reason to drive EVs. One could argue that Elon's recent perceived shift to the right politically as well as him downplaying climate change are both beneficial to selling Teslas to Republicans en masse. Add the Cybertruck, which also might make a dent into the pickup crowd (dominated by Republicans).
Again, I'm not suggesting he's right or wrong. Just fascinating to me. I would not be surprised in the least to learn in the future that this is one big 4D chess move by Elon.
Good watch.
Sounds like a classic straw man argument to me.Yes.
But, Elon was commenting not on the concept of environmentalism, but, on the "movement" which is more and more based upon virtue signaling, petty influence, power, and plenty of things along those lines that actually get in the way of saving the planet.
The people he is talking about are completely unfamiliar with first principles thinking. Possibly even unfamiliar with basic principles.
Elon, on the other hand, will work toward a goal taking into account that it might take years, or even decades to accomplish. He will have in the equation that fossil fuel will be part of the transition and demonizing it could lead to catastrophe if it were outlawed today.
Things like that are what need to happen, and many of those most vocal in the "movement" are more about ego and instant gratification than they are about working the bigger picture.
Sounds like a classic straw man argument to me.
I question whether that is happening in any significant way.Well, I suppose that could be what Elon is referring to.
People carrying the "environment" flag and twisting the movement to achieve their own ends, which delays the achievement of the goal.
An interesting study based on ballpark guesstimations. This is sincere appreciation for the effort, not a dig.
As there have been numbers published by Tesla for accident frequency across the spectrum from Human-only through to FSD-Beta, it wouldn't be all that difficult to work through the same scenario based on those known factors. We'll likely see new data on FSD-SuperV accident rates later this year or early next.
The software for Tesla cars using Autopilot, Advanced Autopilot, and while using FSD offers data that could paint a picture which might provide greater accuracy for calculating an outcome for Robotaxi, adding in some fudge-factor for there being no potential for human intervention.
Likewise, there may be similar data found with a careful search that offers more accurate cost info.
It would be nice to see this study further refined.
Thanks for the useful thought experiment.
3 things:
(1) Autopilot (not FSD) with human supervision had nearly a 10x lower rate [1 accident every 3-4 million miles depending on the Q] of accident than a human alone [1 accident every just over 400k miles if memory serves], for the last 5 years running.
(2) Disengagement does not equal accident
(3) The average annual revenue generated by each robotaxi exceeds $100k according to many models, so 10k robotaxis will generate $1B+ in revenue. Your presumption is that 100k robotaxis earn $1B a year, you are off by a factor of 10.
If you run the numbers again, you will find the "breakeven" is in the single digit thousands of miles. This is precisely why once we get over 1000 miles without critical disengagements, we are getting very close. My suspicion is that the alpha testers who are months ahead of us have seen evidence that 12.x.x has proven capable of this, and so they are ready to go all in on Robotaxi. My suspicion is also that they have models much like the one you have shared, and those models reveal that they can handle the costs associated with the claims.
Hi, Zaddy Daddy --
Interesting work! I recognize this is all very back of the envelope, but had a couple of quick questions:
1: Operating costs of $0.2 per mile.
I assume "operating costs" doesn't include "capital costs"? If so, shouldn't that be at least $0.1/mile? ($50k car driven for 500k miles, for instance.)
2: I think the RT runs into real political problems is the accident rate > human, and even if it's > non-impaired human. My research here is limited to a single Google search, which pops up with this quote:
" For every 1000 miles you drive, your chances of getting into a car accident are 1 in 366. "
. which suggests 366k miles/accident, which sounds vaguely plausible, say one every ten years or so.
Basically, I think you need to assume accident levels are so low that they don't really impact your financial modelling.
Yours,
RP
I think you cost estimates for accidents are way low. A minor curbing on my S cost me and the insurance company over $3,500. Here in Florida the lawyers are having a field day with injuries often costing close to a million dollars. Then we have hurricanes running rates even higher. The trail lawyers are probably drooling at the thought of robotaxi.
Also, I saw someone posting operating costs at .02 per mile. The best I’ve seen for efficiency is 4 miles per Kw .
There aren’t many places with electricity at .08 per Kw. How about other expenses?
I don't know about your state, but California is particularly litigious....
View attachment 1036183
$5K seems low.....
Tesla would never launch a service that had an accident every 10,000 miles. That’s way worse than the average driver.
I question whether that is happening in any significant way.
I used to be very active in the environmental movement. I didn't see much selfishness. It was mostly quite the opposite. And I never met anyone who held human extinctionist views.
I get the impression that human extincionists are extremely rare, which is what you would expect with such a radical viewpoint.
Thanks for the info. I hope they can find enough batteries for the 'model 2' from somewhere to keep the timeline intact for volume production in 2026 (or 2027.) I feel that Tesla will profit from the 25k car sooner than from robotaxis. I hope the plan is to make both simultaneously.Tesla was going to build a plant with CATL but it wouldn’t have received the battery subsidy so instead it’s bought “spare” equipment from CATL to make the batteries.
The number produced will not be enough for a model 2.
I have not heard any other news about tesla building or acquiring battery’s from companies which will meet the subsidy criteria quickly.
So for this reason I suspect the robotaxi/ model 2 is many years away from mass production.
Tesla to Open US Battery Plant With Equipment From China’s CATL
Tesla Inc. will expand battery production in Nevada, opening a small facility using idle equipment from China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd., according to people familiar with the matter.www.bloomberg.com