-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Would you put your car on the robotaxi network?
- Thread starter Dan203
- Start date
Spaceosaurus
Member
I also think some people would pay extra for driverless, assuming it was at L4/5. In the early days there's the novelty of it. But even now there's a level of anxiety in unpredictability of the driver. I've had more than a couple Uber drivers text while driving, scream into their phones on a phone call, etc. I also know my female friends worry about taking rideshares by themselves at odd hours because they never know the driver they'll get.
Only if Tesla accepts any and all liability risks Car has an accident Tesla says sorry camera failed car is out of warranty. Passenger sues you. Drug addict drops a laced fentanyl patch in car. Kid gets in car and is injured from exposure to it. You failed to keep your car free of harmful substances. Here come the Lawyers.
Exactly. Which is why I think this new price will only be acceptable to full time hustlers, like the guys who buy cars to rent out on Turo, but not really to average car owners. Elon seems to be pricing the feature based on it's business potential and forgetting that most people won’t actually use it to make money.
The only option I can see for balancing this would be to offer a monthly option that is WAY cheaper with the stipulation that people paying for this version can only use it for personal use and wont be able to add it to the robotaxi network. Or maybe bundling it with their insurance product in some way.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
$10k is the cheap option and already does not allow you to use it as a robotaxi outside of the Tesla Network. It is extremely likely that when using the Tesla Network they will take a cut of revenue. I think you're just way underestimating how much people are wiling to pay for real FSD. (There is also added confusion because they're selling something today which is not guaranteed to be real FSD).
As I've said before I think they should switch to an hourly rate for FSD once it becomes driverless and get rid of the fixed price option. They're going to be liable for flaws in the system at that point and will need to cover the cost.
IF there was a premium service that took care of the robotaxi cars so that you were guaranteed access to a maintained, cleaned and serviced car as and when you needed it for virtually no cost over 3 or 4 years, then fine! I mean if it makes that much money, why wouldn't Tesla offer such a service?
[edit: and that sounds like a prepaid membership of the robotaxi service to secure priority use.]
Oh yeh, may be because if it actually worked, who would NOT share their car? And Tesla would sell fewer cars.
So it's unlikely to work if owners are putting their hard earned cash up to give Joe-public a fancy taxi service. And since Joe ain't putting up any cash, he's got little reason to look after the cars either.
And finance companies are not likely to allow their assets to be used as a taxi either - at not without much higher rates.
So I say NO from all angles. Just look at the state of some Tesla loaners.
[edit: and that sounds like a prepaid membership of the robotaxi service to secure priority use.]
Oh yeh, may be because if it actually worked, who would NOT share their car? And Tesla would sell fewer cars.
So it's unlikely to work if owners are putting their hard earned cash up to give Joe-public a fancy taxi service. And since Joe ain't putting up any cash, he's got little reason to look after the cars either.
And finance companies are not likely to allow their assets to be used as a taxi either - at not without much higher rates.
So I say NO from all angles. Just look at the state of some Tesla loaners.
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Obviously. Elon Musk has said that once FSD is out of beta Tesla will stop selling cars to consumers. Presumably once they saturate the robotaxi market they'll start making cars for consumers again.
To be honest, I don't see myself wanting to travel in a robotaxi (for many of the reasons above) so I'm not convinced EM will be as thrilled by the realities of running a global cab business as he thinks he should be.
I think they might be slowly increasing the price to actually discourage ownership so that when they release the monthly option it'll be more attractive. Long term Tesla will make WAY more money with a subscription model than a big lump sum. There is a reason why almost every large software developer has converted to software as a service rather than selling one off purchases.
Only if FSD actually is FSD. I wonder what the final version will be called? .... AP, then EAP, then FSD.... So they can leave current FSD owners with whatever they happen to manage with current hardware.
The (inevitable?) move / push towards subscription could be a good thing if it actually means that people will paying for something that needs to deliver real value.
Lexdysic
Member
Maybe 7 or 8 years ago, I'd bought a new Toyota Avalon. Adored the car. Loved driving. Thought I'd maybe try driving for Uber and Lyft a bit and make some money off joyriding. Did it for 2 days, and realized no way! Luckily nobody did any permanent damage. But in just those 2 days, I had to say NO to a lady who's daughter had an ice cream cone, had to air the car out after somebody had tremendous BO, and another person walked away with my phone charging cable.
All of that was with ME IN THE CAR! Now, think about what people would do if you weren't there. (I've since learned many full time Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles and don't use their personal vehicles.)
I have FSD, and I'm glad I do. But Robotaxi was never my intention when I bought it. And besides, instead of buying another Tesla for $60k and using it as a "fleet" vehicle, I'd rather take that $60k and invest it in TSLA, and could possibly even earn more than the car would in the Robotaxi network.
All of that was with ME IN THE CAR! Now, think about what people would do if you weren't there. (I've since learned many full time Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles and don't use their personal vehicles.)
I have FSD, and I'm glad I do. But Robotaxi was never my intention when I bought it. And besides, instead of buying another Tesla for $60k and using it as a "fleet" vehicle, I'd rather take that $60k and invest it in TSLA, and could possibly even earn more than the car would in the Robotaxi network.
I noticed something interesting on the slides at battery day. The Model 3 was not labeled as a robotaxi, the new $25K car was. I think maybe Tesla realized that a $50,000 car (once you add tax and FSD) is too much to make a robotaxi profitable.
In fact I'm wondering if next year when the first Model 3 leases start ending if they might change their mind on offering a buyout option.
Also, presumably Tesla did not design M3 (or any of the current models) specifically to be some kind of ideal taxi. Regardless of all the debate about lidar vs radar vs hi-res radar and HWx, technology never stands still. (although it probably moves slowest in safety critical environments like aviation so once there is a working, safe FSD taxi, getting a roi takes priority over new technologies). IMO Robotaxi will need the latest sensors etc that aren't in place yet.
Not sure, unless they want to retrofit older cars with taxi-ready hardware. Maintenance of the fleet won't be so easy. With no driver being aware of if the car hit a pothole or suffered any other issue as well as having OTA reported faults needing attention, taxis will still suffer at least as much and maybe considerably higher maintenance demands. Service will really need to step it up to keep the fleet on the road.
Hopefully there will be a range of taxi services, and maybe there is room for premium, but I would think premium should have a concierge service (driver) in each car, if for no other reason than to look after the car ready for the next client.
'Taxi' as in basic, functional transport, like the London Cab, does not target the same users as 'prestigious, luxury, unique, stylish, high performance, individual' cars. Why would Tesla walk away from a lucrative market and hand that business over to other companies? Much more likely that a purpose built car is designed for taxi use. Extra rugged, different features, very latest FSD system, basic but hard wearing interior. Lowest possible maintenance costs and high durability would be very important.
Last edited:
johnmodely
Member
I think people should be more concerned about liabilities than whether your personal car gets trashed.
Who is responsible if the car crashes? What is it kills someone, what if someone dies inside your car? What if that car crashes because of a maintenance issue, is tesla still liable or you?
So many questions that need answers, and im sure insurance for this would be like 10x what it is now so would be out of reach of most people unless Tesla somehow covers all this, but then they would be taking on massive liability which I doubt they would put all on themselves if something goes wrong.
Who is responsible if the car crashes? What is it kills someone, what if someone dies inside your car? What if that car crashes because of a maintenance issue, is tesla still liable or you?
So many questions that need answers, and im sure insurance for this would be like 10x what it is now so would be out of reach of most people unless Tesla somehow covers all this, but then they would be taking on massive liability which I doubt they would put all on themselves if something goes wrong.
mikes_fsd
Banned
I think that is why Tesla went into the insurance business to begin with.
They always start out partnering with someone, then they go out on their own.
They also know that it will be hard to get ancient insurance co's to agree to insure the first FSD cars, even with the data. Those co's are set in their ways and have a hard time stepping outside of the box.
So, my bet is Tesla will be the first to insure their own FSD functioning cars.
Similar threads
- Article
