Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#71

Post by thombat »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #67
thombat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> travel 40-50m quickly for about the energy cost of a cup of coffee By "energy cost" do you mean something like "the price of a cup of coffee spent on electricity"? That seems surprisingly efficient but maybe here (Europe) the coffee is cheaper and the electricity dearer - what's the figure in kWh?

Around 20-40 kwh or so for a single journey assuming a maximum capacity of 100-150kwh and assuming it would be rare to use more than 20-30% of it on a single journey or fly the maximum range. At 5-10 cents per kwh (i.e. 20-40kwh/$) we're not even talking some fancy barista doing their thing. Grid prices can be higher of course but I'm assuming a bulk consumer of energy would invest in turning this in a fixed cost by…

So around 0.4 kWh/passenger-km? - seems it compares pretty favourably to long-haul aviation (e.g. wiuth very crude maths 600 people on A380 at max range/fuel works out as 0.36). Naively I had been assuming that the battery mass and small scale would be more punishing than that.

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#73

Post by jotm »

nomel wrote: post #52
squeakynick wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of these designs are simply scaled up drones which, according to simple physics and engineering, is the wrong direction. Details: http://datagenetics.com/blog/february62019/index.html How can organisations this large get it so wrong? When is someone going to tell them that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes?

I think multi-rotor is a great safety feature, especially if they're partitioned into separate power systems. It would almost require intention to design something like the Volocopter without the ability to soft land in the case of an emergency. The link you provided mentions this in an odd way: > With a single engine helicopter you don’t have this redundancy. However, on engine failure, the single massive disk of th…

> pulling levers, at the right moment, as they speed towards the ground

I think this could be automated?

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#74

Post by ianai »

darkteflon wrote: post #53
ianai wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh the Prius Prime and (later this year) RAV4 prime exist or will soon. What’s your point?

You’re making it for me: stuffing a (tiny) battery into a legacy ICE or hybrid architecture and calling it a day isn’t competitive with _current_ competition, let alone where the market is going. Toyota’s failure to convert its early lead in hybrids into a successful EV business will be quoted in business schools and boardrooms for decades as a textbook cautionary tale.

Is there another awd with high ground clearance phev? 39 miles per charge? You’re going to count them out for battery capacity? Something they can change unilaterally at any time?

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#75

Post by WhompingWindows »

the_duke wrote: post #2

There are a lot of companies working on "flying taxis". All of those seem to have a large footprint with lots of rotors, meaning they will need dedicated landing/take off zones. This seems to limit their usability a lot, turning them more into a short range point to point helicopter service. Not to mention the noise pollution. Those things are all loud. Combine that with limited speed and range, and I just don't see…

Noise may be a factor in certain locales with decent human-centered regulation against it, but:

A) rich people have a ton of power, they will get it legalized if they really want to use them

B) There are many sparsely populated areas where rich people would still be able to make this work...think rural islands of Japan or New Zealand, very mountainous areas, the outskirts of a major metropolitan area...I think these will find use in certain markets.

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#76

Post by nradov »

godelski wrote: post #55
nradov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those powered lift aircraft don't have enough rotor inertia to perform autorotation. They will have to rely on redundant power systems plus ballistic recovery parachutes. Autonomous flight is still quite rare. And even when it is used, there are still human pilots standing by to take over in case anything goes wrong.

> Autonomous flight is quite common. When it is used, there are still human pilots standing by to take over in case anything goes wrong. FTFY. I'm just saying that comparing autonomous flight to autonomous driving isn't fair. Flying is a lot easier for a machine. You already have tons of data streaming in from airports, other planes, and lots of equipment on the vehicle itself.

That's completely wrong. Sure machines can control take off, navigation, and landing as long as everything works. However they are unable to cope with unexpected system failures. A lot of things can go wrong on even the simplest aircraft and it's impossible to anticipate and code for all of them.

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#77

Post by empath75 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #58
the_duke wrote: post #2

There are a lot of companies working on "flying taxis". All of those seem to have a large footprint with lots of rotors, meaning they will need dedicated landing/take off zones. This seems to limit their usability a lot, turning them more into a short range point to point helicopter service. Not to mention the noise pollution. Those things are all loud. Combine that with limited speed and range, and I just don't see…

Rotor size matters a lot for noise and how far it carries. Compared to a helicopter these things are going to be a lot less noisy. Also there's a difference between landing/taking off and cruise. Several of these designs have wings and a vtol configuration. There's no shortage of roof tops, open areas, etc. that could be converted to land on. As soon as viable products hit the market they'll be very popular. Finally,…

I think you’re going to need to make an actual argument about why the cost would be lower.

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#79

Post by rgarrett88 »

zubspace wrote: post #65
jillesvangurp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rotor size matters a lot for noise and how far it carries. Compared to a helicopter these things are going to be a lot less noisy. Also there's a difference between landing/taking off and cruise. Several of these designs have wings and a vtol configuration. There's no shortage of roof tops, open areas, etc. that could be converted to land on. As soon as viable products hit the market they'll be very popular. Finally,…

Even if this will be economically viable, the regulations around it could be so harsh that the idea could not take off. There have to be rules where those taxis can start, land, in what direction, time frames and over which places in a city. You need some kind of air control and "traffic rules". Drivers need regulated training in simulators and there need to be emergency procedures. I believe that in the first few ye…

How would this differ from existing regulations for helicopters?

Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis

#80

Post by nomel »

jotm wrote: post #73
nomel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think multi-rotor is a great safety feature, especially if they're partitioned into separate power systems. It would almost require intention to design something like the Volocopter without the ability to soft land in the case of an emergency. The link you provided mentions this in an odd way: > With a single engine helicopter you don’t have this redundancy. However, on engine failure, the single massive disk of th…

> pulling levers, at the right moment, as they speed towards the ground I think this could be automated?

Sure [1], but safety through redundancy is much easier than automation.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLIo8jO9VUU

Post reply on HN