My points of skepticism: 1. Semis . A typical long haul semi gets well under 10MPG. In some cases not much more than half that. They are heavy and need a lot of energy to move. A Tesla Model S weighs 4650 lbs and has a range of a couple of hundred miles. A semi truck can weigh up to 80,000 lbs. That is a lot of weight to get rolling and a lot to pull up a grade. Semis spend a large part of their time driving at highw…
Master Plan, Part Deux
211–220 of 705 posts
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#212Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 30,000 motor vehicle deaths in America each year. In perhaps 30 years, fully autonomous vehicles could cut all of that needless carnage to nearly nothing. And what about the hundreds of thousands of injuries we'll be spared? Worldwide, fully-autonomous vehicles will be a public health victory on the scale of vaccines or antibiotics.
> Americans spend a million days each year in the hospital due to injuries sustained in motor vehicles. Sustained _due_ to motor vehicles. The base statistics also include pedestrian deaths. There's also a skew due to vehicles being multi-passenger. Interestingly, it _is_ the leading cause of deaths for Americans between 15 to 29 years old. For females 15-24 the motor vehicle related death rate is 8.7. For males 15-2…
The same is true when you prevent death by any means at all. Everyone dies eventually by some cause. This does not mean we shouldn't try to prolong life where we can by avoiding early, needless death! (Otherwise why would we even have airbags or seatbelts, etc?)
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling it a logical fallacy that a premium car takes longer to build because it is premium.
Oh? Don't you think buyers of premium cars expect more in the way of difficult-to-manufacture details?
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
A semi travelling a very slow speeds would need his own lane or it would significantly increase the risk of accidents (unless every car on the road is autonomous). Solar on the roof is most likely rather insignificant and will also just add weight.
Re: solar on the roof, agreed that it wouldn't do much: An ISO container that could fit on a truck trailer is typically 40'x8'. Solar panels are, on the sunniest of days, making 10-14 watts per square foot. This gives us: 40x8=320sqft assuming panels with no borders. Assuming 14 watts per sqft (optimal conditions) we'd end up with 4,480 watts. Assuming 100% efficiency converting this into usable motion, we'd get 6 BH…
The truck logistics industry has been struggling with this problem for years. How do we increase fuel efficiency from the days of 90s Caterpillar engines dragging 80K lbs at 4.3 mpg while simultaneously decreasing emissions while simultaneously figuring out how to make the truck itself lighter and able to move more cargo in a single load?
Autonomous electric trucks would improve "fuel" economy and minimize downtime caused by the limits of human endurance, but at what cost? How many miles of range would the batteries have to have to compensate for the slower cruising speed and additional stops needed to recharge them? How much DOT downtime has to be eliminated to make up for being able to pull a few thousand pounds less on each trip, owing to the massive number of LiOn batteries scattered around the truck and trailer?
When I worked at Penske Truck Leasing in the late aughts, I'd have fascinating conversations with truck drivers on the math they were doing to optimize for fuel economy and load capacity. The switch one of Penske's clients made in changing their fleet to DEF Volvos with 240 gallons of diesel capacity compared to the classic Detroit Diesel Freightliner Centuries with dual 150-gallon tanks caused many an angry tirade.
Many of the drivers were constantly juggling juuuuuust enough fuel to make it to the destination and back; the trailer they were headed to pick up was so heavy they couldn't have more than ~200 gallons of fuel or they'd be over 80K and fined accordingly at the scales. Good luck making that 1200 mile round trip on your 200 gallons, driver.
I'm not sure trucks are the answer. We'd need too much overhauling of the current system to make it worthwhile. Without increasing weight loads, which destroys our infrastructure even faster, as well as rethinking how trailers are loaded and unloaded to maximize the 24/7 automated nature of autonomous fleets... We're a long way off.
And, anyways, aren't cargo ships and trains basically already electric and their massive diesel engines are just powering the electric motors? No weight limits or problems caused by slow cruising speeds in those applications, that I'm aware of.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#216Less of a master plan, and more a list of goals. The original was awesome because it clearly laid what Tesla wanted to accomplish "Consumer electric vehicles" and how. This just lays out the what.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit
Don't they lose money on every single model except the F-150?
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#218Obscured under " Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning " is the cold hard truth that that learning will be paid for in lives - mostly of Tesla drivers possibly of others. The rates of accidents in manual vs current version of autopilot may work out to be favorable - (and that is still under debate) - but there certainly will be people who will die (and have died) d…
There are 1.5 million heart attacks and strokes in the US every year. Self driving cars might end up being safer even if we were all perfect drivers.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#219I still don't understand the SolarCity part. Tesla is atop the best rated electric cars, and has a good trajectory toward that product line future, with lots of innovation ahead. Successful companies like Apple focus on best-in-class products, so Tesla is smart to continue focusing their resources into those product lines. Meanwhile SolarCity has been burning cash on a consistent basis [1], and is sitting in a hyper…
People who buy electric cars are far more likely to buy solar panels. And storage batteries. And wiring they would need for the electric car. It's all directly related.
So when I buy a Tesla ... I have to hire a 3rd party to install the wiring to charge it. I can buy the storage battery from Tesla, but again, need to hire someone else to install it. And if I want solar panels for that storage battery, again 3rd party.
SolarCity has a fleet of professionals ready to do all of that. They also have a plant to manufacture their own panels, which hopefully they'll be able to differentiate on. Combining the two companies will enable Tesla to service that whole loop with the equipment and installation.
Now, you can argue that Tesla may have been better off starting their own division from scratch or buying someone else ... but from what I heard, they're getting a hell of a bargain for SolarCity.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford can have fewer employees per car because they're at full scale, they've outsourced nearly all their engineering and have outsourced their sales as well via an antiquated dealer model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk
Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit
The ship has been righted for now, but it was pretty good in 2000 as well.
[1] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70R0S420110128
[2] http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-o...