Actually, Tesla talked a bit about how a Semi convoy can even beat trains in cost.
back
2 comments
Electric trucks don't pay for road maintenance, trains do. It's not a fair comparison.
Tesla talks about a lot of stuff and is great at cherry picking examples.
No obstacles to do the math yourself!
Yes, and also no incentive, since as a general rule rail is cheaper than trucks (and boats are cheaper than rail).
I have no way to determine if their cherry picked example is something that's relevant or some weird edge case that makes their graphs look good.
But we will see over time, based on adoption.
And regardless of what they do, I hope they don't lobby against mass transit (of goods and people). But they probably will, making things worse for all us.
C'est la vie, I guess.
> I hope they don't lobby against mass transit (of goods and people). But they probably will, making things worse for all us.
People in general are not fond of the experience of mass transit. They only do it because it's either (or all):
- cheap (no parking fees, car purchase/maintenance)
- less hassle (no need to find parking in busy areas and no need to have all attention to driving)
If personal transport can be made cheaper, less hassle and hands-free (all of which is possible by autonomous vehicles), then people will vote with their pennies and no lobbying will be required by Tesla.
How will this be worse?
Companies have departments and groups meant to fight, shape, and push legislation in their favor, as well as shape public opinion, even against the public's own interest.
Do you know how carmakers literally paid to have tram lined ripped out of cities, in order to discourage public transport usage and get people to buy their cars?
This is not some weird thing and it's a literal, documented, conspiracy with actual indictments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
> If personal transport can be made cheaper, less hassle and hands-free (all of which is possible by autonomous vehicles), then people will vote with their pennies and no lobbying will be required by Tesla.
Secondly, physics and economics: you can never make personal transport as cheap as public transport, because personal transport will always carry fewer passengers per ride.
And personal transport, if you look at it, is going in the wrong direction for efficiency.
https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a1860276/car-...
A 4.4m long Chevrolet Sonic 2017 weighs 1.3 tons, almost as much as the 5m long Chevrolet Chevelle 1967.
The most lightweight Tesla Model 3 weighs 1.8 tons, that's 50% more, on top of the existing ICE weight gain over the last 50+ years.
Adding more safety and comfort features will only make things <<heavier>>.
And people really want to ride in nice, clean, custom cars, plus they really don't want to ride with other people most of the time.
I guess we'll just keep burning the planet down, pumping out particulate matter, destroying wildlife, etc.
Oh, and fully autonomous driving could be 50 years into the future, banking on it is a very risky move. We're still at the basic research phase, our tech isn't good enough.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> you can never make personal transport as cheap as public transport, because personal transport will always carry fewer passengers per ride.
Oh man, another "never" statement. An autonomous car that doesn't have a driver, doesn't need to take breaks to eat or sleep, that doesn't need to be parked, can in fact become cheaper than public transport. I invite you to do some research on that.
> And people really want to ride in nice, clean, custom cars, plus they really don't want to ride with other people most of the time.
That's exactly my point, and why in presence of a price competitive option such as a self driving taxi, no one would want to catch a bus or a train with many people and dirty seats.
> autonomous driving could be 50 years into the future
Not if you're in the know. It's far closer, but I'm not arguing for that. Wait and see.
> Oh man, another "never" statement. An autonomous car that doesn't have a driver, doesn't need to take breaks to eat or sleep, that doesn't need to be parked, can in fact become cheaper than public transport. I invite you to do some research on that.
I love how you sideskipped my phsyics argument like it was nothing.
You're still moving 1.5 tons (and constantly increasing!) of metal everywhere, to move 1 human being weighing 80kg.
The physics just don't work.
> That's exactly my point, and why in presence of a price competitive option such as a self driving taxi, no one would want to catch a bus or a train with many people and dirty seats.
Price competitive how? It's impossible. The only way this works is by offloading a ton of externalities on everyone else, including people without cars. Roads, parking lots, highways, high capacity bridges, tunnels, charging infrastructure/gas stations, exhaust pollution, tire wear pollution, road degradation pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, manufacturing and construction pollution, ...
By what logic can't you clean a bus for 100 people but you can thoroughly clean a taxi for 1, AND make the taxi cost competitive?
How does an autonomous car not need to be parked? The vision that seems more realistic to me is that lucrative areas would have traffic jams full of empty self-driving taxis circling around waiting for fares.
> since as a general rule rail is cheaper than trucks
That's not the way to approach claims that a new tech/product is disruptive. General rules may not (and usually do not) apply.
I'm waiting for research that's not from their marketing materials.
I won't do it for obvious reasons (life), but my money's on them lying (through any of the ways listed here, I don't really care which one they use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types_and_associated_terms).
Debunking Tesla's cherry-picked argument will take more time than it took Tesla's marketing team to cherry-pick their truck and train data to make the math work in their favour.