Forums

Inside Tesla - and what's really Disrupting the Automotive Industry. Interview with Tony Seba

Inside Tesla - and what's really Disrupting the Automotive Industry. Interview with Tony Seba

Good interview with Tony Seba about what he believes is the upcoming disruption of Transportation as a Service (TaaS) - gets back to what I mentioned in an earlier thread - his RethinkX report (which is a very interesting read.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/09/14/inside-tesla-and-whats-re...

jordanrichard | 15. September 2017

To summarize what he said. For the incumbent car companies, they can only go down and EV car companies will only go up. The incumbent companies are very fat, they know they are fat, they know that they have to change their habits, but they just can't put that jumbo bucket of popcorn and 32 oz soda down.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 15. September 2017

The strong sense of denial that people hold toward TaaS and FSD is similar to the thought that digital photography would 'never' match, let alone surpass or replace film. I remember when people thought of a whole new line of insults to cast at George Lucas when he announced digital moviemaking was 'the future' and that he wouldn't be using film anymore. It must be amazing to be a pioneer, a trailblazer, someone who has climbed the mountaintop, peered over the edge, seen the future, and then been ridiculed by someone 'respectable' that hasn't cleared a molehill any day of their lives. There are those among The [IGNORED] here who have issued such denials on a daily basis regarding Tesla. Somehow, they have managed to convince themselves that holding a wholly unsubstantiated contrary opinion somehow makes their position stronger.

Coastal Cruiser. | 15. September 2017

You know I read one Tony Seba article and didn't walk away all that impressed (may have gone over my head). Before investing time in this presentation, may I ask is he presenting any facts, math, or even anecdotal evidence... or is more opinion, trends and theoretical projections? (that's the best way I can think to put it)

-----------------
Red, that may not be the best anology. I have always felt that The Empire Strikes Back looked like it was shot on location in outer space. Didn't get the hit from the prequels.

But the digital Yoda was admittedly pretty good.

KP in NPT | 16. September 2017

@CC, he is an expert in technology disruptions - and he's projecting what he sees as happening in the future. One thing I will say - when I was reading it, every time I had a "But what about...?" thought, the next slide or two addressed it.

When the report first came out, there were quite a few articles that dismissed it as crazy fantasy. But then I noticed within a couple of months that way more were citing it as what OEMs (and industries, like Big Oil) need to watch out for, as if it was a given.

I myself am of course no expert, but I could see every point he made coming true. I'm not sure I agree with his timing - but it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. I think there is no doubt there is some sort of big change coming. The report is definitely worth a read if you can - it's kind of a book lol but I found it riveting.

https://www.rethinkx.com

Sandy’s 3 | 16. September 2017

Interesting read. Seba makes some good points. Timeframe may be a little condensed but I believe it's coming.

SamO | 16. September 2017

Seba is not only 100% correct about TaaS and the Tesla Advantage, but many poster on this forum who have said things like:

I don't see how . . .

I just don't think it's possible . . .

Have you thought of how . . .

But how will FSD . . .

But have you thought about . . .

YES. ALL YOUR STUPID CORNER CASES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. Yes hand waving too. Yes, policemen. Yes, narrow streets, hidden driveways, 4-way stops and dogs/bikes/babies in the road.

And YES. Tesla has a very big fucking lead. I know you read a story in Wired the other day and Ford/GM/Uber have great PR with zero substance. Learn some critical thinking skills. And if your fact-free-claims have no citations, then don't be surprised if we just skip your comments altogether (@tes-s, @PD . . .)

ReD eXiLe ms us | 16. September 2017

Coastal_Cruiser: The point is that FILM is hardly used for movies by anyone, twenty years later, to capture the original scenes as they are portrayed in live action. George Lucas saw the benefit of going full digital long before the rest of the industry. Yet the entire industry of moviemaking followed in his footsteps anyway, despite numerous initial protests. Guys like Quentin Tarantino might want their movies displayed to audiences using 75mm film projectors, but they are still captured digitally on set. It is a question of editing. That takes a whole lot longer with actual filmstrips than when you can intersplice scenes digitally. And that becomes even more important when working on a special effects filled feature.

Electric vehicles are digital. ICE vehicles remain analog, even though greatly assisted by computers over the past 25 years. LED street lamps are brighter and clearer than coal oil fired lamplight. At some point you simply have to give up on... fire... in favor of electricity.

Coastal Cruiser. | 16. September 2017

KP: Thanx! I am recalling now it was timing that I wasn't quite sold on.

Red: Well said.

SamO: You might want to think about an anger management course. You're young, and you don't want to live with that all your life. You're mad at someone or something, and it leaks out in the forums. Your reaction has nothing to do with electric vehicles or full self-driving, even though your ego is insisting (even as you read this) that it does, and justifys your occasional vents that marginalize and invalidate anyone who doesn't share your vision of the future.

So find out who your mad at and deal with it. How can I tell what's going on with you? It take one to know one. :>

Now demonstrate that intellect and class can override emotion by just letting the words sink in rather than replying. Use or discard the message as you see fit.

Love,
CC

ebiggs | 16. September 2017

Tarantino would retire before he ever shot digital. He's as against digital photography as much as he is digital projection. This has a pretty big impact on the look of his films, and why they have such a classic look to them, given that the film needs to be processed before anybody can look at the footage... Of course any editor would be working with a digital intermediate, though... Of course, once the cut has been made with the digital intermediate, it can bee pretty trivially recreated in the analog medium.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 16. September 2017

About the timing... I sort of think Tony Seba's timeline is rather slow. Things will happen five to eight years sooner than he projects. :-D

Studios make their money back from DVD/BluRay sales, along with streaming content and cable television. So they control the media used to present it and/or distribute it. Quentin Tarantino can curse digital filmmaking all he wants, it is here to stay.

SamO | 16. September 2017

@CC,

Thanks for your feedback. My style, even though you think it's angry, is more Carlin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0

carlk | 16. September 2017

There are people who are less tolerant of stupidity than others. SamO is probably just one of them. I think it's just fine. The alternative is not.

carlk | 16. September 2017

disclaimer: I didn't read all posts and did not mean anyone here is stupid.

bmz | 16. September 2017

I think we make a mistake if we judge others by our own standards of environmentalism. I can even accept that Europe will convert rapidly to an all electric economy. But here in the United States--the country that elected Donald Trump--the country where Texans had bumper stickers saying "drive 70 and freeze a Yankee," there is a large anti-environmental population. Heck, they continue to cheer Trump every time he rolls back Obama's environmental regulations.

I would be willing to bet that if you polled Trump supporters on whether they would prefer a $35,000 Chevy V-8 or the early availability M3 ($49,000) most would say the Chevy.

If Seba is correct in that gasoline prices will collapse in a couple of years, that will give a huge boost to the life of ICEs in the US.

We currently have a huge divide in this country in not only politics, but the attitude towards clean energy. And unfortunately the former has exacerbated the latter; and as long as that political divide exists, I fear that half the country will continue purchasing ICEs.

KP in NPT | 16. September 2017

Well, the beauty of it is that environmental considerations have nothing to do with why people would switch.

He argues TaaS will cause people to abandon car ownership because doing so adds an extra 6-9K per year to their disposable income. (not having costs associated with owning an ICE car.) It will be financial, not environmental reasons that drive the switch. Think of the average annual income per household and what an extra 6-9K would mean to their disposable income.

The start of that will have a domino effect on the auto and oil industries. Starting with ICE resale values plummeting as people move away from car ownership, which will cause people to think twice about buying new, which will mean automakers will have to downsize production. If people decide instead to lease, it will create a leasing bubble that will also depress resale value.

TaaS will go autonomous BEV because it is not financially viable with ICE. Cost per mile will win and BEV has the advantage. No driver to pay is an advantage. So if automakers are to survive, they will have to convert to selling autonomous BEVs and either sell to or operate as fleets for the new TaaS.

Really, the report is an interesting read. I suggest anyone who is a naysayer read it first and then comment.

KP in NPT | 16. September 2017

There is much more in the report after resale values plummeting, like eventually they will be so low you will have to pay to have your ICE car taken away, and as TaaS expands coverage, insurance premiums go up as it is showcased how much safer it is to a human driver. Eventually only rich people will "drive" and/or own their own vehicle- but it will be FSD capable. Unless it is an antique ICE - but hey some people still drive horse and buggies for fun. ;)

bmz | 16. September 2017

It's a nice dream KP; and very reasonable too. Just like it's very reasonable to stop mining and burning coal. The electric economy would even produce more jobs in Appalachia than the coal economy. But as long as you effete intellectual types want it, the Trump supporters will oppose it.

You obviously are not from the rural south. And you can talk all about economics and increases to disposable income; but Billy Bob will continue spending every last penny he has on his super V-8, exhaust cut out, raised, lowered, financial blackhole. It is cultural, not economic; and the more sense you make, the more opposition you will get; plus all the big bucks the ICE industry will give to the politicians from flyover country.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 16. September 2017

I grew up in 'rural America'. When I was a kid, this place was 40 years behind the times. Today, the only reasons they are a mere 60 years behind the times is because of the internet and satellite television.

Nothing is going to change the culture here but the eventual passage of time. Still, the majority of new cars are either Nissan or Hyundai, instead of Buick or Chevrolet as they were when I was a kid. The youngest American passenger cars I see around here are either Pontiac G6 (purchased as a 'deal' before they were shut down) or Chrysler 200 (another car no longer manufactured and offered with steep discounts to clear them from 'independent franchised dealership' lots).

When Tesla introduces a Pickup Truck as capable as an F-350 or F-450 but priced around the same as an F-150 (which are no longer 'cheap' BTW) they will make serious inroads into this market. Because what matters most is actual performance when it comes to bragging rights. If someone posts a video of a Tesla pickup towing an F-150, Silverado, and RAM 1500 uphill through mud simultaneously while all three ICE blow smoke and make noise trying uselessly to resist -- that will do the trick.

The original 'plan', from way back during the Nixon Administration, was for the U.S. to become the premier world leader in energy exports. After getting Third World countries moderately industrialized and hooked on fossil fuels, we would switch to renewables instead ourselves, while raking in the cash. It was a great plan. Norway implemented it perfectly. But somehow the plan morphed in the U.S. from becoming entirely free of fossil fuels to instead becoming independent of 'foreign oil' while remaining eternally hooked on domestic production of fossil fuels.

Now, it seems, Third World countries will be skipping coal and petroleum in favor of solar and wind power. Just as they skipped land lines in favor of cellular connectivity. Simply because it costs less, works better, and makes sense. Oh, well. So much for the plans of mice and men.

Fifty or sixty years ago, the majority of the U.S. population lived in rural areas. Today most people live in cities. When Tony Seba speaks of these changes regarding car ownership, it is directly related to that demographic change. A change that traditional automobile manufacturers and their current distribution method is ill equipped to service efficiently.

When I was a kid, this tiny county was home to around 25,000 people. Forty years later there are less than 10,000 in the whole county. The County Seat, the largest town for 35 miles in any direction, has less than 2,000 residents, all-inclusive. TaaS probably won't be effective or even offered here, true. But not because it wouldn't work, or people wouldn't accept/adapt to it. It would be because no one is here.

TexasBob | 16. September 2017

I must confess to being a skeptic with respect to TaaS. I agree that FSD will certainly simplify the process of ordering and using short-term vehicle rentals / automated taxis and unlimited subscription models (or something similar) will make such services even more attractive. I also think there will be an economic advantage to surrendering ownership in exchange for this sort of arrangement for many people.

However, we have many such arrangements available now and they generally remain second choice options. We all know that the subscription/pay-per-use model is as old as commerce. Hotels are just Vacation Home as Service programs. Rental equipment for everything from boats to evening gowns to jewelry to chain saws make far more economic sense than ownership for most owners. For a very large cohort of automobile owners who drive less than 7k miles a year, taxi services are already a far more convenient and lower cost option. And yet we buy them all if we can afford to do so.

It seems to me the TaaS advocates are conveniently ignoring the fact that automobiles (like boats, vacation homes and the rest) are aspirational purchases. While technology will reduce the transaction costs and therefore attract more people, a subscription to "as service" probably won't meet the aspirational needs that ownership fills.

As a rough guide, it seems to me that items which you believe communicate to others something important about you (your personality, your level of success, what you believe is important) will continue to favor ownership. Things that significantly increase one's sense of security and independence will also favor ownership. Personal vehicles meet both of these criteria. Even items as small as simple as cell phones have moved away from the pure subscription model back to an ownership model. Phone leasing has been shrinking as handset ownership and flexibility to change networks has become the preferred purchase option. Notice that cell phones, like vehicles, communicate something about you and offer a sense of security and independence.

Yes, fractional jet ownership has taken off (sorry) but what it really says about you is that you cannot afford your own G5. Time shares say you cannot afford your own place in Hawaii. Renting that diamond necklace for the evening says you cannot afford to buy it (or worse, your significant other did not think you were worth buying it for!). If you could, you would. Why, you ask? If you owned your own G5/vacation home/necklace if would sit unused most of the time. If you just rented it you would get a wider selection, access to the latest version, delivered on demand. Indeed. And yet for buyers those benefits are outweighed by the benefits of signaling, safety, security, etc.

Time will tell. TaaS will grow but I would bet on a robust market for FSD vehicle ownership that dwarfs the subscription/pay-per-use market these folks envision.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 16. September 2017

TexasBob: It depends entirely upon what someone can be convinced to 'aspire' toward. A great name 'ASPIRE' but Hyundai's offering is still outsold by Nissan's VERSA. Honda probably hopes people will aspire to get an Acura TLX someday to replace their Accord or Civic, just as Toyota hopes buyers of Camry and Corolla aspire to own a Lexus ES or IS some day. The arrival of the Model 3 makes those aspirational efforts rather moot.

Leasing of automobiles has been the fundamental crutch that has supported the aspirations of those led to believe they should seek a nice German sedan, such as an AUDI A4, BMW 3-Series, or Mercedes-Benz C-Class. But leasing has also contributed to depressed residual value in those cars as a glut of so-called 'exclusive' vehicles become available to the 'new to me' marketplace as used cars every year.

Those who care about 'status' or 'luxury', 'heritage', and 'image' are more likely to abandon traditional marques in favor of 'The NEW H0+NE§' that is Tesla, as that is the nature of things. And to be honest, there are those who aspire to save money as well as make it. The last thing they'll do is waste it. Tesla allows people to aspire toward being... smart with their money.

bmz | 17. September 2017

TexasBob: Excellent analysis. Allow me to add an extreme example--sailboats. It costs the average sailor in my neck of the woods over twice as much in annual costs to own a sailboat rather than to rent one. Nonetheless ownership outweighs rental at least 10 to 1. Why? Because you are not a "captain" unless you are at the helm of your own vessel

Red: + 2 I agree with just about everything you say; and if we can ever break this stupid political/environmental polarization, I think your vision will come to pass. Unfortunately, it appears to be increasing rather than abating.

KP in NPT | 17. September 2017

"You obviously are not from the rural south"

Actually, I grew up in BFE central Florida, our neighbors were dairy farms, was in 4H, had cows and horses, raised a steer each year for competition and then eating, learned to drive when I was 13 via tractor. I know very well who you are talking about - it was normal for all my friends to jack their trucks so high that lil' ole me would need a ladder. ;)

Rural areas would be the last to see TaaS for reasons outlined in the report, and I agree about the culture you speak of. But the report goes decades into the future - by that time, the ones spending money tricking out their trucks will be like the antique car enthusiasts today.

bmz | 17. September 2017

KP 8^)

CraigW | 17. September 2017

First the over-the-road truckers are not independent and they will switch to BEV trucks because that will be the only way to compete and still make a profit. Why do you think Tesla is releasing plans for a semi before a pickup?

It is the trucking industry that will fundamentally change the rural south, not the pickup. When the trucks running through the various counties are BEV and the stations are built to support long-haul trucking, then everyone will have exposure to and experience with BEV. Then, when you have someone's attention, they will be more receptive to the economic argument.

Perhaps FSD will not be as practical in rural areas, but used BEVs certainly will be available in greater numbers and families may be simply one-car units, with the car returning home after taking someone to work.

bmz | 17. September 2017

True, the long haul trucking industry will pursue economics, not politics. But, if petroleum fuel prices collapse, as Seba says, how can BEV's become more economical than ICEs?

KP in NPT | 17. September 2017

bmz, read the report!! So many of your questions are answered there.

As gas prices fall, more expensive means of extraction will become unviable...having major impacts on countries that rely on oil that is not close to the surface. Shale extraction, offshore drilling, and expensive pipelines will be stranded.

bmz | 17. September 2017

@KP

"As gas prices fall, more expensive means of extraction will become unviable...having major impacts on countries that rely on oil that is not close to the surface. Shale extraction, offshore drilling, and expensive pipelines will be stranded"

All that may be true; but it will not affect the economic viability of ICEs. I don't see any reason why ICEs can't be used in TaaS. As gasoline prices fall, the economic viability of ICEs improve. I still don't see any evidence that a BEV will cost less to produce than an ICE.

It is true, a BEV has fewer moving parts; but that does not have a direct relationship to maintenance costs. In its 96,000 miles, my Z 4 has had three repairs: electrical issue with the top; front end bushings; and alternator/serpentine belt. Only one of those three would be eliminated in a BEV.

You and I, and probably everyone else here, are willing to pay more for a BEV--but as we have discussed before, that is not true for about half of this country. As TexasBob and I discussed, the decision between buying and renting involves a lot more than simple economics.

Seba's report is definitely food for thought--and may even cause me to rethink my stock portfolio. But it is far from a slamdunk.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17. September 2017

BRAVO MIKE ZULU: READ THE REPORT AKA RTR, remotely relate to RTFM.

PAY ATTENTION -- The economic viability in question is that of delivering petroleum based fuels to a declining number of users at lower and lower prices per unit in order to compete with electric vehicles on a more-or-less 'even' playing field. When gasoline cost perhaps 10 cents to supply, State & Federal taxes added maybe 32 cents to that and one gallon cost 87 cents at the pump, all was well for many. But with gasoline costing maybe a buck per gallon to supply with 52 cents in taxes applied and a $2.50 amount per gallon at the pump, things change somewhat. Now imagine the acquisition amount grows by another 50% to $1.50 or more, and taxes that haven't been properly adjusted in a couple of decades finally go up to where they belong. Surprise! Now we are back to the $4.00 per gallon level that makes EVs much more attractive, especially to those who drive two or three times as much as the supposed 15,000 miled per year average.

Electric cars cost a lot less to operate. That becomes a lot more obvious as gasoline prices climb. At anything over $1.50 per gallon and less than about 50 MPG, electric vehicles WIN. You need to have gasoline priced below $1.20 per gallon for a 40 MPG car to come close to EVs. And most here wouldn't switch back to ICE if gas cost a mere 50 cents per gallon. But that is what would have to happen to 'save' ICE vehicles... even more subsidies, but this time to support petroleum businesses that are no longer profitable on their own. The complete abolishment of State and Federal fuel taxes so that the price at the pump would appear 'affordable' again, and those few diehards that insist upon driving gas guzzling smoke churning flame blazing noise making AMERICAN IRON can satiate their nees for conspicuous consumption and obvious waste of resources.

And even if taxes were lifted, eliminated, done away with...? You'd probably still be stuck with two buck a gallon gasoline, instead of it going down to between $0.82 and $1.25 as it once was in my youth. And the petroleum companies would probably srill negotiate a back door deal where they recieve another buck or two for the 'hardship' incurred from tar sands fossil fuel acquisition, as OPEC nations drive the price of a barrel of oil toward ten bucks on the open market just out of spite.

The U.S. will eventually be forced to abandon all of their covert, under-the-table, back room deals to support, finance, and subsidize the petroleum industry, because they simply won't be able to afford it any longer. Then the absolute bottom will fall out. There will be no money to be made drilling for oil, for anyone, anywhere. No more wars, police actions, or lucrative private military contracts in the name of oil. Peace will break out in every corner of the Earth. Lawyers will find themselves unemployed and will take up golf full time. Butterflies, sunshine, and rainbows will abound.

"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony..."

KP in NPT | 17. September 2017

bmz you really should read the report. Every point you just made is refuted in it.

TeslaTap.com | 17. September 2017

@ReD - makes a lot of sense. In California, starting in July 2019, the total gas taxes (federal and state) will be 76.7 cents / gallon. As revenues drop from reduced gas usage, I'd expect these taxes will rapidly increase countering any reduction in base gas costs.

sosmerc | 17. September 2017

' No more wars, police actions, or lucrative private military contracts in the name of oil. Peace will break out in every corner of the 'Earth. Lawyers will find themselves unemployed and will take up golf full time. Butterflies, sunshine, and rainbows will abound.'
AND....pigs will fly! ?
I wish more folks had such a positive attitude. But I'm afraid that mankind will always find something to fight over such as water, food and property.

SamO | 17. September 2017

I don't see why . . . I don't understand how . . . I have trouble believing . . . is NOT EVIDENCE.

+1 @KP

KP in NPT | 17. September 2017

Actually, when oil collapses and countries that rely heavily on it start to face that economic reality, there's probably going to be rough times. Think Russia, Venezuela.

Again, it's all in the report. ;-)

SamO | 17. September 2017

All the easy oil is gone, and the shale oil and even sweet crude won't be viable with even a tiny carbon tax. At least to burn. To produce medicine, etc, no problem.

Where are all those whale oil ships now?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/16/26B480FC00000578-0-image-a-19_...

rgrant | 17. September 2017

Another big factor is the green halo that companies like UPS, Fedex, Target etc would like to have. Switching to clean trucking will be seen as a big plus for their brands. And I have to say that most fedex and UPS local delivery trucks I see sound like they're on their last legs and the gas mileage from all the stop/starting must be horrendous.

KP in NPT | 17. September 2017
ReD eXiLe ms us | 17. September 2017

sosmerc: Don't worry. I still have a healthy respect for the human capacity to [FOUL] things up. For instance...

TeslaTap: Yes. That is what ~*should*~ happen. And it might, for a short time. But remember what happened to Governor Gray Davis? Every single gubernatorial race in the history of the Great State of California had been challenged. Yet no recall effort had been successfully launched in all that time. But when he ordered that automobile registration fees be rolled back to previous levels from a decade earlier (in order to pay the outrageous 'wholesale' amounts for electricity that arose from the ENRON scandal) he got kicked out of office. Californians really love their cars, but dislike paying more for the privilege of driving them. After taking office himself, die gubernator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, decried the fees and lifted them, but put them back in place, quietly, within two years of gaining office because he realized the State really did need the money.

I suspect that similar political shenanigans will take place if a substantial fuel tax increase were implemented in California. Probably led by the usual suspects, who would declare it a 'carbon tax' no matter the actual wording. They would claim CARB was a waste and that only 'rich people' wanted or could afford 'clean energy', while swearing it wasn't so 'clean' after all -- you know, the usual regurgitated FUD. But in the end, because Americans are pretty much universally afraid of science, mathematics, facts, and logic? The taxes would either go down or be eliminated. Then someone would claim electric cars ought to 'Pay ther fair share!' So both a ridiculous EV Registration Fee would be set up as well as an idiotic increase in electricity costs so that you would be paying anywhere from 100% more per kWh to a $0.25 per kWh fee for chargingan electric car. Oh, and a $1,500 fine for not reporting that you are charging an electric car at home. And, while they are at it, why not have mandatory $500 inspection fee that must be conducted before you can even start charging an electric car at any residence.

Yeah. That is the sort of stupid $#!+ I foresee coming around to act as a roadblock to EV adoption, while supporting ICE as it slips into its grave forever. Let's enjoy the ride while we can, eh?

bmz | 18. September 2017

9/18/17:
"Mr. Trump remains obstinate in his 'war on coal' statements and steadfast to his bloated campaign promises to laid-off miners, despite expert opinion, expressed in the study, that lifting vital environmental controls “will not materially improve” the coal industry’s prospects.
It is shocking that an administration led and staffed by supposedly shrewd business executives deliberately overlooks the blossoming of profitable and cleaner energy products simply because of Mr. Trump’s hollow showmanship before his campaign base." NY Times

9/18/27:
Pres. Drumpf remains obstinate in his “war on oill” statements....

bmz | 18. September 2017

oill=oil

SamO | 18. September 2017

2027 - Donald Trump was release from NY State prison today. After attempting to pardon himself in 2018, he was convicted on state charges of tax evasion. While in jail, it was revealed that Mr. Trump's wealth was fraudulent once discovery commenced in the private lawsuits. Bankruptcy followed, and when it was revealed how Mr Trump had misrepresented his wealth, his political support vanished.

NYTimes - 2027 Trump Obituary

bmz | 18. September 2017

Let's not forget the Trump base...

" People will always like there [sic] own cars. Sharing cars, is like sharing houses or his wife[sic].
Electric cars have too much[sic] problems. The range, the time to charge the battery, the lifetime of the battery, the battery cost …"

carlk | 18. September 2017

.... Tesla only relies on government subsidies, The car is only for rich people not for us who have to live on government assistance...

KP in NPT | 18. September 2017

Another article - both with Seba and naysayers - they seem to agree it's happening, it's just a question of when:

https://qz.com/1059973/how-long-should-you-wait-before-self-driving-elec...

eztider | 20. September 2017

Very interesting, a lot has been written about the transition from ICE to BEV and the certainty that vehicle and vehicle ownership costs will inevitably go down, spurring widespread adoption. But I feel this focus on the hardware blurs the focus on a major component of the system --- the software. One article says that an EV is essentially a computer on wheels. Yes, and computers run on software. It's much harder to write good software than to build cheap hardware.

When you talk about autonomous driving you are talking about trusting your life to virtually 100% foolproof software. As a Tesla owner who makes liberal use of the, ahem, "autopilot" in my car, I know we're not there yet and I have a working knowledge of how far we have to go. I love my car and the driving assist features are very useful, but I've learned to watch it carefully and watch for mistakes. I am somewhat pessimistic that all the brilliant and dedicated software engineers writing the code to enable this revolution will solve this problem in the timeframe that our most progressive thinkers think they will.

bmz | 20. September 2017

Am I missing something, or is Seba missing the fact that self driving is not limited to BEVs? I'm sure we all agree that ICE's are not the future. But don't forget that we have two Americas; and that division is becoming greater not lesser. And the more we and logic embrace BEVs (They CHEER pollution dammit!), the more they will cling to their ICEs. We will get them out of their ICEs when we pry the steering wheels out of their cold dead hands.

KP in NPT | 20. September 2017

Yes, you're missing something. Which you wouldn't be missing if you'd read the report.

BEVs will win over ICE because TaaS fleets will compete based on cost per mile. Cost per mile in a BEV is way less than ICE due to cheaper fueling and maintenance.

bmz | 20. September 2017

That's easy for you wife sharing liberals to say.

SamO | 20. September 2017

No. It's easy for anyone who:

1. Knows how to read, and

2. Understands words, as written.

@KP,

First principles, gasoline is 4x more expensive than electricity, to run similar cars. ICE cannot compete.

KP in NPT | 20. September 2017

"That's easy for you wife sharing liberals to say."

WTF does that even mean? 🙄

Fredbob711 | 20. September 2017

In my head, the reason BEV and autonomy are so closely linked is consistency in how the vehicle reacts to inputs. Various ICE vehicles have very different performance characteristics and even the same vehicle can have massive differences in performance based on what was installed. The same ICE engine can behave very differently based on a huge number of factors from the outside environment to the maintenance of 1000's of individual parts in the motor. It makes the ICE very unpredictable which opens the door for things to go wrong and put the autonomous vehicle in an dangerous situation.

A BEV by comparison has relatively very few unknown variables. It produces the same torque and power regardless of the environment (I'm not including road conditions in here as those problems apply to both ICE and BEV), and has a fraction of the parts that can cause variations in performance.

Pages