Suitable for driving only on a billiard table
The tires are--well--there aren't any tires. The rims are a few centimeters from the wheel wells. There is not a city in the world where this vehicle could travel more than a block.
Complete with Back to The Future style folding doors, Tesla is showing off what might be its Robotaxi at last, along with an autonomous minibus and the Optimus robot. Tesla's big reveal took place at the electric car company's "We, Robot" event, held at a film set in Burbank, California, safely away from public roads. This is …
They will be confined to an area of the city that has specially prepared wooden roadway, along with a charging infrastructure consisting of an overhead wire grid where that cars will charge via an advanced metal rod.
The production design will have large plastic bumpers in case of collisions with other cars
WiTricity works at up to 11kW and a supercharger works at 250kW... So why can't they make it work at 250kW? It doesn't scale.
If the point was to have a fleet of taxis continually in service, wireless charging won't do it. The taxis are going to be recharging for 8 hours at a time or constantly finding a wireless charger between jobs in which case the fleet will have to be bigger to accommodate charging taxis.
The only way wifi could work would be for all taxi ranks to be a long line of charge points* but even that will fail when the rank gets busy and cars spend only a few mins in the line.
A large autonomous taxi fleet of identical vehicles has to be a prime contender for swappable battery packs, the minibus model is surely meant to be the taxi?.
*powered from where?
“swapping it makes no sense“
Quite the opposite, it all comes down to standards and infrastructure, the concept of battery swapping is not new. And you do not need to swap the whole battery, part in-car and part swappable cartridge in essence provides limitless range between formal at-rest charges. Battery swaps could even be automated.
"the minibus model is surely meant to be the taxi?."
That's what I was thinking too. I mean, a TWO seater taxi? Really? Why? Ok, there's no driver, but only two passengers? I assume it's actually two seats too, so not a bench seat where you fit three people in reasonable comfort.
Two Seater? It looks to be a sort of Electric Mazda Miata (MX-5), but with lots of cargo space and nowhere near as cute. There's surely SOME market for that sort of vehicle. But I doubt it's all that large.
As a taxi? Taxis are conceptually utilitarian vehicles designed to move random people and goods. I don't think this is or can easily become that.
Actually, it might make sense. The vast majority of taxi rides are 1 or 2 people, so that’s the lowest cost car. And no luggage. For *most* cases, if you have 4 passengers, order 2 autonomous cabs. The reason why taxis have 4 seats is that taxi drivers are expensive.
The thing to remember with any new technology, it doesn’t need to do exactly what the previous one did, which has shaped its own niche to suit itself. A car is not a faster horse. I’ve no idea whether the net-out for autonomous will favour two or four seats…..but it’s a question worth asking.
I am keen to see if Tesla can actually accomplish wireless charging, where other companies continue to come close and never quite make it. My vote is on physics winning over hubris.
In my opinion wireless charging shouldn't be the goal because the only advantage I see is reducing the need for a human to plug and unplug the charging cable. There are visions of cars charging themselves while driving down the highway or waiting at stop lights (or queued in a taxi stand) but the infrastructure to make that happen will not materialize in the next 5 years.
So barring the whole "charging while in service" bit, it seems the plan is for each taxi to navigate itself to a charging stall and then back out into service without needing a human caretaker.
I would argue that taxis do need a human caretaker to handle everything that a normal driver does besides putting fuel in: checking the tires, checking the seats for lost phones, cleaning up spilled drinks and vomit, etc. I would argue that the 30 seconds required to plug in a charging cable is not that much of an ask for a human working in a service center where the cars go once a day for a 30 minute rest stop and inspection is not a huge burden.
A 200kW (electromagnetic) wireless charger with 85% efficiency is dissipating 30kW
For fastish charging the heat becomes a real issue.
I have a wireless kettle and a wireless flat-iron in my home. They do not use coils to charge, they are just a drop on contact dock.
So no real reason that this is not the same type of easy to engage contact pad arrangement. There are far fewer problems with making a designed to engage connector, than very high power electromagnetic.
As an aside, the existing charging plugs should have been designed to support a variant plug for automatic robot engagement from the get go. They are very much designed in such a way they the rely on a human wiggling them in, otherwise they bind and jam. It was not necessary to be that way.
The actual wired charging systems are surprisingly safe for people to touch the conductors of. They thought of that already. Full power isn't turned on until the car signals through the cable that it's ready.
The problem with wireless is inefficiency at high power rates, solving the corded safety problem has already been done.
"In my opinion wireless charging shouldn't be the goal because the only advantage I see is reducing the need for a human to plug and unplug the charging cable. There are visions of cars charging themselves while driving down the highway or waiting at stop lights (or queued in a taxi stand) but the infrastructure to make that happen will not materialize in the next 5 years."
Wireless charging while in motion would cost entire country budgets. It's not particularly efficient and the two coils have to be concentric to make the best of what can be done. A moving car would spend most of its time in the least optimum line up for charging.
PRT pods like those at Heathrow terminal 5 have contact pads underneath so the carriages charge while at the station. It would make more sense for an autonomous vehicle to dock itself to a charge in the same way as a Roomba. There's still the downside that it is different from every other EV out.
A couple years back I took a farm tour of the Rogue Creamery plant. The cows, when they feel the need, queue up and walk into a booth where machinery milks them... no humans involved. Lasers detect where the apparatus needs to attach, and a camera records the QR code on the ear tag so they know which cows got milked, and what their production was.
If this can be done with cows, SURELY they can devise a machine to auto-charge an EV taxi with a direct attachment?
"The taxis are going to be recharging for 8 hours at a time"
Why 8 hours? There are plenty of EV's now that can charge from 10-80% in under 20 minutes with a suitably powerful charger. Overnight it's certainly easier to use a lower power charging scheme to allow for more vehicles to charge at the same time if they aren't in use. (Where will all these robotaxis go at night, anyway?)
The inverse-square law is a real bastard when it comes to inductive charging. Phones are easy because they don't need lots of power and can sit directly on top of a charging pad so the separation is the distance of two thin pieces of plastic. Another problem is the need to install an entirely new way of charging an EV when there's a push on to to build wired charging stands to work with every other sort of EV. It would be like Tesla's insistence on having their own plug in the US that's different from every other maker.
"Overnight it's certainly easier to use a lower power charging scheme to allow for more vehicles to charge at the same time if they aren't in use. (Where will all these robotaxis go at night, anyway?)"
Thinking of peoples travelling habits, I'd say they will have plenty of daytime charging opportunities too. The vast majority of taxi journeys are short, probably in the order of 10-15 mins, mainly in the two daily rush "hours" and then the traditional evening/early hours of the morning at the weekend. Depending on the battery capacity to overall vehicle weight ratio, they might never need fast charging, which is better for peak electricity usage and overall battery life.
"Thinking of peoples travelling habits, I'd say they will have plenty of daytime charging opportunities too."
I was thinking of taxis used in a large city centre where there may not be many charging options and the need to have a taxi nearby so the wait isn't too long.
After morning rush hour, I'm sure that there will be excess vehicles that can be taken out of service to go charge somewhere and swap out with ones still operating before evening rush hour. It could be more advantageous to have a smaller battery capacity to reduce mass for better efficiency in this application. 100 miles of use might be about tops for morning rush hour since that period would close before being able to travel any further. A vehicle with 150 miles of range would be sufficient and much lighter than something with twice the range.
The same sort of approach would make sense for something like the post office. Where I live, most routes aren't very long according to the counter person I chat with every so often. There wouldn't be any advantage to having every delivery vehicle built for maximum range when 2-3 might be all that are required and would include a spare. If they had a suggestion box, I'd also suggest adding more boxes and parcel lockers at a discounted price if people opt out of regular home delivery. I get so little post these days that picking it up isn't a problem. The post office is near the grocery store, auto parts store and I often need to drop off a package if I've sold something on eBay.
True, but it might be a reasonable solution for some, maybe enough to make it worthwhile. But not a compulsory option. The US Postal Service seems to have a big operation on PO boxes. They exist to some extent in the UK, but seem to be a thing limited to commercial operations.
"Also it will make the lockers a target for thieves. It also doesn’t work for rural areas or for those with mobility problems."
In many areas around me post is deliver to a central mail box just like post office boxes rather than directly to each address. There's often on a couple of parcel lockers and they aren't that big so some deliveries will have to go right to somebody's door. When my dad lived out in the country, mail went to the post office at the local store where each resident had a box accessible from the outside of the building for post and packages would be kept inside. This was some years ago so mail order wasn't huge and there was no such thing as "online". So far, I haven't seen any damage at the lockers inside the post office. There is CCTV and the lockers aren't made of tin foil. The post office is also next door to the police station which might be a big factor. In other situations, perhaps one would need to login to the post office's web site and get a code to get in the lobby where the lockers are after hours.
I suggested an opt-out for home delivery to gain a discount on a PO box. I'm not advocating the requirement. I agree that it would be a problem for some people. In the US, the post office is having to raise rates all of the time and still needs emergency funds when there's a big spike in fuel prices or there's some other calamity. Finding ways to save money and adjust to how people use the post these days is needed. When I first moved to the area I live in now, I got a box near to work so I could nip over to pick up parcels and anything that needed signing for during the day rather than having to wait for Saturday or burn up my lunch racing the 14 miles each way to my home post office and back or leave early enough to get to the post office near home before they closed at 16:30.
"Your hallway is a larger receptacle for post when you are away or in hospital than a locker will. Also it will make the lockers a target for thieves. It also doesn’t work for rural areas or for those with mobility problems."
I live in a rural area in the US, and would opt for that PO Box or locker if they weren't extra cost. I don't know what a British Post Office looks like, the ones in the US are usually purpose-built and built like banks with good PO Box security. I don't get hallway delivery, I get delivery to a small mailbox at the end of the drive, out of sight of my house. Packages larger that the box mean the driver has to negotiate my narrow curving drive to leave them on my porch, a time consuming chore for them.
In small towns here, there's no in town delivery, residents and businesses are given a P O Box for free. I have a business in such a town. If a delivery comes in that is too big for my P O box, my regular box will have a numbered key in it, which will correspond to a large package vault in the same facility, just leave the key in the vault when you collect the package.
About the only real use case for inductive charging is where only on street parking is available.....? So instead of ripping up the street to put bigger outlets in the lamp posts and having cables running all over the place, you would need to rip up the street to put inductive charging in....
Nope, can't see that happening except on new builds.
OK, car parks could have this but again you need to dig everything up
"So instead of ripping up the street to put bigger outlets in the lamp posts and having cables running all over the place, you would need to rip up the street to put inductive charging in...."
It's under city streets where a lot of utilities go so if there's work being done on those utilities, the charging loop(s) would also need to be replaced.
"One of WiTricity's biggest challenges is fighting the misconception that wireless charging is less efficient than corded. "People say, oh if I charge my phone wirelessly it takes longer, but that's not the case here," she says. "So, we are constantly educating people that they don't have to make a compromise when they go wireless.""
So their metric for efficiency is time, not power in vs power out.
https://www.techspot.com/news/86271-wireless-charging-has-efficiency-issue.html
"Charging from completely dead to 100 percent with a cable used an average of 14.26 watt-hours (Wh). With a flat Yootech wireless charger, Ravenscraft said a full recharge consumed around 21.01 Wh on average, or more than 47 percent more energy."
"Results were a little better with Google's official Pixel Stand charger, as it eliminates the possibility of vertically misaligning the phone during charging. In testing, the Pixel 4 consumed an average of 19.8 Wh. Still, that's nearly 39 percent more power versus using a charging cable."
It is simple physics, the worse the coupling between the two sides of the transformer the worse the efficiency.
" the worse the coupling between the two sides of the transformer the worse the efficiency."
Which is why the vehicle wireless charging systems have alignment mechanisms to ensure that the coupling is very, very good.
It's almost as if pushing 200kW through cables doesn't have any losses at all to listen to some people.
Alignment isn't the issue, separation is. Wireless charging for phones incurs power losses of the order of 40-50%, relative to plugged-in charging, and that's with a "distance" measured in millimetres. I don't know what's the best that can be achieved with parking a car on one very precise spot (within a tolerance of a couple of mm), but one thing I know for sure is it's going to be a lot more lossy than plugging the thing in.
To me it just sounds like the natural extension of Musk's well known disdain for humans. He wants to eliminate as much human dependency as possible. "Cleaning" is about the only niche left that requires human intervention - that can be done daily, as opportunity arises, and isn't usually time critical (though I'm prepared to bet he has absolutely no idea how often people vomit in regular taxis, because he probably hasn't been in one, himself, ever). So he can create an Uber-like app to commission people to clean the taxis when they happen to be nearby one that's parked and charging, pays them maybe $5 a time, and has no actual employees (and hence no union) to deal with at all.
Separation is an issue of tuning, if you have a phone case on then the efficiency of a QI charger will go down twice - once because you'll now be offline, and once because the designed separation is low. The power is low, the cost is low, the prime design motivations are convenience and cost - it's Ok over a fairly wide range of conditions.
The EV designs tend to be tuned specifically for operating over a gap - they can afford to be a bit more complex in terms of alignment and tuning...
You're losing sight of the sheer amount of power that has to go through these connections. If I charge a phone at 20W the loss is not going to matter much, but a car needs a tad more than that, and all that lost energy turns into heat you have to disperse.
Fast chargers already need watercooled cabling to not overheat while stupid amounts of current flow through it and that is a DIRECT connection. God knows how much extra energy you have to dedicate to keeping things cool, further upping the losses you incur for what sounds like an neat idea until you start taking into account the actual physics involved.
This is what I very much dislike about Musk: he decides to propagate some BS idea that ignores physics to distract investors from lower earning figures (a trick which, judging by the dropping share price, finally stopped working) and then all his believers (who evidently also have left the real world) belittle the science that says "hang on a minute, it ain't as easy as you make it out to be".
No wonder he's mates with Trump - maybe the bleach idea for Covid came from Musk?
Indeed, I have a patent water still at work (No you can’t circumvent it). After running for 7 hours the plug when I pull it out is WARM. Its an immersion heating coil (one reason why no conversion, baked ingredients). Has to be switched off, water running 30min before the end to let the coil cool down and avoid tripping the thermal overloads.
The overloads got tested once, while at lunch the tubing on the tap came off so the water drained. They operated and cut the power. Can be reset when cool by simply pressing them back in.
"You're losing sight of the sheer amount of power that has to go through these connections."
I'm not - there are losses for any energy transport - why do you think an inductive resonator is going to be lossier than a cable - it's not a laser shining at a solar panel after all.
"It is simple physics, the worse the coupling between the two sides of the transformer the worse the efficiency."
Yes, it sounds as though the accuracy of the positioning of the two coils is absolutely critical, to such an extent that the "convenience" of just putting your phone down on the charger has to be removed in such a way that it needs a specially shaped mount that guides the phone into a precise location. If the mechanical design needs to be that accurate (and more expensive!), you might as well design it to make an electromechanical connection and gain back the direct connect efficiencies.
> and its not inefficient.
Yes it is, for a very simple reason: Physics.
It doesn't matter how you wirelessly transmit energy, the losses will ALWAYS be a lot higher than letting electrons bumb together in a piece of metal. Again, that isn't me saying that, it's physics saying that.
So you either use A LOT more energy to reach the same charging speeds, or you charge A LOT slower. Both options suck for widespread adoption. The former will make already struggling electrical grids even less capable of coping, the latter is simply unacceptable for consumers. Keep in mind: Any charging technology is not just up against other charging technologies...it also is up against gas pumps, which put a car from zero to full energy within less than a minute.
"It's time to post this link again."
Yup.
What I come away with is a way for people to be even more lazy. Plugging a phone or EV in for charging is hardly a big task. It gets even worse when the example is about having your car drop you off at the front of a building and then go off to find a parking space with inductive charging rather than the driver parking up and plugging in. Most of us with sit down jobs could use a bit more physical activity. I force it on myself by choosing a parking space at the market further back from the entrance (weather being good). I'm also not buried neck deep in my phone for the majority of the day so ease of charging makes no difference. I only need to charge every other day or sometimes every three days. I'd go longer, but from time to time I do wind up talking with somebody for an extended time so I want to make sure I won't run flat.
As government pushes to eliminate gas and replace it with electricity, it's important to be squeezing efficiency out of everything. To throw energy away via wicked EM radiation is a secular sin. At the same time there's plenty of people that say, with no evidence, that high tension lines cause cancer.
Maybe the design isn't wireless as we know it but uses a dyno and the regen of the motors to charge.
Either way it's all stupid, converting energy from one form to another only to get it back to the original form is excessively inefficient especially at the power levels of an EV. Not that the losses are the worst thing in themself but most countries are starved for electricity right now so throwing Mw of power away in conversion losses isn't attractive. The biggest challenge is dealing with all that heat becomes a real problem when it's measured in the 10's of Kw.
There's also this link: Tesla didn't deliver on its shiny, so Simone Giertz got busy, naturally with a lot more humour than Musk could ever muster. Yes, Simone Giertz who built a Tesla truck years before Musk conceived the thing they sell now (she was at its intro, and was not impressed). The last link is the full story - enjoy.
Oh, and the designs are public - Open Source.
"It's time to post this link again."
Interesting observation that each electric car (based on the 30km drive) would consume the same amount of power to charge it as a house does each day. Although mostly at night when there is usually a surplus of power generation it won't take long for this to not be the case.
"Interesting observation that each electric car (based on the 30km drive) would consume the same amount of power to charge it as a house does each day. "
As an exercise for the student, calculate the latent energy of the petrol that would be used for the same travel and add 7.46kWh per (US) gallon as the electrical energy input to refine crude oil into petrol.
My house keeps getting more and more efficient with all of my projects to reduce my monthly nut so my car is certainly going to be a hog in comparison. I'd love to do a Simone Giertz and turn an EV into a small truck or estate, but I don't have the room or budget for that right now.
I'm just pointing out that some comparisons make sense and some don't. Saying an EV uses as much electrical energy as n homes doesn't lead the reader to any useful conclusions. I do see value in comparing the energy used to complete a crypto transaction into the energy usage of a typical home (not Al Gore, of course, he uses more daily than I use in a few weeks).
"it also is up against gas pumps, which put a car from zero to full energy within less than a minute."
Less than a minute? ahhh, no.
Efficiency is again a problem with petrol. People often site the latent energy in petroleum fuels without dividing down by how poor the ICE is at turning that into motion. So, on one hand, Yes, you can store more latent energy in a vehicle with liquid petroleum fuels, you will throw a very large portion away trying to use it. Storing leccy doesn't have the same density (mass or volume), but the conversion to miles down the road is much greater. Time efficiency while at the petrol station is oft pointed to, but the necessity of going to the petrol station in the first place is a right pain in the bum. I'm in a position to charge at home so the time it takes to re-provision the car is only what it takes for me to plug it in. I don't make trips longer than the max range of nearly any current EV very frequently so the time savings of being able to add 400 miles of range in terms of petrol in 5-10 minutes (is there a queue?) isn't a factor for me. For a taxi, it might unless an electric taxi can go all day on one charge and recharge overnight.
I think the losses of wireless charging may actually outweigh the conversion losses of an ICE in this case.
There's also your specific use case: if all you do is drive around town, EVs are simply perfect if you can charge at home, no debate there.
The problem starts when you can NOT charge at home, or you need to drive further than the range allows. Yes, you can camouflage the time waste with pointing at shopping malls and other places to waste money, but the fact remains that it. takes. time. - a LOT more than refuelling an ICE.
Now I would love someone to produce a spreadsheet or an app that takes into account your charge curve against time and then works out what the optimum moment is to find a charging station and from how much to how much you ought to charge (as it slows dramatically after 80%), but for the moment I find that for long distance driving I rather have a diesel that does 800km on a full tank if I drive like a normal being than an EV which at most does 250km because I cannot go near the empty bit, and I can't have it totally full either because that kills the battery. Yes, it tells me 400km, but that's from totally full to totally imitating my phone after a busy day so that range is actually a complete lie but they all do it because the reality just doesn't fit in the brochure.
"I think the losses of wireless charging may actually outweigh the conversion losses of an ICE in this case."
Maybe you shouldn't do standup comedy - it seems you may be trying to be funny.
"The problem starts when you can NOT charge at home, or you need to drive further than the range allows. Yes, you can camouflage the time waste with pointing at shopping malls and other places to waste money, but the fact remains that it. takes. time. - a LOT more than refuelling an ICE."
Don't need to "camouflage" time at all... It takes less time to recharge than it does to get rid of a cup of coffee. Substantially if you a) use facilities rather than a lamppost and b) don't sprint to get there.
The fact remains that I haven't waited for the car to charge yet this year - that's at all.
"Now I would love someone to produce a spreadsheet or an app that takes into account your charge curve against time and then works out what the optimum moment is to find a charging station and from how much to how much you ought to charge (as it slows dramatically after 80%), "
But clearly not enough to even try a simple search.
Charge curves are well understood and documented - my previous car tailed off a little at 80%, but it didn't really start to slow down until well past 90% usually ~92/93%, or even just letting the car, or one of a variety of apps which are updated with charger status and availability plan any charges you might need. Just did a ten second search for my car London to Edinburgh and ABRP has selected two stops (18m for 19-67% and 21m fo 10-67%) after 2:46 and 1:45, with a final leg of 2:10. That's about right for a break schedule.
The best apps know what typical efficiency is on various roads, accounting for road surface and hills, from data from cars which have driven there before.
"Just did a ten second search for my car London to Edinburgh and ABRP has selected two stops (18m for 19-67% and 21m fo 10-67%) after 2:46 and 1:45, with a final leg of 2:10. That's about right for a break schedule."
If you WANT to drive that. Booking a train seat in advance off-peak is cheap. I'm a big train nut so that would be my go to. An EV is second choice if it's a holiday trip and road tripping is the whole point. If I were to go to the UK, I'd take the sleeper train and trade money in exchange for days of travel. The last trip I did by train was much like that. My only choice was an overnight train and it lead to fewer days off to go see the concert than if I drove a full day in each direction while awake. It was more expensive in cash, but perhaps not if I had a breakdown.
ABRP keeps getting better. I would still like to see a way to plan a multi-day trip with overnight charging and some way to define driving hours. On one trip I might want maximum speed so I'll drive 10 or so hours and others I might want to stop whenever I see something worth stopping for and that might make planning for 6-8 hours on the move a better target.
"it also is up against gas pumps, which put a car from zero to full energy within less than a minute."
I totally agree with the sentiment, but you either have a very small fuel tank or are constantly topping up. Or maybe where you are the standard flow rate at the filling pump is much higher than where I am :-)
UK pumps push out 50 litres per minute. A car will typically have a fuel tank of between 35 and 70 litres, so unless you are almost empty, then yes, it is going to take less than a minute most of the time. Obviously the total time taken from driving into the petrol station to driving back out onto the road will be longer, but very little of that time is actually pumping petrol.
FWIW, they pump out at "up to" 50l/m according to Wikipedia, the only place I can find a specific flow rate mentioned. In my experience, filling with Diesel, it's usually less than that and the flow rate varies between individual fuel stations and the time of year. Diesel froths up more than petrol and they don't want people "filling up" and then leaving when there's a gallon or more of froth at the top of the tank causing the nozzle to cut out so it pumps more slowly, especially in winter when there's more "anti-freeze" additive in causing it to froth up more.
I've been driving Diesel for over 30 years now, so I've no idea if there is a variation in petrol filling rates, weather related or not.
"Obviously the total time taken from driving into the petrol station to driving back out onto the road will be longer,"
Which is why it takes longer to fill with fuel than electrons in the vast majority of cases. I haven't actually waited for the car to charge in the last year.
I have, on account of not having an ability to charge at home or near home.
As I regularly do trips of a good 100km at a time (and then back), that does mean time to recharge. Even fast.
Is that a bad use case for an EV? Possibly, but as there is no choice but EV it's pointless to look at them.
And we should be having destination chargers at everywhere you'd stop anyway - supermarkets, entertainment establishments, train stations, car parks etc. Which would then mean that even those without the ability to charge at home or work can ABC (always be charging).
This would be even easier if there was a standard wireless charging option - literally just park in the appropriate spot in any car park.
In New Zealand since just about forever you drive up, punch in how much fuel you want (or fill) place nozzle then lock it on leaving you free to for eg use the free screenwash on the car. It automatically stops like a fill does. It doesn’t have to involve paying at the pump either. Petrol stations here make a mint from the few pennnies over we usually manage so have a disincentive to install it in UK. It was old when we left NZ in ’93, still working last I was back. Nobody dears buck the trend.
Also you don’t have to breathe benzene fumes standing over it while you fill. You can set it to fill then wander into the kiosk knowing how long it will take.
"Also you don’t have to breathe benzene fumes standing over it while you fill. You can set it to fill then wander into the kiosk knowing how long it will take."
Many places require that you stay by your car at the very least if not right next to the nozzle while filling. I've seen the ordinances, but I've never heard of anybody getting a ticket for not doing it. That said, if you walk into the store with a live pump, some opportunist could park on the other side of the island and let you you fill up their car too. If something were to happen and there was a restriction about wandering off, you'd be held liable with plenty of CCTV to show you leaving the car.
“Also you don’t have to breathe benzene fumes standing over it while you fill. You can set it to fill then wander into the kiosk”
And then set the place on fire when you get back and a static discharge ignites the vapour…
There is a reason (however rare) that pumps don’t lock on in many countries.
"Also the cost benefits of a public fast charger vs petrol are marginal at best, with a CCS2 plug (NACS is going to be no different in that respect), and with induction charging it is going to end up more expensive than petrol."
Well that's not true on multiple counts.
You can get DC charging at ~30p/kWh, which is substantially cheaper than liquid fuels, and some 7kW chargers are very cheap to use indeed.
Of course if you look at the most expensive DC charging you can find, and make the assumption that *all* charging is that expensive then you'll find that the costs don't add up.
"Of course if you look at the most expensive DC charging you can find, and make the assumption that *all* charging is that expensive then you'll find that the costs don't add up."
I was watching one trip challenge by a TV presenter that had never driven an EV before and chose Shell stations to plug in. About the most expensive there is. He also didn't plan stops very well and went far off the route to get to charging. I'm thinking that he only looked at Shell for charging instead of doing the most rudimentary of video browsing to find a list of all of the different charging companies and planning software. I've seen other presenters get an EV for the first time and never bother to learn how to work the chargers. They just plug the car in and don't bother to sort out if the car is being charged or not before walking away. Oops, one must provide payment, duh.
I know where the best prices are for petrol and that's where I'll fill up unless I need to fill up elsewhere. When I do, I keep an eye out for current prices while I drive so I know what the range is in the area. Charging prices aren't as volatile so it's less of a chore to remember which companies charge all the market will bear and which ones are less expensive. If you are in a hurry, the expensive ones are likely to be readily available. It may not matter if you plan to do a quick session on a fast charger so you can plug in at a hotel overnight and be assured that in the morning you'll be at 100%.
He wouldn't need wireless EV charging. Just station a robot at the charger and it can plug the charger in. Nothing would make a better advertisement for his robots than if they acted the part of a full service gas station attendant from the old days, plugging in your car then washing the windows, etc. while it is charging.
But he knows he's full of shit with his robot claims, just like he is for his self driving claims.
I think wireless charging for buses, etc. has been going on in China for years. With large coils I think the efficiency isn't that bad and it means vehicles just have to line up approximately. But then China can decree that the necessary infrastructure is built.
But I think we may soon see Tesla overtaken on at least two sides by cheaper and better vehicles that no tariffs will stop, and the embryonic "full-hybrid" market.
I think wireless charging for buses, etc. has been going on in China for year
Was happening in the UK a decade ago. They had wireless top ups at the bus stops at the end of the route, and a full charge with a cable overnight.
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/13992/wirelessly-charged-electric-buses-in-milton-keynes/
I agree. We will soon see customers rioting when their Muckmobile refuses to take them to their destination because there is zero wireless charging in that area.
While I like the idea of inductive/wireless charging there is zero infrastructure out there. At least with early EV's you could plug them into the domestic power supply and get a charge allbeit, a very slow one.
The early cars MUST have both wireless and a plug at least until the infrastructure is built out.
Then there are those doors... WTF are they thinking. Didn't Tesla learn enough from the Model X doors?
"Didn't Tesla learn enough from the Model X doors?"
No, or they would have done a redesign and gotten rid of them. With such low sales, that's likely not going to have any ROI and I expect the replacement of the seals is a good money earner for Tesla as it will be a big issue after the warranty has run out.
> wireless charging is horrendously inefficient
That's starting to become an urban myth...
Oslo, Norway trialled 50kW wireless EV charging with Jaguar back in 2020 (fleet of 25 i-Pace taxis, topping up between fares).
The pad to vehicle air gap is 99.94% efficient compared to regular wired charging (according to Loughborough University).
Once you take into consideration the losses in wired charging, the wireless charging system is actually MORE efficient.
A team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory demonstrated another wireless EV charging system earlier this year, achieving similar efficiencies of 96% at 100kW.
Sure, but you're not taking the cables that the user has to manhandle into consideration - they need to be light and flexible which is becoming a very serious issue when trying to deliver up to 500kWh, and they're not made of superconducting materials so the cable that plugs into the EV also has losses of its own.
EVs are having to migrate from 400v to 800v and no doubt eventually 1200v in order that the cables that plug into the vehicle don't melt while still being able to be lifted and manipulated by ordinary people.
It's those cables that are also responsible for the wired power losses that are making wireless charging competitive, which can in theory go to higher than 100kW without having to worry about users manipulating thick, heavy and in some cases water-cooled cables (also, ripe for stealing given the amount of copper in each cable).
High-power wired DC Fast charging is going to hit a wall eventually.
"EVs are having to migrate from 400v to 800v and no doubt eventually 1200v in order that the cables that plug into the vehicle don't melt while still being able to be lifted and manipulated by ordinary people."
To get the fastest charging, EV's have been going to 800v systems. 1200v is highly unlikely as the limit becomes what's possible with power semiconductors in addition to the rate at which batteries (LFP, NMC) can be charged. Insulation/arcing become a big danger as well.
At a point, faster charging doesn't offer much of a return. If you've gone on a long trip starting with a full battery and have used a majority of it, you are likely busting for a visit to the loo, a bit hungry and in need of a stretch. Those rest stops only become more mandatory the older you get. If you've sat down for some lunch, you don't want to have to run back to move your car to avoid idling fees which many vendors impose to keep people from blocking chargers once their car is done. Over time, batteries have been able to be charged much faster. This can also mean that your max 228kW charging speed is also going to allow you to charge at 150kW for a greater percentage of the time so if you plug into a 100-150kW charger, you can sort of pick the amount of time to charge that matches how long you might want for lunch. It will be cheaper and might mean a lower idling fee if you go a bit over.
Yes, I think 30 minutes charge to get 250 miles of genuine, highway speed range in the worst possible conditions (very cold or very hot, uphill all the way, vehicle fully laden, wind blowing against you) would be good enough, provided you can be sure of finding a working unoccupied charger at 200 - 250 miles.
> would be good enough, provided you can be sure of finding a working unoccupied charger at 200 - 250 miles.
And provided you have the time to kill. Not everyone will.
This is part of the problem with EV, compared with fossil fuel refuelling - it does take longer. Much longer. That's a big hurdle for many currently non-EV drivers to overcome. Spending an hour waiting for a vehicle to recharge isn't going to suit everyone, particularly if time is money and they're used to 5-10 minutes when using a pump.
(Very) fast charging (wired or wireless), top up charging (wireless), battery swaps, larger capacity batteries, better journey planning... hopefully the problem will be cracked eventually.
"And provided you have the time to kill. Not everyone will."
If you've driven 250 miles, you don't have 20 minutes to charge? No need to visit the loo? Not hungry? Everything you need to get done you can do while the car is plugged in. With something like a Ionic 5 and a really fast charger, a restroom break is about all you'll get at top charging speeds.
A bigger battery is a heavier battery so all of the times you aren't doing cannonball runs, you are losing a ton of efficiency. Battery swaps mean that there has to be a batter that fits your car all ready to go where and when you need it. Given the constraints on raw materials for making Li batteries, there certainly isn't extra lying about for all of those replacements. There are really good planning applications out there and with more charging stations being installed, it won't be long before even more trips are a slam dunk with plenty of back-up options.
> 1200v is highly unlikely as the limit becomes what's possible with power semiconductors in addition to the rate at which batteries (LFP, NMC) can be charged. Insulation/arcing become a big danger as well.
I'm sure you're right. There are practical limits to how fast and hard a battery can be charged (without damaging it, unless some new miraculous battery chemistry is developed).
The thing is, 350kW DC fast chargers already exist and I'm sure there's someone trying to go higher, so while EV charging might be reaching the practical limits the cables on those things are still utterly ridiculous (some of them are thick and heavy copper cables within water cooled jackets, for crying out loud). The reason they exist is because people want to charge fast - rightly or wrongly, there's still the "5 minute to fill the tank" mentality and not everyone wants to take a dump or have a meal while "filling the tank".
But back to the point of this thread - wireless charging does appear to be a valid alternative to wired charging.
It may not offer the highest charging rates (at least not yet, and maybe never) but in terms of efficiency it's not nearly as far off wired charging as some people like to maintain (and according to some reports it may actually be MORE efficient than wired). The efficiency argument is starting to become nothing but FUD, based on trials and studies.
And there's no denying that wireless charging could also be a hell of a lot more convenient than wired charging, with "top up" charging being a very obvious benefit.
"and not everyone wants to take a dump or have a meal while "filling the tank"."
If you can't charge at home or work, an EV might be a really poor choice. Otherwise, you start the day with as full of a "tank" as you like and it's only on trips past the range of your EV where you have to stop and use a public charger. If you aren't hungry or in need, you many need to see a doctor. Besides that, it's a good idea to take a small break after driving that long.
Convenience in exchange for being very wasteful is selfish. Wireless charging puts some serious design constraints on EV's as well as infrastructure in the ground that is difficult to service. It makes the EV much heavier as well. The "charger" for AC charging is built into the car but external for high power DC charging. The DC charger connects directly to the battery (in most cases) and talks to the car about the charging rate. With inductive charging, there will have to be another bunch of high power electrics on-board. Good luck fixing that when it goes wrong out of warranty leaving the car undriveable.
"The thing is, 350kW DC fast chargers already exist and I'm sure there's someone trying to go higher"
The CCS standard allows for 500A of current so 350kW is 700v. That makes 350kW at 800v around 437A. Unless, of course, the water cooling isn't fully working which will cause the charger to fail or radically limit the current. The only way to get away from water cooled cables would be even bigger cables and that leads to all sorts of other issues.
There really isn't much of a point of faster charging given all of the other things that could be optimized such as price. It's also easier to install a bunch of lower power chargers at a station so there is plenty to go around than to have just a few very high power ones. Electrical distribution becomes a limiting factor along with peak demand charges.
The advantage of fast charging for those on long trips is that the car can be plugged in and left to charge while doing other things. A visit to the loo isn't 2 minutes. Getting some food isn't 5 minutes and just walking around and getting the muscles unknotted takes more than 30 seconds. I've been logging my trips for a bunch of years and a basic stop is 20 minutes with a sit-down meal stop being closer to 45. I'm also noting that some trips I used to be able to make on one bladder now have a stop in the middle somewhere for my comfort. One such route I take a few times a year has a free state sponsored 50kW charger that's usually available. I'd certainly plug in for the 10 minute stop (free is free) or take more time if I had been running the AC on full and bucking a head wind. There are also several other options now too far away. This is all to say that on long trips for me, an EV that can take a good charge in 20-50 minutes is optimum (for me). I could accept less than optimum if the price for the car is low since I don't do so many of these trips that it's a burden. YMMV.
It's clearly a Toaster!
More seriously, a 2 seater Taxi? The pics I've seen of the interior, don't look like there's a lot of space in there, and whilst the Boot looks pretty big, how does that work on an Autonomous taxi? Anyone can open the boot? Bye bye luggage...
Even the BBC's usual gushing commentary over anything Tesla related was rather muted this time. Is it possible that the world is finally moving on from Elon's excretions?
or TDS... Trump devotee syndrome.
When Trump gets elected and Elon joins his cabinet, he won't have time to do anything at Tesla, SpaceX or Starlink.
Trumpo will demand total devotion (along with the licking of his shoes, complete with lifts) from Elon.
PEhaps... (ok, maybe not) Tesla can escape Elon's madness and bring out a Model 2 for the masses.
Anyway, this robotaxi will fail miserably on the UK's pothole ridden roads with those tyres.
Here's Musk doing some cheerleading
All he needs now is a pair of pom poms and a cheerleading skirt
The cheapest Tesla comes in at $39,000. So if you only want one to run around town in, it would be cheaper to buy yourself one of these taxis. You'd also be able to go to sleep on the way to work in it. And get drunk on the way home.
But who's going to buy one? The whole proposition is a Teslataxi. It'll need Tesla software to drive itself, Tesla software for people to order rides, it'll be deeply embedded into Tesla, charging, servicing and maintenance. They presumably aren't planning on selling any to Waymo or the like.
I can see larger taxi outfits might hope they can take a fleet and get rid of their existing drivers, but they'd be purchasing a vehicle yet outsourcing every aspect of their business to Elmo even down to fuel. The only thing the taxi firm would be responsible for would be cleaning the thing, and carrying all of the commercial and operational risk.
Worth also thinking about the payments structure. Tesla might sell the vehicle, they aren't going to be providing operators with customers for free, and they aren't going to be offering the self-driving for free. If you bought one as a personal vehicle it'll likely come with a requirement to use the Tesla ride-hailing app ($), to pay either for the self driving for that route or a cut of the fare ($), and probably minimum mileage commitments against maintenance and those operational charges.
and when you're not using it, it'll probably go off and be a taxi for other people. You may get a share of the fare, but what state will the inside of "your" car be in when you get it back?
That is literally Musk's pitch - if you buy one, you can opt in for it to do ride-share/taxi work ("Uber") when you're not using it, with a lofty prediction that monthly income will exceed monthly payments on the car.
Now, this is not - in theory - a bad thing. Most cars spend 23hours/day parked. Fewer cars overall (since some won't buy at all), fewer parked on the streets (although who is responsible for charging?).
As usual though, regulatory niceties like licensing (as a minicab firm), business insurance and so on are not something Musk worries about too much.
"Now, this is not - in theory - a bad thing. Most cars spend 23hours/day parked"
But other than well controlled corrosion, my car isn't accruing wear and tear when its sitting unused. If a robo taxi is carrying the hoi-polloi it's subject to wear, tear and shittification by the riders, accruing mechanical wear, and it's at risk of being whacked even if the self driving is perfect.
" if you buy one, you can opt in for it to do ride-share/taxi work ("Uber") when you're not using it, "
I wonder if the taxi "app" will come with geofencing from day one, or will it only be added when owners realise they would like to use their car but it's just delivered a passenger to a city a 100 miles away and it might be a while before it gets back?
"but it's just delivered a passenger to a city a 100 miles away and it might be a while before it gets back?"
It could also be that the car just picked up a fare to take to the stadium where there's a big game. Traffic going there, wending around the chicane will all of the other taxis to drop people off at the entrance and then the task of getting back out and on its way back to you. While you may have geofenced your car so it doesn't wind up miles away, this situation won't help either if you want to send your car to retrieve your kids from football practice.
Even if only used within my family, it would be hugely convenient if I could send my car home after delivering me to work in the morning, off to pick up the kids from school to bring them home, then returning to the office in time for me to get home again.
But even if these taxis are available, there's no way I'd put my 8 year old unsupervised in one to be driven across town. Let's talk again when I have an 8 year old grandchild; it might be ready for a 5 mile trip by then.
"off to pick up the kids from school to bring them home"
I'm not seeing how that's a great idea. Of course, I didn't get chauffeured to/from school, but what if there is an issue with the car, an accident, etc? Young children won't be in a position to make alternate arrangements. Now you don't have a vehicle to come get them since they were in the car and you don't have one at work.
" You'd also be able to go to sleep on the way to work in it. And get drunk on the way home."
So, the ideal demographic for autonomous cars are those that stay out late getting drunk in bars and need extra time before work in the morning to sleep it off.
How are you getting in to this thing if you have anything other than great mobility ? Never mind wheelchair users, even someone with bad hips or a dodgy knee is going to struggle getting in or out of this.
And, as others have said, if this hits any of the promised marks (under $30k, production by 2026, on the road by 2027....) I will not only eat my hat but Elon's too.
> And that its passengers will be drained of energy to charge the vehicle.
So will there be bike pedals for you to have a workout on thus getting a bit fitter as well as reducing the cost of the ride a little bit?
Just how much eleccy could you generate this way ?
Reading this article reassures me that my job as a taxi driver will be secure at least until I decide to retire. Probably better than 90% of my customers wouldn't be caught dead riding in one. Plus, they wouldn't be a captive audience for my sparkling wit and endless recounting of my sordid sex life.
Is there no beginning to his talents?
It's worth noting that the big achievements of both of the companies he's been involved with, the Model 3 and Falcon rockets, were both due to the hard work and insights of people who've since left those companies.
Since then, Elon has gone on a number of fantasy quests that have produced.. at best... suboptimal designs that have arrived late, massively overpriced, unreliable or not at all.
He's even managed to take the massive technical lead and trillion dollar valuation of Tesla and loose the leadership to latecomers like BYD. The whole reason he's pivoted to taxis is that the guy who claimed he knew more about manufacturing than anyone else on the planet cannot make the affordable car he promised while other companies apparently can.
"BYD Company was founded in 1995 as a battery manufacturer. In January 2003, BYD Company founder Wang Chuanfu founded BYD Auto after acquiring and renaming a dwindling small automotive manufacturing company, Xi'an Qinchuan Automobile, from a state-owned defense company Norinco."
Norinco, now there's a brand I trust! Drop the BYD name guys.
Just like his "success" with Paypal:
every.to/p/twitter-s-future-is-a-return-to-elon-musk-s-past
It's almost as if there's a pattern forming here....
"Just like his "success" with Paypal:"
Cofinity bought Elon's company and Elon insisted to be the CEO of the combination. He was dumped shortly after by the board and Peter Thiel was the force behind taking the PayPal product to the point where it was sold to eBay for a pile of money and in the process, Cofinity was rebranded as PayPal. Elon didn't have anything to do with it but did have stock derived from the sale of his company.
If I read this right Musk got rich as a result of the hard work of others, and despite himself.
So he's got about the same entrepreneurial skills as his best friend who is probably the only one who managed to make a loss running Vegas casinos.
Thanks for that link.
Thinking about the less salubrious neighbourhoods that every nation has, I'd imagine that the advent of self driving taxis will be a welcome opportunity to throw things at them. Sometimes happens with real taxis, but there's always the risk the taxi driver stops, gets out and turns out to be either bigger or more psychopathic than expected. Or returns with a gang of his mates.
With a Robotaxi, the victims/passengers have little control, and less propensity to fight for somebody else's property. It could become a new pastime, throwing stuff at them, hurling stuff in front to force amusing swerves or emergency stops, even trying to box it into situations it can drive into but not out of. The possibilities for anti-social amusement are endless.
A hoodie and a facemask are effective at keeping hoodlums in business on the streets even with CCTV, I can't see a Tesla's onboard cameras being any different. Indeed, the remote chance of a police response would be part of the entertainment.
"Who, me officer? No, I saw some big kids throwing rock but they ran that way"
Odds are that won't be a problem unless you live to be 117. It's highly unlikely that this weird vehicle will ever get beyond the occasional tightly controlled demo stage. And even that will probably take way longer than the 2 years or so that Musk is promising,
I drove past a Cybertruck parked on the street in my neighborhood yesterday. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen one in the wild and I swear they're getting uglier. [Something I wouldn't have thought possible.]
Hey, now that I think about it, my car recharges wirelessly.
I'm futuristic!
Musk. You've invented the minibus. And for high density, what you want is a bus (50pax), a tram (150pax) or a train (150-1000pax).
The absolute obsession with pod-dy nonsense is mindblowing. Having recently been to Vegas and (alas) had a ride in his terrifying LVCC Loop, I remained astonished at the notion of paying a small army of drivers to take 70 cars around a closed circuit when you could simply install an unattended people mover that can shift 5x as many people for 5% of the staffing.
And Clark County recently voted to let The Boring Company extend it all the way down the strip... ?! Guys, just install a metro. You're way past the population density that can justify it.
One of the things that strikes you in Vegas is when you check out the size of the employee car parks behind the casinos. Acres of prime Strip-adjacent land (conservative market value $5-30m/acre) consumed by staff parking. How is that more cost-effective than just running a staff shuttle bus network across Vegas or pitching in a bit of money for free staff bus passes to justify the city running more buses? It's not even like you'd have a commuter rush - demand would be evenly spread with restaurant and kitchen staff doing 24hour shifts, cleaning staff in the middle of the day and the bulk of casino staff coming in mid-afternoon.
The Wynn staff parking complex has a 3.5acre footprint. The Bellagio's is nearly 5 acres. Insane.
It doesn’t matter if your tax rate is higher if you do something economically useful with it. You make more money that way.
I suppose it’s one way of land banking, but I’m not sure why anyone would want to land bank mid-Strip. It’s not like trying to predict where the new bypass or freeway will go in 20years and pre-emptively buying up cheap farmland - you’re on the Vegas strip, there’s no shortage of customers right now!
Whats even more amazing is the obsession with driving in the first place.
Why does everyone have to always drive or train for hours to do anything ?
Why cant people say lets simplify life and reduce the need to car/train/pod ?
"Why cant people say lets simplify life and reduce the need to car/train/pod ?"
A favorite band from my teenage years (they're in their 70s now) released their final album and is doing their last tour. To get a ticket, I had to take a 16 hour train each way to a concert venue a couple of states away. That's why I couldn't "simplify". Taking the train is far less polluting than driving or flying. It's more fun too even if it is the most expensive (coach seat there and room on the way back).
Mach: Taking the train is far less polluting than driving or flying. It's more fun too even if it is the most expensive (coach seat there and room on the way back).
cow: You are not addressing my actual question about simplifying life.
There are always answers, problem is just as your example demonstrates you dont have the vision to think about where the majority of people are wasting their time travelling. You think of the exception case that rarely happens instead of the common case that happens very frequently.
Im not talking about exceptional cases like your fav band is not local but far away, im talking about repetitive tasks that everyone does on a regular basis.
You share the same curse everyone else does, they simply dont "see" how much time they are wasting because they are "forced" by their own choice or by others to travel or commute.
Unfortunately people are lazy, extremely lazy and also arseholes who think they are clever and winning.
IN the case of cars, most people are too stupid to realise they are not winning by driving but they are actually losing, as their most limited resource, aka time is being taken by stupidities like driving for everything. Just look at the fools who think they are CLEVER because they are not actually DRIVING. WHo cares they are still in a METAL BOX wasting time in the end. One cant actually do much inside a car, its very boring and limited compared to doing other activities in life.
But hey they are winning, Musk told them so.
"And Clark County recently voted to let The Boring Company extend it all the way down the strip... ?!"
They already have a monorail and when looking at costs, ground level is the least expensive, elevated next with underground the most expensive. For someplace what's already high-density, ground level is out for many cases. If there's already an underground, it can make sense to extend and add to that. With Vegas already having splashed out on a monorail, they should just extend that, possibly all the way to the border with California (Primm, NV) and also to the HSR terminal as that is supposed to be going forward (why, I have no idea). A connection to the airport wouldn't be a bad idea either. Long undersized tunnels to drive cars in isn't clear thinking.
It takes a LOT longer than a minute to fuel an ICE vehicle. Just the filling takes longer than that, at least with every car I've had (and in the past half century or so I've had quite a few).
There is also going out of your way to find a gas station, finding an open pump, arranging payment (card at the pump, cash inside or whatever), then you have to stand there and hold or at least babysit the nozzle while the tank fills.
Then it's putting the nozzle back, finding your way out of the gas station and back onto your route.
I don't know how things are going to work for the Robotaxi, but I know that for most people, with a regular EV, charging is a matter of a few seconds to plug the car in when they get home from work, then another few seconds to unplug it the next morning. And on those rare occasions when you have to use a public charger you plug the car in and go do something else while it charges.
"And on those rare occasions when you have to use a public charger you plug the car in and go do something else while it charges."
First find one that's not being used. Maybe easy when EVs are a small part of the fleet. Not so easy if they replace ICEs completely. The EV's use case is local trips. The ICE's use case is any trip you care to make.
The simple answer is to cut down on trips. ICE Or EV, everyone wins.
Less need to build roads, road construction contributes a lot of pollution and im not talking the machines inolved, the process of laying concrete causes chemical reactions which release CO2.
The real problem is that morons think they need to drive for everything and nobody questions WHY...
It’s a good question and after 100 years or so, motorised personal mobility has changed from being only for the rich to a democratised necessity equated with freedom.
EV is changing from a rich person’s thing to every person much quicker than ICE did.
If personal mobility becomes unavailable for some reason, the world will adapt and future generations won’t miss it, as generations before the 20th Ciecle didn’t.
Heres the maths...
A weekend has 2 days.
500 miles takes around 8-10 hours, because of traffic, stops along the way, lunch those types of things.
Most people are going to leave early Saturday morning, it might even take them an hour or two to get ready and have breakfast. Lets be generous and say they leave by 9 am, that means they aririve at the other end by night or 6pm. Spend another hour eatting and maybe stretching your legs, that night time, kids need to sleep after all they have just spent the whole day driving.
Now the same is repeated because it also takes the whole day to get back.
So where is the freedom to do something meaningful after all taht driving ?
WOuld have been better to stay home then you would have 2 whole days to do far more if you wish or do nothing, but at least you wouldnt have spent all that time in a cage like a dead rat.
"If personal mobility becomes unavailable for some reason, the world will adapt and future generations won’t miss it, as generations before the 20th Ciecle didn’t."
In the days of horses being a posh form of transport, people didn't go very far from their home. They likely didn't have time either as there would be daily chores such as feeding animals that couldn't be put off. Maybe you could get a neighbor to help out so you could spend a day or two to attend a wedding/funeral.
If you had a horse and then didn't have one, you'd miss having one and it would put limits on you that you didn't have before. The same will happen with personal cars if they went away. That doesn't mean that having good public transportation isn't needed. It can mean that for a lot of travel, there might be a cost savings over using a car. I'd rather take a train to go 1,000 miles than drive, but taking a bus 10 miles is a different story. There's a monthly gathering I like to attend and it's easier to drive to the edge of the big city area, park at the tram station and take that to where the meeting is held. It works as the trams are frequent and run late. I could take a train for a larger part of the journey, but the car park on my end isn't secure after dark and the last train back is earlier than I'd want to duck out to go home. Missing that train would be expensive.
"First find one that's not being used. "
Near my house there's about 50 Tesla stalls with only 5-6 Teslas charging at any given time. Down the street there's another dozen Tesla spaces with 1-2 charging at any time I've looked. I haven't seen any other brand of EV there so they might not be open to other EV's. The Chargepoint chargers in the Denny's parking lot usually have space available and the Electrify America station, which is unfortunately placed, usually has space and all 350kW chargers.
It should be easy for charging companies to expand sites or add additional ones in the same area, but local governments seem to think that they are an abomination. There will be a period of growth and some teething issues as EV uptake continues. A good dose of planning will be necessary for long trips and especially those on bank holiday weekends. Filling stations didn't magically appear over a couple of years. Now there are locations along major highways with just about every brand represented, loads of food choices along with hotels an other services for travelers. Finding an open pump isn't an issue if you don't mind paying top price.
"There is also going out of your way to find a gas station, finding an open pump, arranging payment (card at the pump, cash inside or whatever), then you have to stand there and hold or at least babysit the nozzle while the tank fills."
Maybe it's where you live, or the time of day you usually fill up, but you seem to be describing a number of instances which concatenate into a worst case scenario. I fill up at least twice a week, often more and only very rarely get all of those delays in one single visit. I'm absolutely sure that for many people with home charging facilities and a more common short daily commute will have a better experience in terms of "filling up" at home, but please don't show your colours by emphasising the rare occurrence as if it's an "everytime" occurrence.
I also had that down to a short routine.
I typically did this quickly in the evening: drive to my local petrol station, swipe card and select nozzle, fill up. Return nozzle. Done.
As I did it in the evening there were no traffic or customers in my way, it was unattended so I paid at the pump instead of having to wade through isles with junk they'd like to flog me and it combined being local with being fairly well priced. Not that it matters as the company paid, but I still deemed looking out for good prices the right thing to do. And the few minutes that it took gave me a good 700km of range (800, but I like having a margin).
And then they forced an EV on me as company car (to be fair and accurately, government rules did):
I have no place to charge at home (nor does the local network have the capacity), so I have to charge elsewhere. Nearest charger: fast charger. Each time I go there I blow a good 30min of my time, shorter if I do this every day. The company is going to install a few chargers Real Soon Now, but the net is limited there too so the 140kW capacity they have will be shared over the vehicles connected.
Until then, I fast charge. For at best 300km worth of range.
And no, I'm not watching the costs. For a start, you don't see them on the unit (which, to me, ought to have been mandatory from the start) and I really cannot be asked to fumble with apps to dig out a value that will not change where I can charge so I'm not wasting my time. Not my choice, so not caring much about the consequences.
"There is also going out of your way to find a gas station, finding an open pump, arranging payment (card at the pump, cash inside or whatever), then you have to stand there and hold or at least babysit the nozzle while the tank fills."
This is analogous to flying on shorter trips. The time in the air is an hour or less, but all of the other faffing about takes ages. I'm a big rail fan anyway, but I do find taking the train to be faster in some cases and driving in others if I'm up for driving.
On a longer trip in an EV, I'd be plugging the car in and having a meal while it charges. It might make sense to choose a charger with a lower maximum power so the time to charge and the time to have lunch are nearly the same. There's a premium charge for the fastest chargers. With a petrol car, the 5-15 minutes it takes to fill up is in addition to using the facilities and having a feed.
The Robotaxi is all well and good, lets see how it works out.
But as long as Tesla is building that platform I hope they also build a version for people who want to drive, IE with things like a steering wheel.
A two seat Tesla this size could be a LOT of fun, and if Tesla gets anywhere close to the price target for the Cybertaxi a more conventional one could be even less expensive.
But as long as Tesla is building that platform I hope they also build a version for people who want to drive, IE with things like a steering wheel.
I'm assuming once the level of Full Self-Driving that is required for the robotaxi to work is approved (with no human at all in control) it will also be available for other Tesla vehicles.
That would be the best of both worlds, and I'm not holding my breath for that day to happen anytime in the next 20 years.
"A two seat Tesla this size could be a LOT of fun, and if Tesla gets anywhere close to the price target for the Cybertaxi a more conventional one could be even less expensive."
They announced the Roadster 2.0 in 2017. The problem now would be where they would build it as they don't have an inventory of facilities that could be converted and it would likely kill the Model 3. People would buy the coupe or the Model Y and that means it doesn't add much of anything to the company's bottom line. Even worse if Tesla makes less money per vehicle.
I will NEVER get into a vehicle that has no emergency provisions for when it goes wrong. With Tesla FSD doing things that suggest it should have never been allowed on the road in the first place the likelihood that it WILL go wrong is somewhere between 80% and 100% certain.
With FSD, Tesla had this little trick up their sleeve of quickly handing control back to the driver when things got hairy, so the driver took the blame for the FSD failures and consequences instead of Tesla.
That dodge is no longer going to work when the passengers have no provable input, so I'm guessing the only way to manage failures then is to make people sign an NDA before boarding and sue the bejeezes out of anyone who dares breaking it. Which they will have to when authorities start asking questions, but that won't stop Musk trying to ruin people as an intimidation tactic because he is nice like that. His orange friend has used that for years to delay consequences for himself so I can see Musk taking that up with enthusiasm.
Heres an idea... since yuou like sitting in a car for hours in traffic because traffic is everywhere and calling it fun.
Go sit in your toilet for 5 - 6 hours and then have a cup of tea and then return to the bathroom for another 5 - 5 hours and pretend that you "went" somewhere...
The giant toaster isn't going anywhere. Everybody has pointed out that it has almost no ground clearance. I don't see easy access to the wheels so if it got a puncture, it will be difficult to service. Even more so if bodywork is sitting on the ground. Many people find it uncomfortable to be facing the opposite direction of travel with many also not being comfortable not having a good view out (will there be motions sickness bag dispensers near to hand?). It might not be long for cities to asses large fees as any breakdowns will be hard to move out of the way. Electric parking brakes are already problematic. The only way to clear the van from the road would be to have a crane that's fitted to lift them onto a flat bed truck. Of course, a city won't be too fussed about causing tens of thousands in damage if they have to push the vehicle out of the way. There doesn't appear to be any good aspect of the thing to push on.
The coupe is all form and no function. I see the London Black Cab as being at the apex of functionality and a very good vehicle for making comparisons. There's room for more than two people, baggage, bikes, wheelchairs, etc. If you have too many children, the spares can sit on the floor if the driver isn't a stickler for regulations. It's pretty easy to get in/out and to do so from the curb side of the vehicle. With the Tesla concept, it looks like somebody will have to get in from the traffic side if there is more than one passenger. Elon quoting a price was silly. This isn't a car one would own privately. Without controls and all of the mapping requirements there are to get some bit of autonomy, the car won't be universal. Add in the cost of wireless charging infrastructure that no other car uses and it's silly. Those that would buy them for commercial use will want as robust a car as they can get that's also easy and cheap to service. At a minimum, the interior panels that people will carve up need to be inexpensive and since people will make the inside... MOIST! (Backyard Starship reference), there has to be the ability to park the car at an angle and hose it out so internals will be required to have an IP6x rating.
I'd like to see the design goals for both of these vehicles. They seem to be as off the mark as what they stated they had for the Semi.
You forgot subscription. Even if you are allowed to "own" a self-driving car, it will be unusable from day one without a live and constantly updated mapping system. My latest car, the onboard satnav was out of date on day one, (2 years old when I bought it). It still has free access to updates so I updated it. It now correctly shows the major nearby fly-over correctly that was opened about two years ago, but doesn't show the traffic light controlled T junction that used to be a mini roundabout over 4 years ago, even on the latest update. My screen mounted Garmin lags with updates, but not by as much as the TomTom powered car SatNav. If the two biggest names in satnav mapping can lag that much, it's doesn't give me a lot of confidence in any antonymous vehicle that don't require a hefty mapping subscription before they are allowed on the roads. I remember driving through "fields" according to satnav for months before the map updated to show the new route of the A1(M) and "flying" over the Firth of Forth on the "missing" Queensferry Crossing :-)
"My screen mounted Garmin lags with updates, but not by as much as the TomTom powered car SatNav."
I'm not a fan of those sorts of things being built into the car. Technology changes all of the time so plenty of kit that's being installed by the OEM is abandoned long before the car goes to the knackers. I used to have a Garmin SatNav that I used, but got an Android unit that replaced the factory stereo and I use the TomTom app. The Garmin is still in the car as a back up. My third redundency is a hard copy set of driving instructions just in case. I do a lot of work at new builds so the job site might not show on any service. What I typically do is enter something close as my nav point. I don't recall ever getting a job to do on the day while I'm in the field and don't have a way to look up the address prior to going to the job site.
I think my Garmin is in the order of 10 years olf now. It still gets updates from the "lifetime" updates service included in the price. It no longer gets traffic updates though. Not sure if it's a faulty RDS adaptor in the power lead or something else. The voice control also doesn't seem to be able to find by town name any more. Maybe it's time to do a factory reset, change the SD card and rebuild the map updates. But on the whole, it's far superior at doing voice control directions than the one in the car. The car one is ok if you know the address or or happy to find a a generic POI such as "nearby hotels" or "nearby food" etc, but far less helpful ay adding "favourites" or adding a voice added waypoint while driving while being very good with live traffic info. I tend to still use both in tandem, rather than one or the other.
" I tend to still use both in tandem, rather than one or the other."
I used mine in tandem until I got used to the TomTom app which seems to be some unadvertised version that came with the head unit. I've never been a fan of voice control and do what I can to disable that sort of thing. I haven't found a need for it either. My travel is pretty well set when I leave home to a job. If something were to change, it would probably be a last minute cancellation and I'd just return home. I'm sure it can be useful for some but even as a big gadget freak, I'm a little more thoughtful about paying for things I don't see an immediate use for. I've spent plenty of money on stuff when I thought, "oh, that's cool". It's like the titling one could do with early camcorders, you try it once and it's so cheesy you never use it or the built-in effects ever again.
The other thought is going beyond solving problems I have right now doesn't do any good. In 6 months something will come along even better and I will have had the time to figure out if that solution they are trying to sell me has a problem that needs solving. It's like satellite radio. Oh, cool, look at all the channels! I then stop and think that I never turn on the FM and only play stuff from my iPod and/or thumb drive so why should I pay for Sat radio in the car? Besides, all of those channels play the same bands from decades ago and I've heard all of that too many times. I'm also old so all of the "new" stuff sounds very similar and does nothing for me.
Very funny that just yesterday in Michigan, whilst trying to drum up votes there, Trump has basically turned around and said Electric and Autonomous Cars are shit, and he will move to restrict and ban them. Way to piss on your top cheerleader!
If any sort of restrictions came into affect on electric cars, Tesla will be dead in the water, and Elon's value (and wealth) will plummet. But I guess by then, Trump wont need him anymore, so that's fine...
"Trump has basically turned around and said Electric and Autonomous Cars are shit, and he will move to restrict and ban them."
Fortunately, it's not up to the President. It might inhibit more government handouts and subsidies which I don't have a problem not paying for.