Autonomous Vehicles

One of the interesting dynamics in the road towards self driving cars is that many OEMs, like Audi, are producing semi-autonomous vehicles like their V8 in the meantime. These semi autonomous ones released later this year will need cameras and sensors inside the car to monitor you, the driver. Will the driver want this "intrusion" to their private space?

https://www.fastcodesign.com/90154703/the-future-of-your-commute
 
Sounds like even more stuff to go wrong. What's the odds on all this still working in a car 5-10+ years old? Once it all starts breaking the car will be unsafe to use.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Sounds like even more stuff to go wrong. What's the odds on all this still working in a car 5-10+ years old? Once it all starts breaking the car will be unsafe to use.
Click to expand...

You might consider that many future AVs will be EVs and there is an argument that the EV has many advantages over the internal combustion engine, one of them being fewer moving parts in the drive chain to go wrong and hence lower maintenance costs. You can Google around and find lots of info on this subject if you need to verify my statement. If you do you could ask: "Tesla Model S v ICE--how many moving parts?"

I used to think that an EV had a shorter useful life than a car with an ICE (internal combustion engine). It now seems that the reverse is true and that Tesla data suggests closer to 500,000 miles before 20% battery depletion makes the vehicle uneconomic to run. This data has been gathered by Tesla and by Tesla Club owners.

On the contrary, I think many believe that an ICE vehicle will run for 200,000 miles before it needs to be replaced.

In most markets vehicles are driven to destruction (of course with many owners and often in many countries). This means that useful life is a significant factor in determining demand.

Hence if useful life is increased by 2.5 times (500,000 miles v 200,000 miles), demand is likely to be impacted meaningfully. I could see EVs becoming extremely popular in coming years.

You will notice that increasingly, companies like Waymo are turning to EVs for a substantial portion of their projected fleet of vehicles (eg, recent EV deal between Jaguar Land Rover and Waymo).

Conclusion: AVs that are EVs have fewer parts to go wrong, have longer useful life than ICE vehicles and have been safely tested is what I expect to see in AV fleets in the near future.
 
But it's usually the electrical stuff that starts to die long before the engine. Theres plenty of old Mercs driving around where half the technology inside no longer works, but they run fine.

An AV has far more parts to go wrong (quite a lot of delicate sensors for a start, processors, software, etc) and it interfaces with the controls of the car directly. After a point it won't be safe to use, like wiring in an old house. Or if it gets damaged it will be eyewateringly expensive to fix because it's all work for an automotive electrician to do.

As for EVs, the oldest Tesla is only about 10 years old now. We haven't come close to seeing the full lifecycle so don't know how it will play out in reality. Give it at least another 10 years and we will see what the longevity is actually like. You can't trust what a manufacturer claims. I mean...VAG say their cars have low emissions and are reliable.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
But it's usually the electrical stuff that starts to die long before the engine. Theres plenty of old Mercs driving around where half the technology inside no longer works, but they run fine.

An AV has far more parts to go wrong (quite a lot of delicate sensors for a start, processors, software, etc) and it interfaces with the controls of the car directly. After a point it won't be safe to use, like wiring in an old house. Or if it gets damaged it will be eyewateringly expensive to fix because it's all work for an automotive electrician to do.

As for EVs, the oldest Tesla is only about 10 years old now. We haven't come close to seeing the full lifecycle so don't know how it will play out in reality. Give it at least another 10 years and we will see what the longevity is actually like. You can't trust what a manufacturer claims. I mean...VAG say their cars have low emissions and are reliable.
Click to expand...

I think you make some very fair points but keep in mind that the ownership model of the AV is likely to be far different from what you are describing with "the old Merc" and even what Tesla offers today. Tesla offers for sale a Level 2 vehicle, not a self driving AV. Looking at the plans of most other manufacturers and tech players, they are unlikely to offer initially a Level 4/5 vehicle for sale to individuals like Tesla, but a ride hailing service owned and operated by a large Corporation. I believe that without the cost of a human driver, a commercial service will be extremely competitive (ie, disruptive to car manufacturers who sell to the public) causing many private buyers to question whether ownership in future makes sense.

Specifically, for a number of years while the "kinks" you describe are being worked out, the AV will be owned by very large corporations who will be operating a ride hailing service 24/7 and it will be in their economic interest to fix the vehicle quickly and get it back in service. I note that Waymo has already partnered with both Avis and Autonation in the US to both clean, maintain and service their AVs to facilitate the quick turnaround. If you are a company offering such a commercial service, you cannot have a situation where your fleet is deemed too expensive or too difficult to repair. So I would not worry to much about the "eyewatering expense" to fix. Last time I checked, Google's cash position was $ 100 billion.
 
Whatever it is, it will be expensive. Maybe not to start with but costs will hike as we have seen with all public transport. There's no way they will make it cheaper than running a car yourself, why would they? People pay more to use the crappy bus and train service already.

It's not going to turn out the way people think it will. Because greed.
 
Update on Waymo's application in California to test their AVs without a safety driver:

The California Dept of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has announced today that an applicant has successfully passed the first layer of their two step process leading up to approval or rejection. The second step is expected to take at least a few weeks. On 2 April the DMV passed a new regulation. Under the new rules, the DMV has 10 days to decide if an applicant has provided them sufficient information and data to allow them to conduct a full review. Waymo is actually the second company to apply, with the first one told within 10 days that it needed to provide more information before a review could begin.

The fact that it is Waymo has been indirectly confirmed from a protest group called Consumer Watchdog in California. Consumer Watchdog wants the DMV to allow for public comment which is apparently not required under the new regulation.

If approved, Waymo would be the first company granted a license to test its vehicle without a human safety driver in the vehicle. Waymo has said that if approved it would plan to introduce the testing first in the city of its headquarters, Mountain View and then spread out to nearby towns.
 
Nasher said:
Whatever it is, it will be expensive. Maybe not to start with but costs will hike as we have seen with all public transport. There's no way they will make it cheaper than running a car yourself, why would they? People pay more to use the crappy bus and train service already.

It's not going to turn out the way people think it will. Because greed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it seems more likely that costs will come down. One of the biggest costs of building a fully autonomous vehicle is the cost of LIDAR. A few years ago, a company called Velodyne would charge approximately $ 75,000 for its roof mounted unit (the spinning top you would see on early AVs). Recently Waymo has been able to develop its own version of LIDAR at a cost of $ 7500. I assume that worst case, a fully equipped Waymo ride sharing SUV costs up to $ 250,000 per vehicle to put on the road (I think this is overly conservative). Just purchasing 20,000 Jaguar Land Rover iPhase EVs without the Waymo hardware and software costs $ 70,000 at retail ($ 1.4 billion total). Waymo and JLR says the ride hailing service for these 20,000 vehicles can generate 1 million ride shares per day. By the time these vehicles are fully delivered to Waymo in the next 18 months, I expect the total on the road cost to drop significantly below $ 250,000 per vehicle all inclusive, perhaps to as low as $ 100,000 per vehicle. Each vehicle will generate 50 ride shares per day. If you assume each ride share brings in say $10 on average (choose whatever number you want), the payback period per vehicle purchased is 200 days, or just more than 6 months. Add in the cost of maintenance and it is still a very quick payback. Remember there is no human driver to compensate.

Now, to your comment about it being more expensive than running a private car. Remember, the ride hailing user has no upfront cost compared to the private owner that has the cost of ownership and maintenance. Also remember, the average private owner uses his car perhaps 3 or 4% of an average day so 96-97% of the time it is sitting idly in a parking spot. If the ride hailing vehicle arrives quickly (think Uber like times), and it is significantly cheaper than a human driven taxi (which it will be---there is no need for greed as the payback is so quick), many will question the need to own their private car.
 
@Nasher

This morning I noticed this article from The Drive which I think you might find interesting: "Wait, Who even asked for self driving cars in the first place?" and "Five years ago, autonomy wasn't even a thing, now it is the only thing."

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/20408/wait-who-even-asked-for-self-driving-cars-in-the-first-place

I noticed one section which talks about running costs of a ride hailing AV, which makes a similar point to what I made in my recent post about cost advantage:

"Price will be pretty compelling, with autonomous taxi services costing 35 cents per mile—or roughly half the cost of driving a personal car today and 1/10th the cost of a taxi".
 
35 cent (25p) per mile is around what it costs to run my gt86 lol, maybe more actually. That's not even an economical car.
 
Last edited:
Yep even with that. Though the tyres last ages so don't need replacing every year.

But also the cost to rent an AV won't stay the same where as my service costs will. That's just a starting price and it will likely go up every year. If they eventually get a monopoly on road transport it will be extortionate like trains are.
 
Nasher said:
Yep even with that. Though the tyres last ages so don't need replacing every year.

But also the cost to rent an AV won't stay the same, that's just a starting price. It will likely go up every year.
Click to expand...

I notice that a new gt86 from Toyota starts at £ 25,000. Some buyers will find that they prefer to spend the 25 p / 35 cents per mile each time they hail an AV taxi rather than either:
1. Part with £ 25 k up front or
2 Lease with monthly payments

£ 25 k up front means that you do not have that money to invest or save (lost opportunity cost) and monthly leases often carry additional finance charges. Hence competition will be widespread.

Plus

Many people (clearly not you) actually hate driving, esp in rush hour traffic and would prefer to spend their time doing something other than having to focus on the back of the car in front of them travelling at an average speed in London of 7 mph for example. How much is that worth to the average commuter? And notice I exclude the additional advantages associated with better safety performance of an AV, a point I note you often disagree with. And have you included motor insurance in your calculation?

Looking out a few years, will it be worth this 25 p per mile to ride in an AV, perhaps in that special lane reserved for AVs and public transport, at a cost 1/10th of today's taxis?

If the article in The Drive I just linked to is right, we are talking about a market worth trillions of dollars and the possible complete disruption of the automotive industry as we know it. Hence competition to offer a highly competitive ride hailing service may be the only salvation for many of today's players. There will be plenty of competition driving prices lower. Fleet buyers will demand greater discounts from manufacturers. Cost of hardware and software enabling AVs will continue to fall as economies of scale are achieved in manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
Even before we get to AVs in scale, there appears to be a move away from car ownership.

"Will Uber and Lyft make "car cutting" the new cord cutting?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...e-car-cutting-the-new-cord-cutting-2018-04-20

Highlights:

1. "Around 9% of people who sold or traded in a vehicle over the past year decided to forego getting a new car in favor of using services like Uber and Lyft, a poll conducted by Reuters and Ipsos found last May."

2. "One study found that as many as 25% of current American drivers could benefit from ditching their vehicles in favor of ride-sharing services."

3. "Between 1983 and 2014, the percentage of people between the ages of 16 and 44 who held a driver’s license decreased from 91.8% to 76.7%, according to research from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute."

4. "While 43% of Zipcar members owned a car prior to joining, only 24% continue to do so after they’ve joined, Zipcar found in a study. It does, of course, have a vested interest in people renting rather than buying automobiles."
 
sesevans said:
Even before we get to AVs in scale, there appears to be a move away from car ownership.

"Will Uber and Lyft make "car cutting" the new cord cutting?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...e-car-cutting-the-new-cord-cutting-2018-04-20

Highlights:

1. "Around 9% of people who sold or traded in a vehicle over the past year decided to forego getting a new car in favor of using services like Uber and Lyft, a poll conducted by Reuters and Ipsos found last May."

2. "One study found that as many as 25% of current American drivers could benefit from ditching their vehicles in favor of ride-sharing services."

3. "Between 1983 and 2014, the percentage of people between the ages of 16 and 44 who held a driver’s license decreased from 91.8% to 76.7%, according to research from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute."

4. "While 43% of Zipcar members owned a car prior to joining, only 24% continue to do so after they’ve joined, Zipcar found in a study. It does, of course, have a vested interest in people renting rather than buying automobiles."
Click to expand...
I think car ownership is here to stay. I won't go into the full details but it would not be econimically feasible (for companies) for a majority of the population to rely ride sharing services because of how demand for vehicles work in day to day life.
 
Can't come soon enough tbh. I am stick of old people on the motorway or just plain ****'s who are slow for no reason. I mean seriously if you can do 50. Just do 70 and stop being scared to death whilst holding everyone up.
Plus a driverless car will keep a perfect distance constantly so I don't have to keep beeping those drivers that leave 50meter gaps in front of the in a queue because they can't go anywhere anyway.. Newsflash **** your the reason the people behind you are queuing.

I love driving a car but would give it up in a blink of an eye to rid myself of these gripes.
 
Good luck, most likely AVs will drive even slower. They will be aimed at the lowest common denominator and that will be these same people who are scared to go above 50mph :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom