The next big thing in transportation? The ‘un-car’ The automobile industry will look a lot like the airline industry if manufacturers don’t rethink their offerings. Enter the un-car. Gist, we have two big aircraft manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus) and many fleet operators. Cars are looking alike today and we may be heading in that direction. Interesting read and we are already seeing signs of it. Tesla wants to take back leased cars and create a taxi service, Wyamo is in partnership with manufacturers and Lyft. Uber, GM, Hyundai and others want to get into the business. As cars get more expensive (more gadgets, not all needed), parking spaces a premium, better autonomous vehicles, why not most of us be renters rather than owners. After all as Sondors says, cars are used about 5% of the time, but we are paying for 100% of the car. Instead of buying a $80,000 car which may cost the owner $2,500-$3000 a month (loan or opportunity costs, gas/electricity, insurance, maintenance, possibly parking), the owner can can spend say $50 per day for an on-demand 24/365 robot-chauffeur driven service, he/she is still coming out ahead. Again a lot of unanswered questions, and many cars are only $35,000 or less, so breaking even point for ownership may be lower. But there may be a point where there 2-3 manufacturers and 5-7 operators, very little user ownership. Certain, No, possible yes. https://www.fastcompany.com/90444002/the-next-big-thing-in-transportation-the-un-car?utm_source=pocket-newtab Here are two important characteristics of the airline industry: Just two manufacturers produce 99% of the world’s airplanes for airlines, and everyday passengers have a hard time telling those aircraft apart—and mostly don’t care anyway. Weirdly enough, though, these characteristics are important to the future of cars. Why? Because the present of Boeing and Airbus could be the future of the automotive industry. There are already indications that automotive is following aviation’s path toward a future in which there are fewer brands and models. ............... It’s easy to see where this is headed. In a world where ride-hailing companies are now incentivizing people to give up their cars and rethink transportation as a service rather than a piece of hardware, we will only need a couple manufacturers to make fleets of urban taxibots. ............. This future isn’t inevitable, though. There are at least two alternative futures that are each possible. But the onus is on carmakers to start imagining and designing the vehicles we’ll be using in 2030 and beyond that are more than boxes on wheel................
It's coming. Tesla has a good strategy. Although the Model 3 is unlikely to represent the shape of future transportation as a service, it's good enough that it represents a path to scaled autonomous fleet.
Not a new concept has been predicted for a long time. No doubt it will happen, just a matter of when. Step one is get self driving cars to work and to become common, irrelevant if they’re EV or ICE or a combination of both. Then there is no doubt the concept of individual car ownership will gradually fade away in favor of subscription to transportation services provided by large corporations who own fleets of self driving cars, or pay-per-use transportation services from the same corporations.
Agree that there's a good chance of this one day being the status quo, but I'd bet that my teen children won't see it in their lifetimes. 1) Cars are cheaper to make, purchase and own than planes 2) People use cars for wide variety of purposes, and accustomed to driving on demand. A fleet would need a variety of vehicles, sufficient to handle peak demand (think: holidays, summer vacations), with resources to store the surplus vehicles the rest of the year. 3) It's hard to imagine a profitable solution to #2 that doesn't in some way rely on improvements to other public transportation. 4) I honestly think one of the biggest obstacles will be liability and insurance. When a car fails and results in damage or injury, who's responsible for restitution? These aren't insurmountable, but I'd imagine we'll have self-driving technology long before we're ready for the kind of culture-wide paradigm shift envisioned in that article. We'll need a series of other "next big thing in technology"s before we get there.
Car ownership is more persistent than a lot of industry watchers might want you to believe. That's not to say that there can be and should be more types of catering to personal mobility needs. That's why so many Silicon Valley companies are counting on "mobility as a ride-service" rather than the extremely wasteful hardware-thinking of the car industry, which is based on selling as many cars as possible. Making cars to every buyer's individual taste is the latest in feeding the car ownership appetite. Nonetheless, two points are quintessential in the latest developments: 1. the business model of ride-hail providers like Cruise and Waymo who count on driverless. I can remember a WSJ journalist writing that ADS (FSD) is sooo costly that having a human driver operate a taxi is cheaper. 2. An AV at your disposal may replace car ownership, you might say the longer-term goal of many ADS developers: get rid of the excess rolling hardware that's clogging up our streets. However, both points plead IMHO for smaller EV/AVs on average. People will want a vehicle with the carrying capacity needed at the moment of request. Since the average car occupancy is around 1.2 person, we may all look forward to having as little car mass and size as possible on the road. It will benefit traffic throughput and safety of more vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians). You will seldom need the 6-seat capacity of the Cruise Origin. Cruise may want to reconsider deploying a robo-taxi that will carry maybe 1-2 passenger on an average ride-hail trip. Smaller (sleeker) AVs may require less complicated ADS equipment and a lot less batteries (kWh) to still have a decent range. That will make grid demand more manageable. Below: robo-taxis may return to the helmet-on-wheels that Waymo introduced a decade ago... Still want to hang on to having your own car, which is to be expected in more rural areas, then you might want to complete your order for Tesla's Cybertruck.
The reason for personal ownership is leaving when you need to go. Size is negotiable as is range and creature comforts. Bob Wilson
It amazes me how many predictions of a careless future completely fail to recognize this simple point! Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
And I'd bet my pre teen children will have access to self driving cars as a service before they turn 20. I think this is the easiest the solve. The service provider is liable. Wether they have additional insurance or self insure will all depend on the cost/risk analysis.
I don't see how a move from personal car ownership to transport as a service would mean you won't have access to a vehicle on demand.
because there would need to be too many cars for that to work people in NYC don't drive, because they have 24 hour subway that is how you live without a car suburbs, not so much
There is a big difference between walking out the door into your car, and calling for a ride then waiting around for them to arrive. What I don’t see is how robotaxis reduce the number of cars on the road. Unless they pick up multiple passengers and try to coordinate a dynamic and complex logistics problem. Between each ride, the car will be driving empty to the next pick up. We won’t have as many parked cars, but we will have even more on the road! Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
That's exactly how it will work. You'll pay a premium if you want to travel alone. And thankfully the software to coordinate it all is significanttly simpler that the actual self driving code.
The point is that the vehicles remain in use, rather than parked 90% of the time. Will there be a necessary adaptation? Of course. That will be made by the early adopters, while older drivers insist on spending money for something they don't use, most hours of a day.
