Last night Tesla showed off a number of future products, including the autonomous two-door, two-passenger “Cybercab.” The company promises to sell the car for $30,000, offering owners a chance to be driven around in a steering wheel-less car with two Lamborghini-style doors and camera-based AV software that promises to drop you off at your destination. There are a number of elements about the Cybercab that any self-respecting journalist should be skeptical about, but right now I want to focus on one thing: How does a two-passenger cab make any sense? Well, it just might.
Here’s a bit from our Cybercab-reveal article:
Tesla headlines the Cybercab as “faster” and “more affordable.” Why? Well, you won’t be paying a human driver to sit in the seat to haul you around. Beyond that, it notes that the design relies solely on cameras for its self-driving ability. Tesla has long eschewed the use of more expensive radar or LIDAR sensors in its autonomous driving program.
Tesla also states you’ll be able to “call it once” and keep the vehicle “as long as needed,” whether you’re taking short trips or using it all day. Contrast that to a contemporary rideshare or taxi, which is only yours for as long as your trip lasts.
And here are a few photos:
The first thing some might say in reply to my headline is: “Well, most of the time a New York taxi cab is only transporting one or two people, anyway; three-wide is tight, and nobody wants to sit up front.” OK, sure. I buy that the average taxi ride probably involves shuttling only one or two folks around. But here’s the thing: I’m not sure I fully understand the benefit of a two-passenger taxi has over a five-passenger. But let’s talk about it.
Let’s have a look at some other taxi cabs from around the world, starting with two of what one could argue are the ultimate. The first is called the Toyota JPN Taxi, and, after riding in one in Hong Kong, I wrote a deep-drive on it earlier this year comparing it to its contemporaries. This is a phenomenal taxi cab layout:
Just look at how perfect the packaging is on this machine. There’s a short hood to house the entire engine/drivetrain, but everything aft of the cowl is passenger space. The rocker panels are low, allowing for easy ingress/egress, and that low floor, combined with a tall roof and an overall boxy shape, maximizes interior volume.
One one side there’s a sliding rear door for when you’re in tight spots, and on the other side there’s a conventional door. There’s tons of interior seating space, with the floor being perfectly flat thanks to a front-drive design:
And look at all the space for cargo:
Have a look at the side profile one more time:
Let’s compare that to one of the other benchmarks in taxicab design, the London Black Taxi, which Matt Hardigree drove, as mentioned in his article “I Drove A London’s Black Taxi And Discovered Why They Are Some Of The Best Purpose-Built Vehicles On Earth.”
The London Electric Vehicle Company (LEVC) “TX” has a seating configuration that’s arguably even more impressive than the Toyota JPN’s. Up front, partitioned off from the rear, is just the driver’s seat; the passenger’s door offers access to a nice flat luggage space:
And then there are not three, but six seats in the back!:
You’ll notice that the overall shapes of the London Black Taxi and the Toyota JPN are similar, and that’s because this footprint maximizes the ratio of interior volume to footprint — a key metric in cities that are already jam-packed with cars. Whats more, both designs offer excellent wheelchair access.
Especially relative to the best taxi cabs out there, it seems to me that the Tesla Cybercab design really doesn’t make any sense. Here’s what transporting five people would look like using Cybercabs:
Here’s what it’d look like using a London cab:
That doesn’t seem to make sense, but let’s talk about it some more.
Even if you look at the Cybercab as a private car and not an actual taxi, it’s definitely cool looking, and if it can drive itself, that’s amazing. But the market for two-passenger vehicles is so small. Typically two-passenger cars are sports cars, and you know what people typically enjoy doing to sports cars? Driving them.
So this isn’t going to take the place of a sports car, it’s not going to work as a family car, and as a taxi cab it would probably work for most taxi rides, but does it offer a significant benefit over a four-door taxi cab with a similar footprint? I mean, maybe it’s lighter and more aerodynamic, but how much of a consumption delta is there really between this and, say, a car shaped like a five-passenger Prius? And is that Vehicle Demand Energy delta associated with this sleek shape going to outweigh the fact that you now need multiple of these to transport groups of three or more?
I’m honestly curious about this. It’s likely that most taxi rides limit their efficiency by some amount by offering too much space when only one or two people are usually being transported. Why carry around extra weight and cost when you usually don’t have to? But most of an electric vehicle’s weight and cost is in its batteries, so upon first glance, I’m really not seeing how a five-passenger design isn’t the better call, here. If this were a tandem car, then I get it — two seats reduce the frontal area (though aerodynamics really only dominates at higher speeds, and I’d guess most taxis drive an average of 30 mph or so). But this? I’m curious if Tesla had some data to back up why this makes sense:
It doesn’t even look that small (in part, because a somewhat-long wheelbase is going to be needed for batteries). And if it’s a two-seater just to save money, surely scissor doors aren’t the move, right?
I’m always careful not to just knee-jerk react to Elon Musk creations, because that happens far too often in media. But I do have to call out when I don’t understand something, and I’m a bit confused here. Surely Elon Musk — a man who is all about optimization — has date to prove that this is optimal, right?
Then again, the Cybertruck is far from an “optimal” truck design, but it’s actually useful, and it fits into a category of vehicle for which there is lots of demand. But the Cybercab? It seems both suboptimal as a taxi and limited in its appeal as a private vehicle.
Or don’t. Maybe there’s no point in talking about the overall design when the whole thing relies on a car being able to drive itself — something that isn’t possible yet for the vast majority of the country.
Update: I called fellow engineer Huibert Mees just now to chat about this. He buys that a two-door design could offer significant cost and weight advantages, and if most cab rides are just shuttling around one or two people, that could mean it’s theoretically a better tool for the job the majority of the time. But it’s not clear whether the cost and weight and whatever incremental aero benefits (and again, aero really only dominates at highway speeds) outweigh the practical detriment of not being able to carry more than two people.
What’s more, the technically correct answer isn’t always the actually correct answer, as human beings are irrational. Maybe most people commute to work by themselves, but they still want to have room for four in case friends or grandchildren or whoever come over. Ditto with cab companies, who might rather have a single car that can do more.Then there are people who have larger families, and on and on — you can see how a two-passenger car might have limited appeal.
The result is that a two-passenger vehicle could theoretically end up being more expensive than a four-door simply because its volume limits is ability to reduce cost to the same degree. It could fall short in economies of scale. So at that point, you’ve got a car that’s more expensive, maybe negligibly slipperier through the air, and definitely lighter, but perhaps not to the point where it matters that much.
Again, this is all just theory, and again, you’d hope that someone ran the calculations. They basically calculated the efficiency gain of going with a two-door versus a four-door, considered what percentage of cab rides involve more than two people, and ultimately determined that it’s more efficient to go with the lighter two-door design and to occasionally send two cars for parties of more than two.
Oh, and it’s worth noting: That comparison to current taxi cabs above only makes a little bit of sense, because naturally a two-passenger human-piloted vehicle isn’t going to suffice unless there’s just one client, and they’d have to sit up front next to all the equipment. A two-door cab makes way more sense on a self-driving car than on a human-driven one, even if it’s not 100% clear that it makes the most amount of sense over, say, a similarly-short four-door. I’d love to see the data on all this.
If you got the money (and it actually works) this would be great to buy for your kid if they need to go to sport location which is to far to walk or bike.
My 13 year old daughter goes 3 times a week to gymnastics 6 miles across town, she could just order the car around.
So, no children are allowed.
There is no way this will be $30,000.
Yes, 2 passengers makes no sense.
I’m sure to keep it “as long as needed” you will also pay for it that entire time too.
And even if all that works out, I think it’s highly unlikely that Full Self Driving will be up to the task. FSD can’t even drive in the Tesla tunnels in Las Vegas.
If two passengers makes sense, 1 passenger makes even more sense.
Almost as much sense as 0 passengers, and 0 buyers…
If it was a cheap and zippy human-driven car ala the Honda CRX I’d actually be really excited about this
It doesn’t make any sense because it was not developed by a company with a robust product development team.
How much of a taxi’s life is spent at speeds where aerodynamics make a difference?
Right!
That depends massively on the taxi. Many never break 30mph. But some really do do some extended freeway driving, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to imagine that more people would use taxis for longer highway commuting if there was an affordable and convenient robotaxi service available.
Re. the highway commuting use case, I think the issue there is that what’s the selling point over a personal car with self-driving capability? Presumably, either you’re commuting somewhere with abundant parking, and paying to use someone else’s car isn’t any more affordable, or you’re commuting into a city that will now have to cope with where to put these cars that someone used because they didn’t want to pay to park.
For normal taxi service, obviously there isn’t no highway driving (airport runs as a frequent use), but it just seems odd to prioritize that over functionality for the most common uses. Or, I mean, for a normal company, that wouldn’t make sense. It’s kind of in line with some of Tesla’s half-baked thinking.
Have you ever flown into SFO?
Dulles?
SeaTac?
Denver?
Bangkok?
Tokyo?
Schiphol?
DeGaulle?
Yes, DeGaulle, although I took a bus into Paris. As well, I did call that out as the dominant possible case
Certainly not so much that it should severely compromise its utility. It’s not like a utility shape can’t be aerodynamic, anyway. Sure, there’s likely increased frontal area, but as Mercedes showed with the Bionic almost 20 years ago, that doesn’t mean terrible aero. Actually, the Bionic or something very close would be great for this case.
So you have to buy it? Part of the whole reason people use taxis and rideshares is because you don’t have to worry about your own vehicle. You just call for it when you need it. A lot of people choose to rent apartments/houses when they could afford to buy a condo/house simply because they don’t have to worry about the stuff that comes with ownership.
Tesla’s made some baffling decisions, but this might be the most baffling one of all.
No. You don’t have to buy it. This is meant to be operated as a robotaxi not owned by the passenger, and they made that abundantly clear multiple times. But they intend to also offer it for private non-commercial buyers if you so desire.
Neither a lover nor a hater here, but am I the only person who heard him say Model 3s and Ys would also be part of the fleet for when you have more than 2 people?
Since at least the newer Teslas already have the hardware on-board to enable autonomous driving, it makes sense to me that the Cybercab has only 2 seats. When you order up a ride, the software will determine what size cab you need and send the appropriate vehicle to pick you up. In most cases, for 2 or fewer passengers, that would be a Cybercab. For larger groups, a larger Tesla would be sent. If I were managing a fleet of cabs, I would want the least expensive mix of vehicles that would meet my needs. Since the Cybercab will be cheaper than the other Tesla models, a large percentage of the fleet would be Cybercabs.
Please tell us which cars have functional hardware to be level 5 already.
Every Tesla model has enough hardware to be at least as Level 5 capable as the Robotaxi here. Whether that is enough or not is a separate discussion, but if Tesla can actually pull off Level 5 in this Robotaxi they will not have issues implementing it in their other models.
I’m not talking to you, and there is literally 0 argument/fact in what you say.
LOL so A and B both have the exact same hardware, but in your feeble little mind if A can do it then so can B isn’t a factual statement so you’re taking your ball and going home?!
I’m saying A and B both have the same hardware, and so far, none of them are level 5 capable (maybe check the definition of it).
Prove me wrong or stuff.
Well they literally said “Whether that is enough or not is a separate discussion” so that’s why your reply was confusing. You were arguing something they didn’t say.
I’m arguing something you, and the poster I was originally answering to, claim, that Y and 3 will be joining the fleet, and that isn’t a fact, since they are not level 5 capable, or even level 4.
Again you can prove me wrong.
Wow. Rude AND bad faith argument AND poor understanding of the argument. You found the Holy Trifecta.
No, the Model 3 and Y are not currently Level 5 capable. So will they be joining the Level 5 Robotaxi fleet? Obviously not right now.
Is the new Robotaxi concept Level 5 capable? No, especially because it doesn’t currently exist. So will it be joining the Level 5 Robotaxi fleet? Obviously not right now.
IF Tesla manages to get Level 5 working in the Robotaxi, and we can all agree that this is a big if, THEN they will likely have done it with the same hardware that is already installed in other Tesla models; the real progress is in software.
So. You are correct when you say that it is not a guaranteed fact that the Model 3 and Model Y will become fully autonomous taxis. But the Model 3 and Y are just as likely to become autonomous taxis as the Robotaxi concept. So, in the event that the Robotaxi concept actually reaches fruition as a self driving taxi fleet, it is extremely safe to assume that the Model 3, Model Y, and likely the other Tesla models will join it.
I hope I dumbed it down enough.
So you’re saying that I’m correct, right now, and that all 3 of you are talking on big IFs that have been vaporware since 10years. Yep, good.
Sidenote, you can’t make your software work when your hardware is not capable, THERE is the issue.
Dumbed it down for ya.
Note that I said “hardware” and not “software”. They have not released software that would enable full autonomous driving to date. The doubters here (and there are a lot of them) seem to think they never will. I personally am not betting against it, given the progress they’ve made so far.
Yes I’ve read that, and I tell you the hardware doesn’t make those cars capable of being level 4/5, it’s just a fact.
A self driving car can’t rely only on camera to see where it goes.
So many use cases where it doesn’t work, like fog or rain….
If you want to talk about software now, where is the progress in the last fsd update in the cybertruck, that make them turn left and right on wrong ways, take roundabout in the wrong way, not stop at red lights, or hitting curbs, or bikers, because it can’t see them ?
Wow as much as everyone loves to hate on Elon these days I have a feeling that I definitely would have seen an article about a Cybertruck running on FSD taking out a biker by now if it really happened like you say?
There is multiples videos of youtubers that shows that the car doesn’t detect motorbikes, and the day after the fsd release on a cybertruck, a biker got hit by a CT in salt lake city. Coincidence, got doubt, when the numbers of mistakes made by the computer are already so high.
Funny you skip the other faults as well.
I think the concept underpinning Tesla’s approach to self-driving is that the vehicle doesn’t need “senses” beyond those of humans in order to drive itself. I don’t claim any special expertise on the topic, but I am reassured by the fact that Tesla vehicles are using multiple cameras and are constantly monitoring the environment surrounding the vehicle. Also, computers don’t get tired and they don’t get distracted. It remains to be seen if Tesla can pull it off and truly reach full autonomy (and obtain regulatory approval), but again, I’m not betting against it.
You don’t need to give me the bs marketing speech, that doesn’t work on me.
Reality is that the hardware/software they use right now, and plan on keep using, can’t even function under rain.
Also, you’re right, computer can’t get tired, but they can be overloaded, or burnt out, by a big load of info, or when they are undersized (like tesla like to do) or something they don’t know about happen..
I really suggest you listen to specialists talking about it and how the way they do it it the worst.
Musk and Donald have a plan, AI, AI, oh.
Maybe a concept of a plan
Doesn’t make sense? Consider the source.
AND if it ain’t a Checker, it ain’t a taxi.
Another error on Tesla’s part. But first, I’m not a Musk or Tesla hater, nor am I a fanboi. In fact, I’m a Starlink customer, for whatever that’s worth. Here are the recent unforced errors I see Tesla making:
Cybertruck is a great movie prop: It leaves much to be desired as a truck for work use. I would have rather Tesla softened everything on the concept to make the thing practical.Abandoning the Model 2: A low-cost EV like the Leaf but with batteries that last more than one presidential administration would be a hit.Two-seater taxi: Oh, come on, really? Maybe there’s a market for two-seat cab I’m not seeing, but David’s story here is dead on. The doors alone disqualify it as a cab in an urban environment.Paying Musk a $46 billion bonus: (sigh) This will go down in history as the most egregious malpractice by a corporate board.
If they’d put out a truly affordable Model 2 this year they’d have hit the jackpot, what with other automakers abandoning the affordable space and consumers finally seeing the light and wanting small cheap cars again.
The doors alone disqualify it as a taxi in an urban environment?
Are you aware that gullwing doors do NOT require lots of side clearance to open, and in fact they require less side clearance than even a sliding door? So the outstandingly easy entry plus minimal need for side clearance makes them quite well suited for use in a taxi in an urban environment?
The open-door stills I’ve seen, and maybe videos show the doors more clearly, depict the doors as swinging up and out. My interpretation of the photos would put a sharp edge a good two or three feet away from the taxi just at the height of a pedestrian or bicyclist’s face.
Here’s an instance where Tesla’s, let’s call it unconventional, approach to marketing bites it in the ass. Smart and experienced vehicle marketing people would show us with photos and diagrams this door design is better for its intended purpose and environment, but here we are guessing and arguing.
You’re right, Tesla should have played up the marketing showing that these doors are great. However, there is a somewhat reduced need for that because Tesla has already made mass produced full wing doors, and they have already produced marketing materials demonstrating that the doors do not extend more than like 5″ to the sides of the car during any part of their swing.
It sucks that we have to guess, but it is a really safe guess that Tesla can repeat exactly what they have already done.
Haven’t watched the pictures of the doors ?
Checker Marathon FTW. 3 abreast rear seat plus 2 jump seats. Ginormous trunk.
Also flat floor and very tight turning circle for the size of vehicle, minimal overhangs. And wide hinged rectangular doors for ease of entry/exit
The Marathon is better than the Crown Vic.
Well, yeah, it was purpose designed as a taxi cab, and the Panther platform had packaging compromises from the start due to a rushed development schedule and HFII’s indifference to downsizing
Checkers also had bolted-on body panels so accident damage could be quickly and cheaply repaired. Fenders and quarter panels were made in two pieces with a center seam so you didn’t have to replace the whole thing in a minor hit
They did rust really badly though
Went on a cruise in Greece a month or so ago, 2 adults, 2 full luggage’s, 2 carryon’s and 2 backpacks were tight in our European taxis.
Best cab ever
Yep. The jump seats made it I think. That and complete, unabashed dedication to the task at hand. Most cabs I see now are Prii, which also seem a great solution in terms of passenger vs luggage space and economy.
I wanted to buy a civilian wagon one of those, but it was too rotted. Such cool cars, well suited to their task.
Is the hatch area open to the passenger compartment? Cause, having ridden in the hatch (closed) of a 280ZX, I’m willing to bet someone will try to pile in with their buddies rather than call another cab for just one person. Humans gonna human.
I’ve ridden laying down sideways in the hatch of a 944, and it’s not fun.
Was that ZX a 2+2? Five people in the car?
Nope : 1978 280ZX 2-seater. It honestly wasn’t too bad—but I was much younger and more limber, and usually stoned
Pffft. Amateurs.
My sister and I crammed SIX people into a Triumph GT6+ and cruised the drag in Odessa, TX.
Not much room for beer then
None of the things announced at the event last night make any sense in the context of autonomous taxis. The cybercab is obviously the sub-30k car they’ve been promising for years hastily repackaged without a steering wheel, the robovan is a new render of the loop bus thing, and the non-autonomous anthropomorphic automaton (Naaa)? Your guess is as good as mine.
So, Elon Musk is pulling more of a Rusty Venture than a Tony Stark?
With some input from Conjectural Technologies.
That makes sense in only one way. It was easy to chop up Model 3 existing cars to make the prototypes.
My immediate thought on seeing this last night was: how come it gives up the possibility of a third, middle seat so easily? If it had that, it could at least be said to be more or less in line with a contemporary taxi.
Why is it even a 2-seater when 3 could sit across? There’s no transmission tunnel and no controls, so the cupholders could go on the dash. For that matter, a 6 over a 5-seater with fold down rear seats for increased cargo and fewer passengers. And as mush as I hate traditional doors, these are stupid for a taxi. Sliding doors are better for tight spaces and passenger ingress/egress and it’s not as awkward to operate them for some people. The Streamline Moderne space herpe van thing is a far smarter idea, why not just a smaller version of that? Just more raw stupidity by Tesla. It’s like the junkie muskrat was watching some ’80s sci fi dystopia and, while longing for such a world, he called one of his flunkies at 3 AM and demanded a taxi that looked like the past’s idea of a future sports car.
Nice…you beat me to this by seconds! Exactly what I thought – why not just give it 3 seats from the get-go and preemptively shut down the obvious complaint there?
Brilliant minds!
Why is it even a two seater when 3 could fit?
Because each passenger gets 50% more space this way.
Why are the doors just stupid for a taxi? They open up and out of the way, easier ingress than even a sliding door. I don’t think awkward operation is an issue as I assume these will be powered doors.
How do 2 people have more space on 2 individual seats than on one wide enough for 3? And if the group happens to be 3 people, now they don’t have to take 2 cars. Wait, is this even a serious response? I can’t assume sarcasm anymore.
The doors are stupid because they could potentially hit someone nearby and at a much worse part of the body than a traditional door or strike a low overhead structure, and they require someone reaching up from the seat to pull them down. This isn’t an exotic car toy, this is a taxi expected to serve a wide range of people in a wide range of situations, so mobility problems should be accounted for. I also wouldn’t think they’d be as reliable since they work on a strut and the hinge has to lift the weight of the doors. Were I running a taxi company or used any kind of vehicle in a utility or work environment, I’d want less maintenance. And for what purpose is it? What problem does it solve when it still projects outwards? All I can come up with is Muskrat’s ego—he thinks it looks cool.
How do 2 people on 2 big seats have more space than 3 people on 3 little seats? Is this even a serious response? I can’t assume sarcasm anymore.
Gullwing doors don’t have to project outwards. Watch any of the many videos of Delorean or Model X doors demonstrating side clearance issues.
I don’t think you have to reach up and pull the door down. It’s a pretty safe assumption that you will be able to just push a button(down low, in an accessible spot) and it will close automatically. After all, that’s what Tesla already did on the gullwing doors they already engineered.
I think the problems you perceive were already solved, by Tesla, in 2015.
Overhead clearance and general complexity/reliability are the potential downsides. I don’t think overhead clearance will be that big a deal, since this will probably be a little lower than a Model X and the clearance problems on those are not that bad.
They are not gullwing door, you dumbass !
Open your eyes and use proper terminology.
They are butterflies/Lambo doors, yes, they take more space, yes they are stupid.
There are photos included. The photos show the doors sticking out to the sides at a height that could do a lot more damage to a person than a normal door. I had an Expedition get totaled in front of me in a parking garage due to low clearance, but it’s not just that, but unexpected things that the door may encounter in its weird operational arc—once agains, these will be operated by all kinds of people in all kinds of situations.
Do you mean those problematic doors on the Model X that still register operational complaints after all these years? At least these are a completely different door design. Though, now you’re talking about something novel from Tesla. Tesla’s incompetence at engineering novelty for novelty’s sake aside, these doors would still be less reliable and more difficult to repair than a standard or sliding door and be installed in a vehicle that isn’t going to be operated by a human who would be able to better track any damage or maintenance issues that happen throughout the day than someone going in blind and the customers who will be using it aren’t going to GAF about how they treat it, especially without a human watching them. The vehicles would have to be checked thoroughly post shift by someone who doesn’t really know what to look for beyond a simple checklist. Things are sure to be unanticipated and missed, especially when I’m sure there will be plenty of cleaning that needs to be done, the kind of cleaning that will likely put someone into the mood to be less than conscientious in their maintenance inspection. Is that a safety issue? Probably not most of the time, but it is an operational headache and could lead to dissatisfied customers. This is a concept that’s completely unfit for purpose. Maybe as a somewhat sporty private car if it had driving controls, but not as a taxi. Basically, (pricing aside) this is as if McLaren built a 570 EV, replaced the driving controls with some fictional self-driving tech, and sold their cars as taxis. It’s absurd.
It was originally going to be the cheap Tesla, but muck ordered the steering wheel removed and called it a taxi.
Honestly, that’s what I’m thinking happened here. Either that or it was supposed to be the replacement for the Roadster.
It is a nice looking profile. I wonder if the roof is too raked to allow rear passengers if they added a back seat. 2 seats does leave lots of cargo room I guess.
The rear seats are an optional OTA upgrade.
If someone made this joke yesterday, I apologize, I ain’t got time to read 500 comments.
Additional passengers can sit on the trunk, i.e. Out in The Air.
Subscription. Paid for like software, by the seat.
It doesn’t. Yet another case where we’re following some fever dream of what “futuristic” vehicles should look like from the mind of an overgrown teenager with very little regard to actual practicality.
On an unrelated note, reading this article right now stings. I was literally supposed to be on a plane to Tokyo right now on the way to a 17 day bucket list trip to Japan, but I had to cancel the trip last minute due to medical issues. I was totally looking forward to riding in a Toyota JPN Taxi.
LTDScott! No! How are you feeling?
The shitty part is I feel fine. Pardon the TMI, but if it wasn’t for the blood in pee I randomly saw last month, I wouldn’t know there was anything wrong with me. But CT scan showed big kidney stones that I likely can’t pass on my own, and doctor is concerned about them moving and getting dislodged somewhere causing pain or injury, so I have surgery on the 21st. I’ve been obsessively planning this trip for nearly a year so I’m absolutely gutted.
Then to add insult to literal injury, last night while driving back from peeing in a urinalysis cup in a lab for like the 5th time, I unfortunately hit and killed a coyote which obliterated the front bumper of my car. So now instead of today being one of the most exciting days of my life, I have to somehow muster the motivation to work AND now I have to deal with insurance BS and pay a deductible out of pocket. This has not been a good week.
I’m sorry to hear that! Just know that I think we’d all be feeling like garbage if we had to give up an awesome trip to Japan for hospital visits and calls to insurance companies to fix our front bumper. Killing a Coyote also sucks, because they’re beautiful animals.
We wish you well!
Thanks, I appreciate it. I didn’t mention that on Wednesday my wife learned that her brother with whom she is very close got diagnosed with a super rare and aggressive form of cancer and likely has only months to live, so she’s obviously devastated and I’ve tried to stay strong emotionally for her.
On top of that my mom is having gallbladder removal surgery as we speak right now. She was going to house/dogsit for us while we were in Japan and her surgery was scheduled for after that, but when we cancelled the trip they were able to get it rescheduled earlier. That’s mostly a good thing to get it over and done with ASAP, but that means she’s staying with us while she recovers – another thing that is nowhere as fun as wandering around Japan on an epic trip.
Sorry for venting, but hitting the coyote last night has been the cherry on top of a shit sundae of a week for my family.
Sorry to hear all that.
FWIW you do NOT want a kidney stone ‘attack’ when on the road. Been there / done that. It’s incredibly painful. If a stone drops and you DO start to feel pain, don’t WAIT and get yourself to a Dr. or hospital ASAP. It you “oh it’s nothing… it will go away”; you’ll wind up on a stretcher on the way to the ER. It’s that painful!
Good Luck. You’ll enjoy your travels much more if you don’t have kidney stone on your mind.
Definitely. This is my 2nd time having them. First time years ago when I was passing the (much smaller) stone the pain was so bad that I couldn’t concentrate on driving and had to pull over on the freeway on the way to urgent care. So I definitely don’t want to face that on an 11 hour flight over the Pacific, as much as it killed me to have to cancel the trip.
Come on David. If it doesn’t make sense then you aren’t consuming enough cocaine and ketamine.
Please tell me it’s not my journalistic duty to try to understand.
I’m a sober, don’t ask me 😉
I guess that depends on if you consider yourself to be the next Hunter S. Thompson or not.
If I have to do that, then absolutely not.
Crazy the “form over function” company put form over function. Who’s taking bets to see how many talking points are lies?
This will MSRP for 30K?
After the past few years of Elon’s BS, I doubt that very much.
In fact I doubt it bigly…
If it’s ever produced, bigly IF here, it will more than likely sticker at 50-60K.
After all Taxi drivers make a shit ton of money right? lol. YMMV of course.
Looks like another example of late night bong hits from the boy genius here.
When it comes to any Elon announcement, add 5 years, double the price, and halve the expectations.
MSRP: $30000
Monthly robocab subscription so you can actually use it: $1000
The up-front cost will absolutely be a loss-leader to get people on the subscription train. Which makes you question how this is better than just paying a driver.
This is just a small 2 seat car. The taxi stuff is just some more smoke to blow up investor’s butts. And that is why it doesn’t make any sense.
We’ll see it with a steering wheel and pedals. But, for now, they needed something to point to as revolutionary. Because otherwise they’d have to admit they are just a car company and that doesn’t support the price people pay for the stock.
In 2024, a small two seat car from a Big Three US automaker would be revolutionary just on its own
Sure, from a Big 3. But not enough to support the EBITDA multiple that Tesla trades for. So, that’s why they sell the sizzle and not the steak.
In that regard—impressing investors—it does its job. It seems apparent to me that the investors he needs to impress are complete idiots who don’t see the obvious problems, just a sporty looking car (that nobody buys even when they get to drive them, which is the point of them), or are just looking for the right opportunity to hop off this merry-go-round.
Its institutional investors and lenders they are most worried about. And those people use EBITA multipliers that are industry based among other short-cuts. A car company target might be 8-10 times multiple, but if they are a tech company they can justify like 20. There is more to it, of course. But it all has to do with how they are “viewed” by those large investors.
Meanwhile, fidelity is taking a bath on their twitter stake. So, apparently nobody is learning anything.
I agree with the hypothesis here (that this thing exists solely as a ploy to support Tesla’s unjustifiable valuation), but Tesla stock is down 8% today… Say what you will about Wallstreet, those guys do know a thing or two about taxis. Seems no one is buying Elon’s vaporware bullshit any longer…
Yeah, I read that article right after showing the stock drop. Guess they’re not as dumb as I thought!
They’ll definitely need to add a steering wheel and pedals. Of course, once a human is behind the wheel they’ll want a rear window. Since the cargo bulkhead has to go, might as well put a small bench seat in the back in case you need to short-haul some extra adults or regularly haul a child or two.
Now you just have an electric version of the ordinary, non-revolutionary, boring two-door hatchback, and not a revolutionary cyberproduct.
I’d like one in blue with a tan interior.
And raise the roof, flatten it out and extend the rear to make it a wagon. Add sliding rear doors and normal doors in front, plus a steering wheel, pedals and controls. Make it a little bit taller, add a roof rack and viola, you have a functional taxi like those that are already successfully doing taxi duty instead of this impractical not-a-taxi.
I’ll give it to him, he’s got people talking.
And not about him calling someone a pedo again.
Adrian looking cool as hell in those photos.
I was just typing how nice it is to see him again, even if the pics are re-runs.
Great minds.
Even if it were FSD, I would always want Adrain riding along!
.. or at a minimum, a techno-babeling, bad attitude, look alike, extreme accent clone with no off switch.