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 people with certain disabilities have to wait longer for a cab than people who don’t, would that be a violation of the ADA? (It definitely would be if they had to pay an extra fee to get the wheelchair accessible box versus the sleek little sports cab, as anyone who’s seen the instruction to honk for an attendant at a self-service pump if a disability keeps you from pumping gas can attest.) There would at the very least be some sort of code minimum number like handicap parking spaces or accessible toilet stalls, which might upend the whole cyberbro pseudo-sharing economy thing or at least raise the sharing service rate paid to owners of accessible taxibots to be much higher than the one for two-seaters whenever the ratio’s about to go out of whack.
Also: I didn’t watch the reveal – I considered it but fell asleep – but is it true that all the robots in the videos had black faces? If so, not a good look for Meneer Muskmeester, especially given racial incidents at his California plant and some spooky sentiments expressed by Canadian oupa. Maybe he should think about hiring some PR people after all.
Looking at that last pic with the two people checking out the Cybercab, you could make a pretty educated comparison between it and the two other cabs mentioned. The Tesla is much less of a versatile package. The cargo area is bigger than it needs to be by a large margin. This is not a serious vehicle.
Noooo, go back to the old headline where you correctly call out that out doesn’t make any damn sense. Of all your… Idiosyncratic takes to back away from, this is not the one
Probably redacted by lewin
I’m sure data backs up that cab rides are almost never more than two riders. Reason makes sense, beyond all the single ride needs, two is for couples going out for dinner/drinks. You never take your kids in cab, it’s completely impractical (car seat, booster seat, etc). Generally a couple, or maybe roommates, will go meet others. Yes at times there’s an UberXL, but I’m confident the ratio of X to XL rides is extremely significant. Having a family I have zero expectation using a cab in any sense, autonomous or otherwise, due to the bain of my existence, aka installing car seats.
The other use case is the elderly who, I’d wager, basically never would be more than a couple to a ride.
There are other major questions, but I get the dataset. That and if they expect to reach Level 4 and you need 4 doors/seats, I’d guess you’d go for M3/Y/the affordable Tesla I’d assume will come at some point.
You’re not missing anything, David.
I’ll say I’m happy to see the market seems to have finally rationalized around TSLA, though.
There’s no reason Tesla couldn’t release a larger model taxi later. Or change this one into a practical sports car.
Just update and electrify a Checker Marathon. Visibility, a trunk and plenty of room for passengers- plus jump seats.
While it would seem to be relatively simple to make this 3 across seating – – I have the feeling that NHTSA and other government bodies may require an airbag for the center passenger? They’d definitely require that the generic center display not be where it is – which, either way, would involve a lot of rejiggering of the carry-over dash and display….
But here’s my other thought:
You load your luggage in at the Airport/shopping bags at the mall/grocery store for the trip home. Does the car know to unlock the hatch and allow you to retrieve your bags before it leaves? If you need to make multiple trips to unload – how does the car know to stay? If you need to push a button to make it stay or go – is there a timer that allows the car to leave anyway? If you’re required to keep a passenger door open before it leaves – what if someone else gets in and tries to leave? Or you forget and close the door prematurely (Maybe its raining?) and the car leaves with your stuff inside? How do you get it back?
So much unnecessary complexity – So many questions.
This is why a monospace is the correct solution as a driverless taxi: Your stuff is in the cabin with you, which is loaded in and out the same door you enter/exit. Three seats across the back, three seats across the front that fold up like jumpseats with bungees or straps to keep your rolling bag from rolling across the cabin – all seats facing inward to a central leg/cargo space. No dashboard, airbags or cargo hatch necessary – just one large sliding door on each side.
The one display gets mounted within the curbside door – and is retractable, like a window into the door – when the rider does not wish to see ads/maps, and the rare occasions the curbside door needs to be opened (picking up/discharging passengers on a one-way street – as confirmed by GPS)
No fuss, no muss.
It probably has two doors because The Scion Tc of The Future was supposed to be the Model 2. And for some reason, they just took out the steering wheel and declared Robotaxi! That’s why it looks like a taxi designed by people who have only seen a taxi in Friends reruns where every plot involves two people. Now if they watched Seinfeld, they would know they need a third seat for a Newman-like character, or a taxi driver to play the straight man in your wacky plot.
The very first airbags in the 1970s accounted for a center passenger, just make the passenger side airbag wider so it covers 2/3 of the dash when it inflates, that’s a total nonissue, was already solved 50 years ago
There also were bench seats in airbag-equipped Cadillacs (I think it was the first modern-airbag-era car with one that covered the center passenger as well as the outboard) Panthers and Toyota Avalons, and for all I know there are still three-position bench seats available in fleet-trim full-sized pickups. So it’s been done and done and done.
Because it’s not really intended as a taxi. At some point here they’re going to say they ‘realized’ they could easily add a steering wheel/pedals and coinkidink, they’ve got a coupe to sell. I honestly don’t believe this was anything more than a con to keep things going.
Also, I sure hope they don’t have potholes in the cities in which these will supposedly operate.
yeah this is just 3d renderings to keep investors happy… somehow.
“How Does The Two-Passenger Tesla Cybercab Make Any Sense?”
It doesn’t. I think a compact 5/7 passenger van makes far more sense as a taxicab.
When I look at the Cybercab, I thing that vehicle design would make far more sense as the “Tesla Model 3 Sport Coupe”
It makes sense when you realize that this thing could only kill two people max when it eventually screws up. Higher capacity is potentially higher payout to the families of the deceased.
Unless it plows through a crowded farmers market…
I think there are two points that make this work OK:
Man some real changes in vehicle design will be welcome. I can’t stand needing prescription glasses to tell who made which identical crossover. It’s so sad.
More colors would be nice, but everyone else is basically just selling white, black, and *maybe* a grey/silver right now. So I can’t fault that much either. At least the steel’s a statement. I hope it’s more stainless.
None of the other tesla models are capable to drive themselves.
If you claim to do a 2 seater efficient commuter car, start with doing it Smart sized.
This does not look like it will be fast around a racetrack.
I dunno… the weight savings from omitting the driver’s seat, steering wheel, and safety structure will help quite a bit. I’m looking forward to the excitement of NASCAR’s 2030 Self-Driving series competition for the Ketamine Cup.
Who is going to own these vehicles for these use cases?
Also, the silhouette of this looks very Model Y.
Does it even matter?
There is a zero point zero chance that this will ever happen, and if by some miracle that it does, the interceding decade+ will drive a different design.
Not a chance I’m reading all of these comments for a few great takes, only to read all the other tired stuff, lol.
Nice article, DT 🙂
You’re not wrong.
Does a two seat taxi make sense? Well, a five seat taxi sure doesn’t make sense to transport 1-2 people.
Yes, you could build a four or five seat car in the same footprint as this two seater. But it would have significantly compromised passenger space/comfort, cargo space, weight, aerodynamics, cost, and the resulting efficiency. I don’t know why nobody in the comments seems to believe that a smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic car really does have some advantages over a larger heavier draggier one.
This two seater car is much better optimized for carrying 1-2 people than a 5 seater car would be, and that optimization really does matter if Tesla wants to make a lot of these things, with reasonably good range, for a reasonable cost, with reasonably low environmental impact.
And let’s not forget that Tesla is continuing to do what they have always done, and what made them big in the first place: selling on cool factor. This car looks cool and sleek, and it is going to have a large and comfortable and futuristic interior, so that people WANT to ride in it. Just like how, in 2008, Tesla made the first EV that was cool and people WANTED to drive it, now they are making the first robotaxi that’s conspicuously cool. Because the fact is that flashiness and conscious consumerism sells in our society.
Is the two seater car bad if you need to carry more than two people? Yes, obviously. Good thing Tesla now has announced plans for robotaxis with 5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, and 14 seat options. So I think they have that problem covered. Non-issue, guys.
Folks here on the Autopian are happy to advocate that you buy a smaller lighter more efficient vehicle that you use 95% of the time and rent a bigger vehicle for the infrequent cases in which you actually need more capability. You know, like buying an Accord and renting a Home Depot pickup twice a year.
But when Elon Musk proposes to do the same thing, the comments section goes crazy calling Tesla stupid and asking what is even the point of a vehicle which only works for 95% of uses. I think I smell some slight bias here.
How much physically smaller is this than the 5 passenger ones?
No idea how much smaller the Robotaxi’s footprint is than a Model 3(a bit smaller I assume), but it’s safe to say that a two seater has greater passenger space, greater cargo space, lesser drag, lower weight, and a correspondingly smaller/cheaper/safer battery pack than an identically sized five seat car. Maybe not by that much, but by a relevant amount.
I think that is the point. I feel a 2 passenger cab literally DOESN’T, by a relevant amount, take up less space, have lower weight, use a smaller battery or have less drag than a 5 passenger cab. The extra space is literally the lightest part.
Maybe you are right, but it isn’t as if existing cab companies don’t have the same challenges. They need the cars to operate efficiently and cost as little as possible to own and operate….and they are not operating two passenger cabs.
If they made it much smaller it’d be in Smart territory and that turned a lot of people off.
I don’t know exactly all the numbers and dimensions of Teslas Robotaxi here, but I am imagining this going kind of like a ’99 Insight next to a ’99 Accord. Or perhaps a ’10 CRZ next to a ’10 Accord. In that case, yes, the Insight really is considerably smaller, lighter, and more efficient. The Robotaxi will likely be quite a bit larger than an Insight, but I don’t see how it couldn’t NOT be lighter and more efficient than a Model 3 even if its footprint is just as large: less sheet metal, less interior, and a more gradually tapered roofline tend to make cars lighter and more efficient.
Cab companies currently don’t operate two passenger cabs for a simple reason; a two passenger cab means a three seat car, since you need a driver. Nobody want to snuggle up three wide with their cab driver, so you end up with two rows anyways. And if you have two rows anyways, there is very little penalty involved with a full backseat.
Also worth noting that the ubiquitous Prius taxi IS a two passenger taxi if nobody sits up front.
I’m fine with this being a 2-seater. When Rimac-backed Verne unveiled their autonomous pod-thing it was also a 2-seater. Frankly, both these autonomous taxis have many similar traits: funky doors, 2 seats, compact, and most surprisingly to me, low to the ground. That last part may be my only ding against them.
You make some valid points. I agree a two-seat taxi is a better transportation option for 1-2 people than a larger vehicle. It is clearly more efficient than a typical taxi.
I’m skeptical fleets will be interested in these, though. Non-standardized vehicles increase the need to pair the right vehicle with the right passenger. It would be relatively easy to pair this vehicle with single individuals needing a ride. The task becomes more difficult when you consider passengers with mobility challenges. A low-slung two-seater will be difficult to access for the elderly and those with physical disabilities.
This vehicle looks to be similar in size to my Model 3. It took some practice for me to get in and out of my car gracefully when I first purchased it; I’m larger than average, but I’m also able bodied and in my 40s. My parents (who are very healthy individuals in their mid 70s) find my car difficult to get in and out of; I doubt they are outliers for their age range. The difficulty in entering/exiting this vehicle seems particularly problematic since the elderly and individuals with physical disabilities disproportionately rely on taxis for transportation. These individuals will now have to request a vehicle tailored to the needs instead of simply requesting a ride.
I’m not saying that this vehicle is a terrible idea or that it has no upside, but I see it as a “one size fits some” vehicle in a segment where one size needs to fit most. I suspect the efficiency benefits will not outweigh the logistical challenges these create.
Agree, once you get rid of the taxi driver you can experiment with a taxi that doesn’t require a back seat.
I did my best not to make definitive statements like “it makes no sense,” and instead I tried asking questions about what I think, and some aspects of the choice that give me pause.
Have a look at the article update I made to really flesh out my mention of the efficiency benefit/cost benefit/economies of scale/etc etc.
It’s a complicated topic, but a fun one to think about.
“Well, a five seat taxi sure doesn’t make sense to transport 1-2 people.”
It does if that other person is a germ ridden, inconsiderate, blowhard jerk. I’ll need as much distance as I an get!
See if I ever share a can with you again!
A cab! A cab! I haven’t forgotten our agreement never to talk about the time at that trade show when the bathroom line was really long.