Anyone have a guess as to how much less material intensive a dedicated robotaxi might be? Right now ride share cars are the same as ever other automobile. But maybe a robotaxi could be smaller, like the 2 seat Cybercab. So you are saving on the cost of materials, and weight. And if you are just mostly running around town at low speeds, maybe you only need a small 30 kWh battery? Again that saves cost and weight. And if it is mostly in-town driving, your robotaxi might have a much smaller motor than what most consumers would find acceptable if they were buying a car for themselves? Also with the around-the-town-and-not-at-highway speeds, you could get by with less sound insulation (less wind noise), and maybe harder tire rubber compounds that are more efficient (less rolling resistance, but noisier) and have longer wear life?
What other potential savings might be available? You could remove some things, like the outside mirrors, saving slight cost and gaining on aerodynamic efficiency. Removal of the steering wheel, brake / accelerator pedals, inside rear view mirror. Get rid of the instrument cluster display. Get by with a very low cost speaker setup to make announcements only?
So you're saying that if the price dropped by 35%, the market would double? Who's making stuff up here? Or are you quibbling that it should be 1.7x or 1.8x?
I'm not the one claiming anything specific about robotaxi economics. What has been asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. And I can think of plenty of reasons that there could be kinks or large elasticity changes: for example, thresholds where it becomes cheaper than owning a car in many places, which is currently not true anywhere in the USA AFAIK.
Anyone have a guess as to how much less material intensive a dedicated robotaxi might be? Right now ride share cars are the same as ever other automobile. But maybe a robotaxi could be smaller, like the 2 seat Cybercab. So you are saving on the cost of materials, and weight. And if you are just mostly running around town at low speeds, maybe you only need a small 30 kWh battery? Again that saves cost and weight. And if it is mostly in-town driving, your robotaxi might have a much smaller motor than what most consumers would find acceptable if they were buying a car for themselves? Also with the around-the-town-and-not-at-highway speeds, you could get by with less sound insulation (less wind noise), and maybe harder tire rubber compounds that are more efficient (less rolling resistance, but noisier) and have longer wear life?
What other potential savings might be available? You could remove some things, like the outside mirrors, saving slight cost and gaining on aerodynamic efficiency. Removal of the steering wheel, brake / accelerator pedals, inside rear view mirror. Get rid of the instrument cluster display. Get by with a very low cost speaker setup to make announcements only?
> Now, if the cost was 35% less per ride than it is today, how much bigger would the market be? 1.5×? It is certainly not much more.
"Source?" "I made it up."
So you're saying that if the price dropped by 35%, the market would double? Who's making stuff up here? Or are you quibbling that it should be 1.7x or 1.8x?
I'm not the one claiming anything specific about robotaxi economics. What has been asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. And I can think of plenty of reasons that there could be kinks or large elasticity changes: for example, thresholds where it becomes cheaper than owning a car in many places, which is currently not true anywhere in the USA AFAIK.