Electric vehicle war, is gas soon to be toast?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No one buys it for that now. Please don't get angry, but my guess is in 10 years, as I said, other companies will have caught up to Tesla, thus reducing their relative value because they won't have the market to themselves at that point. Someone like Chrysler(I just like to pick on Chrysler) who is really lagging buys it.

But I'd imagine depending on the state of autonomous tech, they may sell that as one company(perhaps to license it to others), sell the car company as another, maybe sell the semi division to another, and solar and batteries to someone else. This doesn't have to happen all at once. But I definitely see Musk wanting to pursue other grander visions than a car company once electric antonymous vehicles are largely established in the marketplace.

Again, no need to get flippant, this is just a guess.

Sure. The problem with that belief is that Tesla would have to lose almost 80% of their value to even be affordable to most car companies.

None of them can afford to spend $50 billion on a company, and that would be like 20% of what Tesla is valued at right now.

What I do think will happen is Tesla will remain a car manufacturer that only controls 10% of the market, and sells their battery and other tech to the other manufacturers because it will be far more lucrative.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

Your ignorance is honestly amusing. I get not believing that Tesla is ahead of the competition or 'better' than anyone else, but now you're honestly saying AI, self-driving, etc is not going to be anything? Seriously, have you ever actually looked into where transportation is going? Autonomous vehicles is something most car manufacturers agree is the future.

Keep it up. Your posts are going to be pretty hilarious is about 3 years. Even they already aren't.

First thing: quit calling other people ignorant. You’re a fanboy on the internet, not the Delphic Oracle, chill the #### out.

Second. Self driving technology is already amazing. People don’t use it. I can only tell you this based on seven years experience in the automotive industry; my clients don’t, by and large, utilize self driving features. They prefer to drive their cars..

To me, that indicates a fundamental desire for humans to be in control of their own machinery that isn’t going away any time soon. And I don’t see any automakers delivering cars without steering wheels any time in the next hundred years. Like, even the Starship Enterprise always has a driver.

It doesn’t mean the manufacturers won’t continue to develop it and include it as a feature of their cars. And it’ll get progressively better, and hopefully we get to a point where it’s so good that you can drive your car blackout drunk safely

It has nothing to do with how good the AI is, and everything to do with how complex the world is. And how much fun it is to drive a car. A not-insignificant number of humans really enjoy it.

So, to sum up: don’t call me ignorant.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sure. The problem with that belief is that Tesla would have to lose almost 80% of their value to even be affordable to most car companies.

None of them can afford to spend $50 billion on a company, and that would be like 20% of what Tesla is valued at right now.

What I do think will happen is Tesla will remain a car manufacturer that only controls 10% of the market, and sells their battery and other tech to the other manufacturers because it will be far more lucrative.

It increased form $48 to $400 in one year. I guess I just don't think that realistically represents their value now or in the future. But please, ramble on about short sellers again, it's really going to get through this time.


you may want to work on how you hold a respectful conversation online about predicting uncertain future conditions, you come across as a bully. Either of us, or neither of us could end up being right. Stop pretending you have some great insight that no one else posses.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, autonomous tech has a long way to go, certainly in winter. I see it being really successful in closed access places like shipping terminals though.


I don't really agree that "no one wants to sit in the back seat and be driven by a ghost" thoguh. Once it is reliable enough, most people aren't going to want to drive. Sure, it's fun to rip around on occasion, but if you could do other things while getting driven around? Sign me up. Soul sucking commutes become tolerable, long distance drives allow you to wake up refreshed at your destination, and it would be the end of drunk driving, distracted driving, and just plain ####ty drivers causing accidents. But this is a long way off in winter countries.

Adaptive cruise systems are already amazing at reducing the soul sucking commutes.

If you’re in gridlock, you set your distance between vehicles to the minimal setting, the speed to 80k or whatever, and your car can creep along until it has to stop.

When you need to move forward, you give it one tap of gas, and you’re on your way again.

It’s awesome.

People should use these systems in these situations. They don’t.

I do, because I understand how these systems work and I’ve experienced enough of them to trust them. I’m the tiniest of minorities.

People really are putting their lives in the hands of these systems - there is a very real aversion to putting your life in the hands of someone or something else.

Do you see the governments of the world allowing driverless vehicles to roam their streets en masse? Because I don’t. They’ll legislate someone has to be behind the wheel at all times. Strictly for liability purposes - the manufacturers aren’t going to be assuming responsibility every time one of their self driving cars kills somebody.

[Fuzz]

I think eventually ya, governments allow it, and insurance polices cover it. At some point they will become safer than human drivers. Is that in the next decade? I doubt it. But 20-30 years? Probably.


Also, you are an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. I think that's how I'm supposed to do this.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think eventually ya, governments allow it, and insurance polices cover it. At some point they will become safer than human drivers. Is that in the next decade? I doubt it. But 20-30 years? Probably.


Also, you are an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. I think that's how I'm supposed to do this.

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

If they allowed fully driverless cars, there’s no longer a layer of insulation between the manufacturers and whatever happens out in the world. If your driverless car kills someone, it’s not the owner’s fault for being asleep at the switch, it’s a Tesla problem. Because their machine killed someone.

I don’t know why the manufacturers would want to assume that liability. Like, one car has one engine compartment fire and a manufacturer will spend tens of millions to perform recalls.

If you kill someone with a car, that’s currently a ‘you’ problem. I suspect few companies are itching to relieve the consumer of that burden.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, autonomous tech has a long way to go, certainly in winter. I see it being really successful in closed access places like shipping terminals though.


I don't really agree that "no one wants to sit in the back seat and be driven by a ghost" thoguh. Once it is reliable enough, most people aren't going to want to drive. Sure, it's fun to rip around on occasion, but if you could do other things while getting driven around? Sign me up. Soul sucking commutes become tolerable, long distance drives allow you to wake up refreshed at your destination, and it would be the end of drunk driving, distracted driving, and just plain ####ty drivers causing accidents. But this is a long way off in winter countries.

The other thing is insurance. Self-driving tech has already proven it can be a lot more safe than humans. Over time that will improve as well.

At some point we need to think that insurance companies will change rates depending on what car you are driving.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Adaptive cruise systems are already amazing at reducing the soul sucking commutes.

If you’re in gridlock, you set your distance between vehicles to the minimal setting, the speed to 80k or whatever, and your car can creep along until it has to stop.

When you need to move forward, you give it one tap of gas, and you’re on your way again.

It’s awesome.

People should use these systems in these situations. They don’t.

I do, because I understand how these systems work and I’ve experienced enough of them to trust them. I’m the tiniest of minorities.

People really are putting their lives in the hands of these systems - there is a very real aversion to putting your life in the hands of someone or something else.

Do you see the governments of the world allowing driverless vehicles to roam their streets en masse? Because I don’t. They’ll legislate someone has to be behind the wheel at all times. Strictly for liability purposes - the manufacturers aren’t going to be assuming responsibility every time one of their self driving cars kills somebody.

You realize that there are millions upon millions of miles logged by completely self-driving cars without incident? You make it seem like the technology is something new that hasn't been tested to the point where a lot of jurisdictions are approving it.

It has also been proven that this 'computer' is far safer than your average humans, and that vehicle fatalities can be reduced significantly by introducing self-driving features.

American roads are deadly. In 2016, 37,461 people died in traffic accidents in the US, a 5.6 percent increase over 2015, according to the US Department of Transportation (DoT). This is down from 1970, when around 60,000 people died in traffic accidents in the US. The addition of safety features such as seat belts and air bags have reduced the number of deaths, and new technology from autonomous vehicles could help even more as driver error is eliminated.

DoT researchers estimate that fully autonomous vehicles, also known as self-driving cars, could reduce traffic fatalities by up to 94 percent by eliminating those accidents that are due to human error. Using 2016 numbers as a baseline, and multiplying 37,461 by 10, this means that there could be 374,610 deaths in a 10-year span, and 94 percent of these -- or 352,133 -- could possibly be prevented through fully autonomous cars by eliminating driver error.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-au...ons-worldwide/

This is why it doesn't mater what your 'opinion' on the matter is, or whether you 'think' customers won't be open to these features, or whether you think its cool or dumb. At the end of the day self-driving systems from a variety of manufacturers (not just Tesla since you think they are a joke) have been providing for years that by adopting self-driving features, and constantly improving the AI and software they can reduce fatalities, and increase overall vehicle safety on the road.

I don't know about you, but to me that is a big positive and not just some 'dumb' idea that customers won't ever trust.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

The other thing is insurance. Self-driving tech has already proven it can be a lot more safe than humans. Over time that will improve as well.

At some point we need to think that insurance companies will change rates depending on what car you are driving.

This is already the case - a vehicle with all the self driving tech is cheaper to insure than one that isn’t.

Someone still needs to drive it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It increased form $48 to $400 in one year. I guess I just don't think that realistically represents their value now or in the future. But please, ramble on about short sellers again, it's really going to get through this time.

True, and while their value may drop over time, it doesn't change the fact that you still need that value to drop quite far in order to be affordable.

you may want to work on how you hold a respectful conversation online about predicting uncertain future conditions, you come across as a bully. Either of us, or neither of us could end up being right. Stop pretending you have some great insight that no one else posses.

The supposed 'insight' that I have come from the industry. Everything I have brought up in terms of being years ahead, having tech nobody else, great features, demand, capacity, etc is all stuff analysts and people in the industry have said many times. Even the competitors to Tesla have said the same thing.

The big thing everyone seems to disagree on is the stock position, which I understand. Many smart people lean both ways, which is why the stock can run both ways.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

This is already the case - a vehicle with all the self driving tech is cheaper to insure than one that isn’t.

Someone still needs to drive it.

Are there not vehicles currently on the road that are completely self-driving in certain situations?

I.E interstate traffic?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

You realize that there are millions upon millions of miles logged by completely self-driving cars without incident? You make it seem like the technology is something new that hasn't been tested to the point where a lot of jurisdictions are approving it.

It has also been proven that this 'computer' is far safer than your average humans, and that vehicle fatalities can be reduced significantly by introducing self-driving features.


https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-au...ons-worldwide/

This is why it doesn't mater what your 'opinion' on the matter is, or whether you 'think' customers won't be open to these features, or whether you think its cool or dumb. At the end of the day self-driving systems from a variety of manufacturers (not just Tesla since you think they are a joke) have been providing for years that by adopting self-driving features, and constantly improving the AI and software they can reduce fatalities, and increase overall vehicle safety on the road.

I don't know about you, but to me that is a big positive and not just some 'dumb' idea that customers won't ever trust.

This is why no one can take your arguments seriously.


https://www.wral.com/tesla-on-autopi...ovie/19255038/


https://www.autopilotreview.com/tesl...idents-causes/


https://www.thedrive.com/news/33789/...erturned-truck


There are more around. How is that "without incident"? Turn down the hyperbole a bit. I can't tell if your brainwashed, or if you know the truth and are just trying to brainwash others? You continually bring up the argument that they are safer over millions of miles, but refuse to acknowledge that autopilot gets the easy miles, while the hard ones are handled by human drivers. How many millions of miles are done by autopilot in winter?


Here's a great example of super safe autopilot totally working 100% perfectly:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1307529357951467531


Whoops!

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

You realize that there are millions upon millions of miles logged by completely self-driving cars without incident? You make it seem like the technology is something new that hasn't been tested to the point where a lot of jurisdictions are approving it.

It has also been proven that this 'computer' is far safer than your average humans, and that vehicle fatalities can be reduced significantly by introducing self-driving features.



https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-au...ons-worldwide/

This is why it doesn't mater what your 'opinion' on the matter is, or whether you 'think' customers won't be open to these features, or whether you think its cool or dumb. At the end of the day self-driving systems from a variety of manufacturers (not just Tesla since you think they are a joke) have been providing for years that by adopting self-driving features, and constantly improving the AI and software they can reduce fatalities, and increase overall vehicle safety on the road.

I don't know about you, but to me that is a big positive and not just some 'dumb' idea that customers won't ever trust.

I didn’t do that at all. I said that my customers, who buy the product and have access to it already, don’t, by and large, use it. Certainly not with a frequency that would lead me to believe self-driving cars are something any significant portion of the market wants.

You don’t have to believe me - I’ve only been in car sales for seven years, and in that time, I’ve never once seen presence or absence of adaptive cruise control be the deciding factor as to why someone buys a vehicle.

I also don’t just “think” they don’t use them. They tell me.

They go “oh yeah, that... I’ve never used it.” It’s like, there’s a robot that can drive you to Edmonton, you never once thought to maybe give it a whirl?

They don’t.

I think more people should use these systems - I can’t force them. I’ve been quite clear that I admire the technology.

Tesla isn’t a joke, they make a nice product. It’s incredibly niche, and it has numerous limitations that are well documented. But they’re nice! The Model X windshield is dope. The falcon doors are cool.

They’re toys for rich people, until they can prove otherwise. Tesla is no more likely to retire a major auto conglomerate than Pagani or McLaren.

It’s great if they have the best self driving tech in the world. But what matters is building a product that meets the needs of the customer, at scale.

If Tesla can do that, they’re a viable car company. If they can’t, they’re a grossly over valued company that builds niche performance vehicles for virtue-signalling members of the 1%.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are there not vehicles currently on the road that are completely self-driving in certain situations?

I.E interstate traffic?

There is no statistically significant quantity of driverless cars on any road system on the world, so far as I know.

After that Uber killed someone, even if the tech is “driverless” I don’t see many companies risking a lawsuit when they could pay someone $15 an hour to sit behind the wheel.

[Azure]

I'm not talking about the Uber or Tesla cars. I'm talking about the Waymo 'test' cars, or similar types of systems that have been operating for many years.

I was wrong to say that it wasn't without incident, but the incident level is very low.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not talking about the Uber or Tesla cars. I'm talking about the Waymo 'test' cars, or similar types of systems that have been operating for many years.

I was wrong to say that it wasn't without incident, but the incident level is very low.

We’re nowhere near the demand for driverless cars supplanting the demand for cars drivers can control themselves.

Sorry.

[Azure]

There is no 'demand' for anything. The demand will be created if the idea is successful.

The idea is something people smarter than you or I are willing to spend billions on. So one would think at some point it WILL happen.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not talking about the Uber or Tesla cars. I'm talking about the Waymo 'test' cars, or similar types of systems that have been operating for many years.

I was wrong to say that it wasn't without incident, but the incident level is very low.

But the incident rate and fatality rate of normal human drivers are also very low. Even with 37000 fatalities (of which 13-14% are actually motorcyclists), American drive about 3.2 trillion vehicle miles per year, so that's a fatality of one every 90 million miles. And that's in all conditions and environments, and without the benefit of a secondary driver whose only job is to take over when you get confused or distracted (or take the blame when the driver can't save you in time).

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is no 'demand' for anything. The demand will be created if the idea is successful.

The idea is something people smarter than you or I are willing to spend billions on. So one would think at some point it WILL happen.

I don’t think this is how economics work.

Just because someone is willing to invest billions, doesn’t mean it will happen any time soon, or in time for the company doing all the heavy lifting to reap the benefits.

Google Ballard Fuel Cells. That’s awesome tech.

Not much of a business.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by accord1999

But the incident rate and fatality rate of normal human drivers are also very low. Even with 37000 fatalities (of which 13-14% are actually motorcyclists), American drive about 3.2 trillion vehicle miles per year, so that's a fatality of one every 90 million miles. And that's in all conditions and environments, and without the benefit of a secondary driver whose only job is to take over when you get confused or distracted (or take the blame when the driver can't save you in time).

And yet despite all that most research is showing that is implemented successfully, self driving cars can still save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Even right now the idea of driver assistance is paying big dividends. All the car manufacturers are advertising some form of 'vehicle automation.'

This is not merely theoretical. There’s already some precedent for change of this magnitude in the realms of car culture and automotive safety. In 1970, about 60,000 people died in traffic accidents in the United States. A dramatic shift toward safety—including required seat belts and ubiquitous airbags—helped vastly improve a person’s chance of surviving the American roadways in the decades that followed. By 2013, 32,719 people died in traffic crashes, a historic low.

Researchers estimate that driverless cars could, by midcentury, reduce traffic fatalities by up to 90 percent. Which means that, using the number of fatalities in 2013 as a baseline, self-driving cars could save 29,447 lives a year. In the United States alone, that's nearly 300,000 fatalities prevented over the course of a decade, and 1.5 million lives saved in a half-century. For context: Anti-smoking efforts saved 8 million lives in the United States over a 50-year period.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...merica/407956/

It is just a matter of time.

But hey, Green Lantern says nobody will 'like' it, so I guess we have that to go on.