6 ms·

It's still unclear to me how their technology is different. Did they just slap the Elon Musk brand/allure on regular boring machines for SpaceX/Tesla's own use?

It's still unclear to me how their technology is different. Did they just slap the Elon Musk brand/allure on regular boring machines for SpaceX/Tesla's own use? edit: Well I guess they have a pretty clear FAQ on their site, but I'm wondering if the small tunnel diameter can be used for anything other than cars. Would subway cars fit? https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/ https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/

rocqua 9y ago
As I recall, they go for 2x smaller diameter tunnels. This gives 4x less dirt to move. Beyond that, they aim to get something like a 2x or 3x improvement by switching to electric and being better about strutting walls and boring at the same time. The 4x less work done 2x faster should be about an order of magnitude better. The reason they can go for smaller tunnels is using 'skates' as opposed to letting people drive. 'Skates' are kinda like a bus for your car. As the environment is controlled, the skates can be controlled by self-driving technology a lot easier. The added precision and control allows for smaller 'roads'. That is the argument from Musk as I understood it.
- tigershark 9y ago
  It's a concept completely wrong in a lot of details starting from the premises. Their primary objective is to build a tunnel for 100M$ a mile saying that currently a tunnel costs 1B$ a mile. And as I linked in a previous thread London crossrail is already on that price range while boring full-size tunnels for underground trains. So I'm not really sure what they are trying to accomplish here given that the crossrail is already cheaper for tunnels with double the size of the ones than their are trying to build.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    The costs quoted are USA costs. Massive infrastructure projects cost more here.
    - wbl 9y ago
      Which is not a tech or labor cost problem but a management problem.
    - Havoc 9y ago
      >Massive infrastructure projects cost more here. Middle of London isn't exactly a cheap place either
      - Boothroid 9y ago
        Indeed, you have a couple of thousand years' worth of plague pits etc. to contend with.
  - BariumBlue 9y ago
    >currently a tunnel costs 1B$ a mile I've always thought that maybe it'd make more sense to just give pickaxes to a bunch of people from a 3rd world country
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      Keynes would be proud!
matthewowen 9y ago
London Underground tunnels are less than 12ft. There's no reason you couldn't do trains instead of cars. It's weird to me that you'd do this with cars if you believe self driving cars are the future. Trains between hubs give higher density (which means building fewer tunnels), then (if strictly necessary) switch to a car at the other end to get to your final destination.
- Animats 9y ago
  Musk's proposed tunnel size is 14 feet, slightly bigger than London Underground deep tunnels. (Crossrail's tunnels are about 20 feet inside diameter, large enough for full-size English passenger trains.)
  - dx034 9y ago
    14 feet probably means that standard containers couldn't be transported? Containers are close to 10 feet, not sure if that leaves enough room. A tunnel just for passenger cars would be a bit of a waste.
- capkutay 9y ago
  I was wondering if these were viable in San Francisco, but it looks like they bore tunnels 20 ft in diameter [0] to fit their inefficiently large Muni Metro cars. Another example of SF overspending on things they didn't properly think through. 0: http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/apress/documents/CentralSubwayTunnelFactSheet2012.pdf http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/apress/documents/CentralSubway...
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > There's no reason you couldn't do trains instead of cars. If you ran trains, people would buy fewer cars, and that's bad for Musk. If self-driving is fully developed, people would buy fewer cars, and that's bad for Musk.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    >If self-driving is fully developed, people would buy fewer cars, and that's bad for Musk. Maybe on the long run but it looks like Tesla might have self-driving cars about 12-24 months before anyone else, that's lucrative. I think a lot of the interest in Tesla cars (esp. those with the v.2 autopilot hardware) comes from the full self driving prospect. The economics of full self driving could be awesome for Tesla - they can operate a taxi network wherein sell the cars and the service. And Tesla earns ~$8k-$10k from people who upgrade their car to full self driving - that's probably the highest gross margin option in the automotive industry because all the new cars have the hardware built into them. There's one fixed cost: the software. If they build the software right, upon regulatory approval, they can cut down the team to a skeleton crew that just makes sure the system is self-improving.

rocqua 9y ago

As I recall, they go for 2x smaller diameter tunnels. This gives 4x less dirt to move. Beyond that, they aim to get something like a 2x or 3x improvement by switching to electric and being better about strutting walls and boring at the same time. The 4x less work done 2x faster should be about an order of magnitude better. The reason they can go for smaller tunnels is using 'skates' as opposed to letting people drive. 'Skates' are kinda like a bus for your car. As the environment is controlled, the skates can be controlled by self-driving technology a lot easier. The added precision and control allows for smaller 'roads'. That is the argument from Musk as I understood it.

tigershark 9y ago
It's a concept completely wrong in a lot of details starting from the premises. Their primary objective is to build a tunnel for 100M$ a mile saying that currently a tunnel costs 1B$ a mile. And as I linked in a previous thread London crossrail is already on that price range while boring full-size tunnels for underground trains. So I'm not really sure what they are trying to accomplish here given that the crossrail is already cheaper for tunnels with double the size of the ones than their are trying to build.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  The costs quoted are USA costs. Massive infrastructure projects cost more here.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Which is not a tech or labor cost problem but a management problem.
  - Havoc 9y ago
    >Massive infrastructure projects cost more here. Middle of London isn't exactly a cheap place either
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      Indeed, you have a couple of thousand years' worth of plague pits etc. to contend with.
- BariumBlue 9y ago
  >currently a tunnel costs 1B$ a mile I've always thought that maybe it'd make more sense to just give pickaxes to a bunch of people from a 3rd world country
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    Keynes would be proud!

matthewowen 9y ago

London Underground tunnels are less than 12ft. There's no reason you couldn't do trains instead of cars. It's weird to me that you'd do this with cars if you believe self driving cars are the future. Trains between hubs give higher density (which means building fewer tunnels), then (if strictly necessary) switch to a car at the other end to get to your final destination.

Animats 9y ago
Musk's proposed tunnel size is 14 feet, slightly bigger than London Underground deep tunnels. (Crossrail's tunnels are about 20 feet inside diameter, large enough for full-size English passenger trains.)
- dx034 9y ago
  14 feet probably means that standard containers couldn't be transported? Containers are close to 10 feet, not sure if that leaves enough room. A tunnel just for passenger cars would be a bit of a waste.
capkutay 9y ago
I was wondering if these were viable in San Francisco, but it looks like they bore tunnels 20 ft in diameter [0] to fit their inefficiently large Muni Metro cars. Another example of SF overspending on things they didn't properly think through. 0: http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/apress/documents/CentralSubwayTunnelFactSheet2012.pdf http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/apress/documents/CentralSubway...
ucaetano 9y ago
> There's no reason you couldn't do trains instead of cars. If you ran trains, people would buy fewer cars, and that's bad for Musk. If self-driving is fully developed, people would buy fewer cars, and that's bad for Musk.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  >If self-driving is fully developed, people would buy fewer cars, and that's bad for Musk. Maybe on the long run but it looks like Tesla might have self-driving cars about 12-24 months before anyone else, that's lucrative. I think a lot of the interest in Tesla cars (esp. those with the v.2 autopilot hardware) comes from the full self driving prospect. The economics of full self driving could be awesome for Tesla - they can operate a taxi network wherein sell the cars and the service. And Tesla earns ~$8k-$10k from people who upgrade their car to full self driving - that's probably the highest gross margin option in the automotive industry because all the new cars have the hardware built into them. There's one fixed cost: the software. If they build the software right, upon regulatory approval, they can cut down the team to a skeleton crew that just makes sure the system is self-improving.