9 ms·

If the Boring company could produce a reliable boring machine that dug at 10x speed, the boring machine would far far more valuable than these tunnels. It makes

If the Boring company could produce a reliable boring machine that dug at 10x speed, the boring machine would far far more valuable than these tunnels. It makes me think that the claims are exaggerated or misleading.

Johnny555 8y ago
It makes me think that the claims are exaggerated or misleading. Which is why they need to get their first paid job so they can prove it. They can make lots of bold claims for their own tunnel, but if they prove it's true on a real job, then their technology suddenly becomes much more valuable. That said, I'm skeptical too.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  The history of the telegraph is entertaining. It was so good, investors thought Morse was just flim-flam man. Morse finally wised up, and devised a demonstration that could not be faked. He set up a line between Washington and Baltimore, and transmitted the news from a convention in Baltimore. It arrived in Washington 64 minutes before the train bearing the news did, thus proving it worked. Within 2 years, there was 2,000 miles strung, within 4 years, 12,000 miles. People had discovered they could make money by using the telegraph. People who received news faster made money.
  - mlrtime 8y ago
    And low latency trading is still alive and kicking.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    Note he didn't fund it himself, the US Government gave him $30K: In March 1843, the US Congress appropriated $30,000 to Samuel Morse to lay a telegraph line from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore, Maryland, along the right-of-way of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. $30K in 1843 was around $1M in today's money. I wonder if that $30K paid for the whole project or if Morse had to kick in some of his own. Without environmental and employee protection laws, or permitting concerns, maybe it would be doable for under $1M today. Since copper is so expensive, I thought the cost of wire would dominate the expenses, but 5000 ft of uninsulated 16 gauge wire sells for $400 on ebay, so 45 miles worth of a pair of wires would cost around $40K
- senthil_rajasek 8y ago
  "Which is why they need to get their first paid job so they can prove it." Shouldn't the boring company prove that it works before they get offered the job?
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    Isn't it prohibitively expensive to make a tunnel yourself?
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Musk has posted video from the tunnel they made themselves.
  - Bromskloss 8y ago
    Is that necessary? If it turns out that their machine isn't 10 times faster than others', that's just their own problem.
    - buvanshak 8y ago
      Not sure. Did finishing in 1/10th time part of the contract? If not, then it we can think of the '10 times faster' claim to be bullshit which was only meant to win the bid...
      - Johnny555 8y ago
        Based on other transit tunneling projects, even if it just came in on time and on budget, that'd be a huge win.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        There's no advantage to promising more than needed to get the contract, and there's a big disadvantage in that projects universally tend to take too long, whether the tech is 10x better or not.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
- oneplusone 8y ago
  > The project is unusual in that no government funding is involved, forcing the winner to finance the entire construction cost itself. Don't think this is paid.
Nydhal 8y ago
How valuable is the Boring machine and how valuable are the tunnels? What's the quantitative measure you're using?
- ComradeTaco 8y ago
  A boring machine that could dig 10x as quickly (and hold all other desirable characteristics equal) would save tens of billion of dollars in infrastructure projects around the world and substantially increase the financial viability of tunneling globally. It would totally transform the sector, much more profitability and meaningfully than these tunnels will change transportation.
nordsieck 8y ago
> If the Boring company could produce a reliable boring machine that dug at 10x speed, the boring machine would far far more valuable than these tunnels. My understanding is that the way he gets most of the way to 10x is to dramatically decrease tunnel size and to have the machine dig and create the tunnel simultaneously. The second part may be valuable to other tunnel boring companies, but most municipal projects tend to use quite large tunnels, where Musk's machines wouldn't be a viable solution.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  As far as I know, there are already boring machines that assemble the tunnel as they go. I recall seeing video of one being operated, though perhaps it was a prototype? Perhaps those manufacturers' machines don't operate at the speed of Elon's but if that's the distinguishing factor then it's not really much of a distinguishing factor. EDIT: Theptip below found the URL I could not, for boring machines that assemble the tunnel while operating: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/products/core-products/tunnelling/double-shield-tbm.html https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/products/core-products/tunne...
  - mkempe 8y ago
    Why would an order of magnitude improvement not be a distinguishing factor?
    - jeromegv 8y ago
      Because there is nothing in the design of the Boring Company that shows any significant or magnitude improvement over the existing ones. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/12/15/elon-musks-ideas-about-transportation-are-boring/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/12/15/elon-musks-ide...
      - mkempe 8y ago
        Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
whazor 8y ago
According to boring company: Many of the speed improvements come from the design of the system. Smaller tunnels, automatic stone placement, removal of dirt.
- lgregg 8y ago
  None of that is new. The TBM that drilled The Tube’s crosstown could do that as well.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Building rockets wasn’t new, landing rockets wasn’t new, grid fins weren’t new. But now we have an 80% reusable orbital launch system and he’s working hard on the other 20%. Likewise with the Boring Company. Of course they still need to prove themselves, but the factors that work in their favour in tunnel construction are the same ones that favoured SpaceX. ULA and the established rocket manufacturers made big profits off the fact that launching rockets is stupidly expensive. That meant their profit margins ended up being stupidly large quantities of money. Musk’s contention on big tunnelling projects is that big construction companies have similar incentives not to reduce the costs of tunnelling. However Musk as an outsider is free to innovate and develop the engineering and technology because he doesn’t have big fat profits he’s already tied to.
    - baud147258 8y ago
      > automatic stone placement, removal of dirt. All these features already exists in current and older machines. And the rocket market is different from the boring market.
      - kamaal 8y ago
        >>And the rocket market is different from the boring market. Actually its not. TBMs are crazy expensive as of now. Any major disruption in price will be a total game changer for public transit systems.
    - 8y ago
capkutay 8y ago
The tunnel diameter is much smaller. Like 1890s-built London Underground diameter tunnels. The standard with US subway construction today is massive tunnels with huge, expensive stations. Seems to be a design choice from Musk.
- danielbarla 8y ago
  I think both of the latter approaches make sense in the context of their era. With classical train / subway-style approaches, it made sense to have a bigger upfront cost, so that you could have fewer (but larger) trains. On the other hand, with today's relatively reliable small-scale electric vehicles and automated driving, I can certainly see lots of smaller pods being perfectly viable. That said, I don't have any particular insight into the field itself; however I do have a respect for Musk's ability to rephrase the problem just slightly (e.g. landing boosters to save costs) and to turn the whole economics of the situation on its head.
  - cyphunk 8y ago
    small pods introduce the insanity of the highway system into spaces meant for trains. perhaps there are some improvements to be made through automation and scheduling of lanes but it seems possible pods would prove to be significantly less efficient when compared to the traditional use of lanes with large vessels that hundreds of people fit into
    - danielbarla 8y ago
      I guess it depends on just what size vehicles we're talking about. I agree that having tiny one or few person pods would probably not be efficient. But a "10-person cars on rails", type of scenario might not be as insane as you make it sound. Since it neatly side-steps the most complex parts of automated driving, we could have the reality of a well orchestrated fleet of smaller units. These could link up for efficiency on demand (maybe even while in motion), then separate again if they are operating in a complex web. Having a cheaper way of making tunnels feeds back again into the loop. Without doing any rigorous analysis, I can't comment much, but I wouldn't dismiss it offhand.
jlebrech 8y ago
apple makes a chip that's 2x faster than their previous model, why are they putting it in their own phone when they could sell it to other phone manufacturers?
Pywarrior 8y ago
It will be, it's just not ready for sale yet. "Currently under development as of May 2018." The company still needs revenue, so they bid projects, which is probably the best way to test new technology, I mean, other than drilling random tunnels in the desert.

Johnny555 8y ago

It makes me think that the claims are exaggerated or misleading. Which is why they need to get their first paid job so they can prove it. They can make lots of bold claims for their own tunnel, but if they prove it's true on a real job, then their technology suddenly becomes much more valuable. That said, I'm skeptical too.

WalterBright 8y ago
The history of the telegraph is entertaining. It was so good, investors thought Morse was just flim-flam man. Morse finally wised up, and devised a demonstration that could not be faked. He set up a line between Washington and Baltimore, and transmitted the news from a convention in Baltimore. It arrived in Washington 64 minutes before the train bearing the news did, thus proving it worked. Within 2 years, there was 2,000 miles strung, within 4 years, 12,000 miles. People had discovered they could make money by using the telegraph. People who received news faster made money.
- mlrtime 8y ago
  And low latency trading is still alive and kicking.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  Note he didn't fund it himself, the US Government gave him $30K: In March 1843, the US Congress appropriated $30,000 to Samuel Morse to lay a telegraph line from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore, Maryland, along the right-of-way of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. $30K in 1843 was around $1M in today's money. I wonder if that $30K paid for the whole project or if Morse had to kick in some of his own. Without environmental and employee protection laws, or permitting concerns, maybe it would be doable for under $1M today. Since copper is so expensive, I thought the cost of wire would dominate the expenses, but 5000 ft of uninsulated 16 gauge wire sells for $400 on ebay, so 45 miles worth of a pair of wires would cost around $40K
senthil_rajasek 8y ago
"Which is why they need to get their first paid job so they can prove it." Shouldn't the boring company prove that it works before they get offered the job?
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Isn't it prohibitively expensive to make a tunnel yourself?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Musk has posted video from the tunnel they made themselves.
- Bromskloss 8y ago
  Is that necessary? If it turns out that their machine isn't 10 times faster than others', that's just their own problem.
  - buvanshak 8y ago
    Not sure. Did finishing in 1/10th time part of the contract? If not, then it we can think of the '10 times faster' claim to be bullshit which was only meant to win the bid...
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Based on other transit tunneling projects, even if it just came in on time and on budget, that'd be a huge win.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      There's no advantage to promising more than needed to get the contract, and there's a big disadvantage in that projects universally tend to take too long, whether the tech is 10x better or not.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
oneplusone 8y ago
> The project is unusual in that no government funding is involved, forcing the winner to finance the entire construction cost itself. Don't think this is paid.

Nydhal 8y ago

How valuable is the Boring machine and how valuable are the tunnels? What's the quantitative measure you're using?

ComradeTaco 8y ago
A boring machine that could dig 10x as quickly (and hold all other desirable characteristics equal) would save tens of billion of dollars in infrastructure projects around the world and substantially increase the financial viability of tunneling globally. It would totally transform the sector, much more profitability and meaningfully than these tunnels will change transportation.

nordsieck 8y ago

> If the Boring company could produce a reliable boring machine that dug at 10x speed, the boring machine would far far more valuable than these tunnels. My understanding is that the way he gets most of the way to 10x is to dramatically decrease tunnel size and to have the machine dig and create the tunnel simultaneously. The second part may be valuable to other tunnel boring companies, but most municipal projects tend to use quite large tunnels, where Musk's machines wouldn't be a viable solution.

kevingadd 8y ago
As far as I know, there are already boring machines that assemble the tunnel as they go. I recall seeing video of one being operated, though perhaps it was a prototype? Perhaps those manufacturers' machines don't operate at the speed of Elon's but if that's the distinguishing factor then it's not really much of a distinguishing factor. EDIT: Theptip below found the URL I could not, for boring machines that assemble the tunnel while operating: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/products/core-products/tunnelling/double-shield-tbm.html https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/products/core-products/tunne...
- mkempe 8y ago
  Why would an order of magnitude improvement not be a distinguishing factor?
  - jeromegv 8y ago
    Because there is nothing in the design of the Boring Company that shows any significant or magnitude improvement over the existing ones. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/12/15/elon-musks-ideas-about-transportation-are-boring/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/12/15/elon-musks-ide...
    - mkempe 8y ago
      Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

whazor 8y ago

According to boring company: Many of the speed improvements come from the design of the system. Smaller tunnels, automatic stone placement, removal of dirt.

lgregg 8y ago
None of that is new. The TBM that drilled The Tube’s crosstown could do that as well.
- simonh 8y ago
  Building rockets wasn’t new, landing rockets wasn’t new, grid fins weren’t new. But now we have an 80% reusable orbital launch system and he’s working hard on the other 20%. Likewise with the Boring Company. Of course they still need to prove themselves, but the factors that work in their favour in tunnel construction are the same ones that favoured SpaceX. ULA and the established rocket manufacturers made big profits off the fact that launching rockets is stupidly expensive. That meant their profit margins ended up being stupidly large quantities of money. Musk’s contention on big tunnelling projects is that big construction companies have similar incentives not to reduce the costs of tunnelling. However Musk as an outsider is free to innovate and develop the engineering and technology because he doesn’t have big fat profits he’s already tied to.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    > automatic stone placement, removal of dirt. All these features already exists in current and older machines. And the rocket market is different from the boring market.
    - kamaal 8y ago
      >>And the rocket market is different from the boring market. Actually its not. TBMs are crazy expensive as of now. Any major disruption in price will be a total game changer for public transit systems.
  - 8y ago

capkutay 8y ago

The tunnel diameter is much smaller. Like 1890s-built London Underground diameter tunnels. The standard with US subway construction today is massive tunnels with huge, expensive stations. Seems to be a design choice from Musk.

danielbarla 8y ago
I think both of the latter approaches make sense in the context of their era. With classical train / subway-style approaches, it made sense to have a bigger upfront cost, so that you could have fewer (but larger) trains. On the other hand, with today's relatively reliable small-scale electric vehicles and automated driving, I can certainly see lots of smaller pods being perfectly viable. That said, I don't have any particular insight into the field itself; however I do have a respect for Musk's ability to rephrase the problem just slightly (e.g. landing boosters to save costs) and to turn the whole economics of the situation on its head.
- cyphunk 8y ago
  small pods introduce the insanity of the highway system into spaces meant for trains. perhaps there are some improvements to be made through automation and scheduling of lanes but it seems possible pods would prove to be significantly less efficient when compared to the traditional use of lanes with large vessels that hundreds of people fit into
  - danielbarla 8y ago
    I guess it depends on just what size vehicles we're talking about. I agree that having tiny one or few person pods would probably not be efficient. But a "10-person cars on rails", type of scenario might not be as insane as you make it sound. Since it neatly side-steps the most complex parts of automated driving, we could have the reality of a well orchestrated fleet of smaller units. These could link up for efficiency on demand (maybe even while in motion), then separate again if they are operating in a complex web. Having a cheaper way of making tunnels feeds back again into the loop. Without doing any rigorous analysis, I can't comment much, but I wouldn't dismiss it offhand.

jlebrech 8y ago

apple makes a chip that's 2x faster than their previous model, why are they putting it in their own phone when they could sell it to other phone manufacturers?

Pywarrior 8y ago

It will be, it's just not ready for sale yet. "Currently under development as of May 2018." The company still needs revenue, so they bid projects, which is probably the best way to test new technology, I mean, other than drilling random tunnels in the desert.