4 ms·
Being able to drive continuously is worth it in many cases even if it didn't directly save money on driver costs. 1/2 the time spent in transit is half the capi
by coryrc 5y ago
Being able to drive continuously is worth it in many cases even if it didn't directly save money on driver costs. 1/2 the time spent in transit is half the capital costs for a given level of goods moved.
- MauranKilom 5y agoThe upper bound on how much "driving continuously" is worth is a 2x labor price tag (two drivers per truck taking turns).
- HPsquared 5y agoIsn't that more of a lower bound? You're assuming the drivers can each drive 12 hours at a time, and they wouldn't ask for any increased pay for the worse conditions (having to be continuously on the move, sleeping on the move).
- HWR_14 5y agoContinuously on the move/sleeping in the move is a benefit for truckers. It's not a cost. The issue is, if we are already labor constrained, what is 2x the new going rate for drivers with a sudden doubling in demand. That said, the benefits also assume that for some reason the only time the goods are idle is on a truck, which makes no sense in many cases.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThere is a decent cost of volatility of labor that humans have that machines do not, as well as reduced liability. Machines are more predictable.
- Ericson2314 5y agoSure, but that is icing on the cake. The fact of the matter is we are demand-constrained, so a new tech supply bonanza is a very risky thing. It is essential the holy grail self-driving trucks can compete on cost before/while more demand from its elasticity is "unlocked".
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI meant to imply the upper bound is higher than 2x the labor costs of a single truck driver.
- coryrc 5y agoNo, owning only half the number of tractor trailers is half the cost of capital (bond interest rate or loans or so on) is a cost savings. Plus a single driver can't go 12 hours a day any day of the week, let alone continuously.