3 ms·

Actually, the robotic car will make for very cheap cabs that can be much smaller. Most will only need to carry a passenger and can have a much smaller engine w

Actually, the robotic car will make for very cheap cabs that can be much smaller. Most will only need to carry a passenger and can have a much smaller engine without the need for speed that human drivers have. So, smaller vehicles almost always moving and not parking will take up a lot less room per person-mile.

ars 15y ago
Why would it need a smaller engine? The load and cargo of the car is identical. (i.e. one passenger, and one driver weigh exactly the same.)
- surrealize 15y ago
  The assumption is that autonomous cars would decrease the cost of taxi-style usage to the point where it competes with ownership, since you wouldn't have to pay for a driver. When I buy a (non-autonomous) car, I size it for the maximum load I might want to carry. For the autonomous taxi, I can just rent the minimally-sized car for the trip that I'm currently on. If I'm by myself, the autonomous cab could even be a one-seater. Plus, I don't have to park it.
  - ars 15y ago
    I still don't get what the difference autonomous makes. You can rent a car today. If one seaters were practical they would be rentable. Autonomous isn't going to change that. Autonomous sounds great - but not because of car or engine size.
    - easp 15y ago
      An autonomous single seater comes to you where you need it. A single seat, non-autonomous rental car doesn't come to you unless there is a driver, or a delivery vehicle with a driver, to bring it to you. The economics aren't going to be the same.
    - stretchwithme 15y ago
      Its simply too costly to get the optimal size cab to a customer today. So cabs are usually much bigger than the average car. Flexibility is more important. And cabs make up a small percentage of the overall market. And most of the cost of a cab ride is labor. But if automated cabs become the norm, the cost of a cab ride will be governed by the size of the vehicle. And if a car costs 25 cents a mile to operate, a cab ride from my house to San Francisco will still cost me $11. If a 1-seater with barely an engine and no trunk can do it for 10 cents a mile or $4.50, there will be demand. That's the commuter, the guy making 40 trips a month, who'd save $260 a month for giving up empty space. Of course, we really don't know how this will all play out. But it will be fun to find out.
      - stretchwithme 15y ago
        Automation will do the same thing for all kinds of things we rent. Right now, the costs of finding items at the best price, going to get them and the manual paperwork involved, often make owning them easier. But once all that is automated and you can rent the exact drill you need for a dollar an hour and it can be there in 15 minutes, why would you buy it? And, yes, it will be delivered by a robotic vehicle, probably no bigger than a breadbox.
- stretchwithme 15y ago
  A robotic cab doesn't NEED a smaller engine. It can get by with a much smaller engine. A robotic cab doesn't need a driver. Or a front seat for him. Or a powerful engine to suit his lead foot. A personal robotic car will be the same size. But a lot fewer people will need them when they can call cabs for less money per mile. Especially in urban areas where storing cars is a big expense. Frankly, I don't see how public transportation will be able to compete. Its too slow and inconvenient and completely unavailable after certain times. In other words, the bullet train is doubling down on old technology that is highly inflexible and a big time waster. But, hey, maybe people like going to Bakersfield.

ars 15y ago

Why would it need a smaller engine? The load and cargo of the car is identical. (i.e. one passenger, and one driver weigh exactly the same.)

surrealize 15y ago
The assumption is that autonomous cars would decrease the cost of taxi-style usage to the point where it competes with ownership, since you wouldn't have to pay for a driver. When I buy a (non-autonomous) car, I size it for the maximum load I might want to carry. For the autonomous taxi, I can just rent the minimally-sized car for the trip that I'm currently on. If I'm by myself, the autonomous cab could even be a one-seater. Plus, I don't have to park it.
- ars 15y ago
  I still don't get what the difference autonomous makes. You can rent a car today. If one seaters were practical they would be rentable. Autonomous isn't going to change that. Autonomous sounds great - but not because of car or engine size.
  - easp 15y ago
    An autonomous single seater comes to you where you need it. A single seat, non-autonomous rental car doesn't come to you unless there is a driver, or a delivery vehicle with a driver, to bring it to you. The economics aren't going to be the same.
  - stretchwithme 15y ago
    Its simply too costly to get the optimal size cab to a customer today. So cabs are usually much bigger than the average car. Flexibility is more important. And cabs make up a small percentage of the overall market. And most of the cost of a cab ride is labor. But if automated cabs become the norm, the cost of a cab ride will be governed by the size of the vehicle. And if a car costs 25 cents a mile to operate, a cab ride from my house to San Francisco will still cost me $11. If a 1-seater with barely an engine and no trunk can do it for 10 cents a mile or $4.50, there will be demand. That's the commuter, the guy making 40 trips a month, who'd save $260 a month for giving up empty space. Of course, we really don't know how this will all play out. But it will be fun to find out.
    - stretchwithme 15y ago
      Automation will do the same thing for all kinds of things we rent. Right now, the costs of finding items at the best price, going to get them and the manual paperwork involved, often make owning them easier. But once all that is automated and you can rent the exact drill you need for a dollar an hour and it can be there in 15 minutes, why would you buy it? And, yes, it will be delivered by a robotic vehicle, probably no bigger than a breadbox.
stretchwithme 15y ago
A robotic cab doesn't NEED a smaller engine. It can get by with a much smaller engine. A robotic cab doesn't need a driver. Or a front seat for him. Or a powerful engine to suit his lead foot. A personal robotic car will be the same size. But a lot fewer people will need them when they can call cabs for less money per mile. Especially in urban areas where storing cars is a big expense. Frankly, I don't see how public transportation will be able to compete. Its too slow and inconvenient and completely unavailable after certain times. In other words, the bullet train is doubling down on old technology that is highly inflexible and a big time waster. But, hey, maybe people like going to Bakersfield.