# Self Driving cars lunacy will kill Uber



## jocker12

Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews

"Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."

"A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."

"*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*

"Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."

Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.

Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*

If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *

If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).

Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.

In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.

Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.

No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.

Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.


----------



## heynow321

i'm looking forward to traffic slowing down even more b/c these dumb things can't handle rain, left turns, or cyclists without getting confused.


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> i'm looking forward to traffic slowing down even more b/c these dumb things can't handle rain, left turns, or cyclists without getting confused.


The passengers won't like any hiccups or slow downs from the robots, and this is one of the reasons I initially said the software needs to be perfect from day one. If a robot will take a wrong left turn with a passenger inside the car, that will explode on social media and the owner of that robot will understand the big mistake they are making by putting the cars on the roads. When it comes to cars, consumers want everything to be perfect. 
These imperfect robots and their developers are suicidal.


----------



## heynow321

exactly. consumer tolerance will be 0 when it comes to their perceived safety being threatened.


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> exactly. consumer tolerance will be 0 when it comes to their perceived safety being threatened.


In addition to that, Uber doesn't have the money to pursue its ambition. If the 2015 327.000 active drivers figures translates into 1 million active drivers today, and the robots are, let's say, 3 times more effective than a driver, then you need 330.000 robots on the road in order to be as effective as those 1 million drivers are today. So you need 13.75 times more cars than those 24.000, and all the numbers will go up exponentially. If you think of it, if those 24.000 cost $1.44 billion, then 330.000 will be roughly $19.8 billion, let aside every day fueling - $13.75 million and $990 million for brakes and tires a year.

The cherry on the cake is not considering cleaning and cities permits (taxi permits not ride sharing permits) and on top of it, the fact that they will need to replace the ENTIRE fleet the moment the electric cars with decent range are a dominant reality (relatively soon). So they need to start spending billions over again because they never had the patience to wait longer.

And this scenario is valid for any corporation that wants to play crazy and own a fleet of some magnitude. At this point, no corporation seems to understand how individual car ownership under the actual Uber model, is absorbing enormous costs the riders are not being charged for, but the moment they will switch to corporate fleet, the consumer will end up paying for all of it (like it used be under the taxi cab model), and the so promised "cheap" self driving car becomes what it really is - a joke.

The rental cars companies, are using the cars up to an approximately 20.000 miles, and then sell them to third parties. By doing so, they make sure their fleet has relatively new cars all the time (so there is no high maintenance cost), and they also take advantage of the vehicle resale value. In our case, if the industry wants to slowly eliminate car ownership, who is going to absorb those units at the end of their commercial life cycle? Why buy an obsolete robot with 2 million miles on it?


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews
> 
> "Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."
> 
> "A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."
> 
> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*
> 
> "Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."
> 
> Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.
> 
> Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*
> 
> If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *
> 
> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).
> 
> Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.
> 
> In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.
> 
> Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.
> 
> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.
> 
> Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.





jocker12 said:


> Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews
> 
> "Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."
> 
> "A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."
> 
> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*
> 
> "Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."
> 
> Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.
> 
> Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*
> 
> If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *
> 
> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).
> 
> Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.
> 
> In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.
> 
> Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.
> 
> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.
> 
> Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.


Lord, you tend to ramble, Jockey. Is this something new or have you always been a rambler?



jocker12 said:


> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).


Don't forget about Armor All. That stuff ain't cheap either.



jocker12 said:


> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.


Jockey, this says they'll take delivery between 2019 and 2021. That's 2 to 4 years from now. They're not going to take delivery of even one Volvo, it's all a dog and pony show for investors and pure vapor ware. They'll be **** up by then. Unbunch those panties.


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> In addition to that, Uber doesn't have the money to pursue its ambition. If the 2015 327.000 active drivers figures translates into 1 million active drivers today, and the robots are, let's say, 3 times more effective than a driver, then you need 330.000 robots on the road in order to be as effective as those 1 million drivers are today. So you need 13.75 times more cars than those 24.000, and all the numbers will go up exponentially. If you think of it, if those 24.000 cost $1.44 billion, then 330.000 will be roughly $19.8 billion, let aside every day fueling - $13.75 million and $990 million for brakes and tires a year.
> 
> The cherry on the cake is not considering cleaning and cities permits (taxi permits not ride sharing permits) and on top of it, the fact that they will need to replace the ENTIRE fleet the moment the electric cars with decent range are a dominant reality (relatively soon). So they need to start spending billions over again because they never had the patience to wait longer.
> 
> And this scenario is valid for any corporation that wants to play crazy and own a fleet of some magnitude. At this point, no corporation seems to understand how individual car ownership under the actual Uber model, is absorbing enormous costs the riders are not being charged for, but the moment they will switch to corporate fleet, the consumer will end up paying for all of it (like it used be under the taxi cab model), and the so promised "cheap" self driving car becomes what it really is - a joke.
> 
> The rental cars companies, are using the cars up to an approximately 20.000 miles, and then sell them to third parties. By doing so, they make sure their fleet has relatively new cars all the time (so there is no high maintenance cost), and they also take advantage of the vehicle resale value. In our case, if the industry wants to slowly eliminate car ownership, who is going to absorb those units at the end of their commercial life cycle? Why buy an obsolete robot with 2 million miles on it?


SDCs will be a niche market for years IF Uber ever gets them to function at all.


----------



## iheartuber

Too much risk involved and too many variables involved before I can get my money back. For those reasons, I’m out.
-Uber investor on self driving cars. (Inspired by Shark Tank)


----------



## The Gift of Fish

jocker12 said:


> The cherry on the cake is not considering cleaning and cities permits (taxi permits not ride sharing permits)


Quite a good point. Clearly, the "we're just an app" claim will not fly. It'll be interesting to see how Uber's bullshit machine comes up with a workaround for not being a taxi company that is a taxi company.


----------



## jocker12

The Gift of Fish said:


> Quite a good point. Clearly, the "we're just an app" claim will not fly. It'll be interesting to see how Uber's bullshit machine comes up with a workaround for not being a taxi company that is a taxi company.


They can't and all the cities will do what London did. If not comply, Uber will be heavily disrupted. I don't know how their plans sound like, but they will probably have independent contractors and self driving cars operating in parallel under different rates and see which way the consumer goes.

By having Jeff Miller saying Uber can became profitable only when the human driver will be removed from the car, annihilates the 180 days of change campaign and shows once again how full of manure they are.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

jocker12 said:


> By having Jeff Miller saying Uber can became profitable only when the human driver will be removed from the car, annihilates the 180 days of change campaign and shows once again how full of manure they are.


Of course; every experienced/intelligent driver knows that Uber is full of BS and that 180 Days is just a PR piece of substance-free fluff.


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> they will probably have independent contractors and self driving cars operating in parallel under different rates and see which way the consumer goes.
> 
> By having Jeff Miller saying Uber can became profitable only when the human driver will be removed from the car, annihilates the 180 days of change campaign and shows once again how full of manure they are.


That's what I expect. I think SDCs will be a niche market for years. I'm not riding in one until they create Johnny Cab!!!!


----------



## Irishjohn831

Milk investors to pad pockets and pay for these cars, let the government apply ignored requlations from local, to state, to federal. Uber higher ups hit lottery when they dump shares before they plunge and the shorts make a killing. 

Not to mention the lawsuits from failires of autonomous pipe dream nonsense cars.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> By having Jeff Miller saying Uber can became profitable only when the human driver will be removed from the car, annihilates the 180 days of change campaign and shows once again how full of manure they are.


This is actually true. Jockey, are you feeling alright?


----------



## jocker12

The Gift of Fish said:


> Of course; every experienced/intelligent driver knows that Uber is full of BS and that 180 Days is just a PR piece of substance-free fluff.





goneubering said:


> That's what I expect. I think SDCs will be a niche market for years. I'm not riding in one until they create Johnny Cab!!!!


News are coming out Uber got hacked a year ago and they covered it up paying the hackers not to release 57 million people sensitive information (If I remember correctly, this time a year ago Uber was getting ready to illegally release their self driving cars on San Francisco streets). Self driving 1 ton metal blocks are sitting ducks already, and the idiots loving the idea deserve some "action" trapped inside a hacked rat cage rolling down a busy road downtown any big city in the US.


----------



## iheartuber

Holdup... if anyone gets into the SDC taxi biz and they can't use the line "we're not a taxi company, we're a tech company" then that means they will be on the hook for the (costly) permits and regulations that all taxi companies must adhere to.

So tomatopaste how is Waymo going to afford all that charging the bargain basement prices you been telling us?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Holdup... if anyone gets into the SDC taxi biz and they can't use the line "we're not a taxi company, we're a tech company" then that means they will be on the hook for the (costly) permits and regulations that all taxi companies must adhere to.
> 
> So tomatopaste how is Waymo going to afford all that charging the bargain basement prices you been telling us?


Self driving taxis will replace; rideshare, taxis, and most everyone's private car. We're not going to require costly permits and regulations on everyday transportation. Laws will change. Even the commies in California realize laws need to change.

Now, after this year's release of guidelines from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the mood has changed. Californians should expect to see driverless cars tested on the state's roads early next year.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-new-driverless-car-regulations-20171114-story.html


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Self driving taxis will replace; rideshare, taxis, and most everyone's private car. We're not going to require costly permits and regulations on everyday transportation. Laws will change. Even the commies in California realize laws need to change.
> 
> Now, after this year's release of guidelines from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the mood has changed. Californians should expect to see driverless cars tested on the state's roads early next year.
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-new-driverless-car-regulations-20171114-story.html


I see.

So you're saying that if an SDC taxi company were treated as if they were an actual taxi company they WOULD be subject to a lot of costly regulations, but in your humble opinion they will skid out of that because.... the laws will change? And you're.... sure of this?

Even if you are right and the laws do change, you think it's gonna be free? Where's the money in your budget to bribe the politicians?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> I see.
> 
> So you're saying that if an SDC taxi company were treated as if they were an actual taxi company they WOULD be subject to a lot of costly regulations, but in your humble opinion they will skid out of that because.... the laws will change? And you're.... sure of this?
> 
> Even if you are right and the laws do change, you think it's gonna be free? Where's the money in your budget to bribe the politicians?


How much money did it take to bribe the California politicians? Zero. Uber moved most of their self driving operation to Phoenix, and probably threatened to move the entire company to Phoenix. You act as if the politicians hold all the cards. They don't.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> How much money did it take to bribe the California politicians? Zero. Uber moved most of their self driving operation to Phoenix, and probably threatened to move the entire company to Phoenix. You act as if the politicians hold all the cards. They don't.


You Think politicians are just going to wake up one day and pass a bunch of laws to help Waymo out of the kindness of their hearts? Get real


----------



## RamzFanz

iheartuber said:


> You Think politicians are just going to wake up one day and pass a bunch of laws to help Waymo out of the kindness of their hearts? Get real


Yes. Well, no, not out of the kindness of their hearts, but yes, Waymo will get what they want.



jocker12 said:


> Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews
> 
> "Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."
> 
> "A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."
> 
> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*
> 
> "Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."
> 
> Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.
> 
> Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*
> 
> If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *
> 
> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).
> 
> Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.
> 
> In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.
> 
> Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.
> 
> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.
> 
> Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.


You crack me up!

I actually snorted out loud at "$1,000" for tires and brakes!

Seriously dude, it's over. You were wrong.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> Yes. Well, no, not out of the kindness of their hearts, but yes, Waymo will get what they want.


Yeah right. You think it's ginna be that easy? Ha. Good luck with that

Oh and when I get new brakes it's $400 for both (when they're down to metal on metal), tires for 4 new tires are $450 with tax and if I need new shoes, rotors, or drums that's extra. Do the math genius.. that's $850 min for a years worth of brakes & tires if a car drives 50-60k Miles. Pretty close to the $1000 a year. So WTF are you even talking about that you don't know anything


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Even if you are right and the laws do change, you think it's gonna be free? Where's the money in your budget to bribe the politicians?


You are very correct assuming Uber is spending big money on lobbying the politicians. According to opensecrets.org, in 2017 Uber payed $1,31 million in lobbying spending, and $4,1 million in the last 5 years.

It is ridiculous to pretend how any other corporation, obviously intending to use the same model as Uber uses, it will fell under a different set of rules. At the same time, it will be difficult (maybe impossible) to anticipate what federal and local authorities will do, but we can see what they have done in similar situations. The last example is the city of London, where Uber got stuck in a battle where, after necessary discussions, it will need to conform with harsh local regulations or STOP operations entirely. This will be true for ANY corporation willing to enter that market, even if their name is Waymo, Lyft or GM.

My question is, what will stay in cities way to do the same thing London did (or San Francisco a year ago, by blocking Uber from illegally operating their self driving cars on city's streets)?

Also, no matter how permissive local regulations could be, if the customers do not use the robots, it's over. That's why I encourage everybody here or anywhere, to learn how to drive, obey all traffic laws and yield to pedestrians. The preposterous lie of self driving cars it will come back and hit it's enthusiasts right in their faces.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Yeah right. You think it's ginna be that easy? Ha. Good luck with that
> 
> Oh and when I get new brakes it's $400 for both (when they're down to metal on metal), tires for 4 new tires are $450 with tax and if I need new shoes, rotors, or drums that's extra. Do the math genius.. that's $850 min for a years worth of brakes & tires if a car drives 50-60k Miles. Pretty close to the $1000 a year. So WTF are you even talking about that you don't know anything


B.s. I changed the pads on the front, the back were fine. Cost me 30 bucks and half an hour. Waymo's cost'll be 10 bucks and take 10 minutes.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> B.s. I changed the pads on the front, the back were fine. Cost me 30 bucks and half an hour. Waymo's cost'll be 10 bucks and take 10 minutes.


And I suppose the robot will change them? Oh that's right a human has to change them - and will the human do it for free? Ha! No. Gotta pay him. So there goes your "it's gonna cost $10" out the window. Oh and BTW if you use the lowest quality pads that only cost $10 and you drive 50k miles a year, you would be replacing these pads a lot more often than once a year... actually you even said each car would drive 300 miles a day or about 100k (??!!) miles a year....


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> And I suppose the robot will change them? Oh that's right a human has to change them - and will the human do it for free? Ha! No. Gotta pay him. So there goes your "it's gonna cost $10" out the window. Oh and BTW if you use the lowest quality pads that only cost $10 and you drive 50k miles a year, you would be replacing these pads a lot more often than once a year... actually you even said each car would drive 300 miles a day or about 100k (??!!) miles a year....


It was disposable underpads. People full of organic fertilizer need to change those quite often.

Edit. - we are speaking about Volvo XC90 rotors and brakes. It's a $50.000 vehicle, not a $300 piece of crap junk 2001 Pontiac Aztek.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

heynow321 said:


> exactly. consumer tolerance will be 0 when it comes to their perceived safety being threatened.


Yeah, when they slam on the brakes and the customer doesn't know why, they can't say "Sorry. Stupid squirrel!"


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> And I suppose the robot will change them? Oh that's right a human has to change them - and will the human do it for free? Ha! No. Gotta pay him. So there goes your "it's gonna cost $10" out the window. Oh and BTW if you use the lowest quality pads that only cost $10 and you drive 50k miles a year, you would be replacing these pads a lot more often than once a year... actually you even said each car would drive 300 miles a day or about 100k (??!!) miles a year....


I can go 70k on medium quality brake pads. Waymo SDC'swill be driven optimally with top of the line pads, costing them 10 bucks. They'll change pads every 100k whether they need them or not. You pay some kid 20 bucks an hour you're up to 13 bucks. Soon tires will be non pneumatic and you'll only replace the tread. Totally cost for tires and brakes annually, less than 100 bucks.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I can go 70k on medium quality brake pads. Waymo SDC'swill be driven optimally with top of the line pads, costing them 10 bucks. They'll change pads every 100k whether they need them or not. You pay some kid 20 bucks an hour you're up to 13 bucks. Soon tires will be non pneumatic and you'll only replace the tread. Totally cost for tires and brakes annually, less than 100 bucks.


What do you mean "soon tires will be pneumatic"? Are you basing your business plan on technology that doesn't even exist yet? LOL


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> What do you mean "soon tires will be pneumatic"? Are you basing your business plan on technology that doesn't even exist yet? LOL


Non pneumatic. Don't them them sneak up on you like SDC's did.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Non pneumatic. Don't them them sneak up on you like SDC's did.


That's cool man. Tell you what, you don't even have to factor in fuel costs because someday soon we're gonna have solar powered cars.

That stuff will run on pure sunshine man!


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> That's cool man. Tell you what, you don't even have to factor in fuel costs because someday soon we're gonna have solar powered cars.
> 
> That stuff will run on pure sunshine man!


Awesome cartoon movies are coming out in 2018. Hankook iflex and the Incredibles 2 "soon" in the theaters.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Awesome cartoon movies are coming out in 2018. Hankook iflex and the Incredibles 2 "soon" in the theaters.


"Jesus Mable, where the hell did that come from?"







tomatopaste said:


> "Jesus Mable, where the hell did that come from?"


What?! all you're doing is replacing the tread?! DAMN YOU TOMATO!


----------



## RamzFanz

iheartuber said:


> Yeah right. You think it's ginna be that easy? Ha. Good luck with that
> 
> Oh and when I get new brakes it's $400 for both (when they're down to metal on metal), tires for 4 new tires are $450 with tax and if I need new shoes, rotors, or drums that's extra. Do the math genius.. that's $850 min for a years worth of brakes & tires if a car drives 50-60k Miles. Pretty close to the $1000 a year. So WTF are you even talking about that you don't know anything


1) you're way overpaying.

2) do you really think a fleet pays anything near what you do?

Think, man, think.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> 1) you're way overpaying.
> 
> 2) do you really think a fleet pays anything near what you do?
> 
> Think, man, think.


My point is the cost is not going to be "$10 a year"

My mechanic charges $100/hr for labor. Almost every other mechanic charges about the same price. That Seems to be fair market value. You really think you can get someone to do that job for min wage?

That's like trying to find a lawyer to work for min wage.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> My point is the cost is not going to be "$10 a year"
> 
> My mechanic charges $100/hr for labor. Almost every other mechanic charges about the same price. That Seems to be fair market value. You really think you can get someone to do that job for min wage?
> 
> That's like trying to find a lawyer to work for min wage.


Ok, so even at 100 dollars an hour, that's ten bucks in labor. So you're at 20 bucks a year for brakes. Cars don't use brake shoes anymore and no fleet vehicle is going to even come close to metal on metal, ever.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Ok, so even at 100 dollars an hour, that's ten bucks in labor. So you're at 20 bucks a year for brakes. Cars don't use brake shoes anymore and no fleet vehicle is going to even come close to metal on metal, ever.


So, in your head you imagine Waymo having a mechanic under contract and one of his jobs is to replace brake pads and he'll just crank through and do 10 cars per hour and thus the cost for each car in labor will be $10?

First of all that's not possible, second even if it was mechanics have minimum allotted times they must charge for each job. It's set up that way so you don't have a case where they are completely overworked and make a mistake.

It may only take 6 minutes to do the job but they have to spend (and charge) 1 hour on it.

And think about it- it makes sense. If they burn through it and only spend 6 minutes they won't have time to check and see if the shoes are worn or the boots, or rotors. You can't do a quick job on something and then find out later that the brakes are not working properly. The insurance would not cover an accident in that situation.

And if that happens, who's getting sued? Waymo. And probably even Greg Rogers.



tomatopaste said:


> no fleet vehicle is going to even come close to metal on metal, ever.


It will if the mechanic only spends 6 minutes or only change the pads once per year or only use cheap $10 pads.

Greg, your problem is you box yourself into a corner with your completely unrealistic statements. And you pile them on top of each other.

That's like a 5 year old kid saying he's going to grow up to be a lawyer... and a doctor... and a major league ball player.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> So, in your head you imagine Waymo having a mechanic under contract and one of his jobs is to replace brake pads and he'll just crank through and do 10 cars per hour and thus the cost for each car in labor will be $10?
> 
> First of all that's not possible, second even if it was mechanics have minimum allotted times they must charge for each job. It's set up that way so you don't have a case where they are completely overworked and make a mistake.
> 
> It may only take 6 minutes to do the job but they have to spend (and charge) 1 hour on it.
> 
> And think about it- it makes sense. If they burn through it and only spend 6 minutes they won't have time to check and see if the shoes are worn or the boots, or rotors. You can't do a quick job on something and then find out later that the brakes are not working properly. The insurance would not cover an accident in that situation.
> 
> And if that happens, who's getting sued? Waymo. And probably even Greg Rogers.
> 
> It will if the mechanic only spends 6 minutes or only change the pads once per year or only use cheap $10 pads.
> 
> Greg, your problem is you box yourself into a corner with your completely unrealistic statements. And you pile them on top of each other.
> 
> That's like a 5 year old kid saying he's going to grow up to be a lawyer... and a doctor... and a major league ball player.


No they'll have a mechanic/parts changer under contract and pay him $20 an hour, not $100. I used $100 an hour just to show that even with your ridiculous numbers it's still ten times less expensive than the absurd figures you're throwing out there.

_"It may only take 6 minutes to do the job but they have to spend (and charge) 1 hour on it."_

What the hell are you talking about? The vaunted "UP community" is not really that vaunted after all, now is it?

Stop with the stupid "shoes" crap. There are no shoes. The only wear is going to be to the pads which they're replacing, even if they don't need to be replaced. It's called preventive maintenance. Sheesh!


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> No they'll have a mechanic/parts changer under contract and pay him $20 an hour, not $100. I used $100 an hour just to show that even with your ridiculous numbers it's still ten times less expensive than the absurd figures you're throwing out there.
> 
> _"It may only take 6 minutes to do the job but they have to spend (and charge) 1 hour on it."_
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? The vaunted "UP community" is not really that vaunted after all, now is it?
> 
> Stop with the stupid "shoes" crap. There are no shoes. The only wear is going to be to the pads which they're replacing, even if they don't need to be replaced. It's called preventive maintenance. Sheesh!


Again, if you Think you can get a mechanic to work for 1/5 the fair market value that's like saying you can get a lawyer to do the same.



iheartuber said:


> Again, if you Think you can get a mechanic to work for 1/5 the fair market value that's like saying you can get a lawyer to do the same.


Also, just so we're clear, you Think a taxi car can drive 100,000 miles in a year's time and the only money needed to spend for parts on the brakes is $10?

And you don't see anything unrealistic about that statement?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Again, if you Think you can get a mechanic to work for 1/5 the fair market value that's like saying you can get a lawyer to do the same.
> 
> Also, just so we're clear, you Think a taxi car can drive 100,000 miles in a year's time and the only money needed to spend for parts on the brakes is $10?
> 
> And you don't see anything unrealistic about that statement?


Yeah, it probably won't cost that much, but hey, I'm a giver. It cost me $30 after 70k. You do the math.

Tire treads will eventually be 3D printed right onto the wheel. Waymo won't have to ship or store tires, just take the old wheel and 3D print a new tread on it. Say it iheart, HOLY SHIT!


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Yeah, it probably won't cost that much, but hey, I'm a giver. It cost me $30 after 70k. You do the math.
> 
> Tire treads will eventually be 3D printed right onto the wheel. Waymo won't have to ship or store tires, just take the old wheel and 3D print a new tread on it. Say it iheart, HOLY SHIT!
> 
> View attachment 178303


When exactly is "eventually"? A year? Two years? Ten years?

I deal with specifics.

It's nice you did your brakes yourself and saved $ on paying for labor but no fleet service can get away with not paying for labor.

Also I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that your 70k miles were built up over a number of years. Much different maintenance when you jam that into one year


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Again, if you Think you can get a mechanic to work for 1/5 the fair market value that's like saying you can get a lawye
> 
> Also, just so we're clear, you Think a taxi car can drive 100,000 miles in a year's time and the only money needed to spend for parts on the brakes is $10?
> 
> And you don't see anything unrealistic about that statement?


Does a 16 yr old kid working at Jiffy Lube make the same as a mechanic working on 747's?



iheartuber said:


> When exactly is "eventually"? A year? Two years? Ten years?


1 yr, 3 months and 4 days. So basically your $450 tires are now $35 worth of resin.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Does a 16 yr old kid working at Jiffy Lube make the same as a mechanic working on 747's?


Again, I can't convince you. You're just going to have to let it happen and see for yourself



tomatopaste said:


> 1 yr, 3 months and 4 days. So basically your $450 tires are now $35 worth of resin.


Greg, you are one annoying guy. But I'll play along. I'll wait 1 year three months and 4 days from now. That's February 27, 2019

I'll hit you back on that date and say "I told you so". Stay tuned


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Also I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that your 70k miles were built up over a number of years. Much different maintenance when you jam that into one year


I get 70k because I'm intentionally light on my brakes, it's almost a game. Both Waymo's Chrysler Pacifica and GM's Chevy Bolt have regenerative braking, and both will be driven optimally by computer. They'll be able to get 100k out of their brake pads with both hands tied behind their back.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I get 70k because I'm intentionally light on my brakes, it's almost a game. Both Waymo's Chrysler Pacifica and GM's Chevy Bolt have regenerative braking, and both will be driven optimally by computer. They'll be able to get 100k out of their brake pads with both hands tied behind their back.


Wow you sure know a lot about GM
cars. It's almost as if GM pays you... hmmmm


----------



## Chris1973

tomatopaste said:


> I get 70k because I'm intentionally light on my brakes, it's almost a game. Both Waymo's Chrysler Pacifica and GM's Chevy Bolt have regenerative braking, and both will be driven optimally by computer. They'll be able to get 100k out of their brake pads with both hands tied behind their back.


I have to agree, humans tend to brake way too hard and often. Since driving Uber, patience in all things has become my mantra. Average MPG has gone up, and obeying the speed limit produces benefits beyond just doing the right thing.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Again, if you Think you can get a mechanic to work for 1/5 the fair market value that's like saying you can get a lawyer to do the same.
> 
> Also, just so we're clear, you Think a taxi car can drive 100,000 miles in a year's time and the only money needed to spend for parts on the brakes is $10?
> 
> And you don't see anything unrealistic about that statement?


 All you need to understand when referring to fleet maintenance is strictly related to the distance covered by the fleet vehicles. The less distance they cover, the less expensive maintenance will be, and the more miles they travel, the more money the fleet manager will spend on those cars maintenance. In addition to that, it is also the fuel cost.

"The two biggest factors in fleet costs are controlling depreciation and gasoline expenses. Together, these two costs generally make up about 70 per cent of fleet ownership and operating costs."

In my model I used a $2.10 cents figure for gasoline (Volvo XC90 24mpg combined for Uber or Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivan 32mpg - "The Pacifica Hybrid will go 33 miles on an electric charge, but not at highway speeds.", are both GASOLINE cars), which is a highly *undervalued* number - according to AAA, the national gasoline average price was $2.521 on Thanksgiving Day 2017. So, the real prices any fleet owners will pay for the fuel are more likely to be *higher* rather than lower.

When it comes to mileage, a Volvo XC90 weights 4394 lbs, and a Chrysler Pacifica hybrid weights 4943 lbs (this represents Curb weight, which is "the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and sometimes a full tank of fuel, *while not loaded with either passengers or cargo.*"

Accordind to fleetfinancials.com - "The average total cost of ownership (TCO) for a light-duty vehicle (under 10,000-pounds GVWR) *ranges from $5,000 to $8,000 per vehicle, per year.*" (where GVWR stands for Gross vehicle weight rating). So going back to the Uber-Volvo deal, TCO for 24.000 cars will be somewhere between *$120 to $190 million a year. *

And now let's a take minute and analyse what Uber wants to do, versus what fleetfinacials.com recommends fleet owners do.

*1. Reduce the fleet size* - Obviously, Uber's next step (like any other company will do under the same model) will be to potentially INCREASE their fleet, and NOT reduce it.

*2. Cut miles traveled* - This is one that hurts, because Uber and any other potential player on the same field, will relate network efficiency (to please the regulators and the customers) to an exaggerate use of its vehicles (enthusiasts dreaming those cars could run 24/7 with no problem.) As I mentioned in my original post, if Volvo XC90 uses a tank a day, the car will cover 451.2 miles every day. If you ask any professional driver how much is 451.2 miles a day, when transporting people, they will tell you that is A LOT. I will come back to this figure a little later on.

*3 Get more mpg* - This is another tough one, because you have what you have. In city conditions, moving under 40 miles/hour, you can get better gas mileage, but Volvo XC90 has 22 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, so 24 mpg in the city driving under 40 mph seems to be a good value to consider.

*4. Lower fuel cost *- I've already mentioned this above.

*5. Reduce lifecycle costs* - This is important because - "many organizations retain and operate vehicles far past their optimum economic life, which can result in excessive maintenance costs, increased fuel costs as the vehicles decrease in fuel economy, and reduced utilization." So "After considering all relevant factors (e.g., initial *new vehicle cost*, reasonable projected *resale value*, fuel mpg, planned maintenance and projected repair, personal use payments), the fleet manager can prepare *short and long-term replacement plans*." This option could blow your mind when it comes to huge fleets with NO resale value, or resale purpose for that matter. If Uber needs 10 times more autonomous Volvos to be as effective as 1 million Uber drivers are today in the US, and replace their fleet on a regular cycle basis (could be between 5 to 7 years, 450 miles daily for 300 days equals 135.000 miles a year, equals 675.000 miles in 5 years or 945.000 miles in 7 years), *they will need to spend another $18 billion every cycle. *

*6. Lower acquisition costs *- If their goal is to eliminate car ownership, subsequently eliminate potential private customers from the car manufacturers dealerships, I don't see how car manufacturers will not hit back with harsh negotiations regarding any fleet acquisition prices, as long as more and more private customers will potentially change their behavior and that will directly hurt all car manufacturers. So, in my opinion, this is highly unlikely to happen.

*7. Assure Higher Resale Value *- This is out of question because A. the more miles you put on the cars the less resale value they maintain, and B. autonomous cars fleets goal will be to eliminate car ownership.

*8. Lower Maintenance Costs *- "Often, fleet managers adhere to outmoded beliefs for preventive maintenance (PM) practices, such as the belief that a PM should be performed every 3,000 miles. Such frequent PMs are only required for vehicles that operate under "severe" duty as defined by the OEM". Interestingly enough, it's good to mention how Uber, or Waymo, or Gm, or Lyft intention is to literally abuse those cars to achieve efficiency (see *#2* above - I promised to go back to it). Is no secret that they could use powerful computer systems and complicated algorithms to achieve that, but the moving robot it will take and suffer the road conditions, weather and riders stress for every single second. According to my calculations, with 450 miles every day, a Volvo XC90 will cover 3000 miles in less than 7 days, so if any fleet owner it will follow fleetfinancials.com recommendations, they will need to perform a preventive maintenance EVERY WEEK. Now, any child knows how that will exponentially increase the general cost of fleet maintenance, not reduce it.

*9. Lower Crash Costs *- Ideally, this supposed to be zero, but any hiccup will be incredibly expensive not on the financial side of the business, but on its Public Relations side of it. If customers don't use the robots, they don't move from the warehouse, you don't spend any money, but you don't make any money either. 

*10. Lower Overhead Costs *- Of course fleet owners don't want to pay for maintenance or cleaning, and if they will develop their own service shop and car cleaning networks (more billions out of their pockets upfront) they wont. But in case they will find business partners to do those jobs for them, they will dig deep for more money to cover that.

And my conclusion is actually a question - *Who do you think it will pay for all this, if this becomes reality?*


----------



## iheartuber

Chris1973 said:


> I have to agree, humans tend to brake way too hard and often. Since driving Uber, patience in all things has become my mantra. Average MPG has gone up, and obeying the speed limit produces benefits beyond just doing the right thing.


Those 450 lifetime rides you did with Uber must have been really hard on you



jocker12 said:


> All you need to understand when referring to fleet maintenance is strictly related to the distance covered by the fleet vehicles. The less distance they cover, the less expensive maintenance will be, and the more miles they travel, the more money the fleet manager will spend on those cars maintenance. In addition to that, it is also the fuel cost.
> 
> "The two biggest factors in fleet costs are controlling depreciation and gasoline expenses. Together, these two costs generally make up about 70 per cent of fleet ownership and operating costs."
> 
> In my model I used a $2.10 cents figure for gasoline (Volvo XC90 24mpg combined for Uber or Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivan 32mpg - "The Pacifica Hybrid will go 33 miles on an electric charge, but not at highway speeds.", are both GASOLINE cars), which is a highly *undervalued* number - according to AAA, the national gasoline average price was $2.521 on Thanksgiving Day 2017. So, the real prices any fleet owners will pay for the fuel are more likely to be *higher* rather than lower.
> 
> When it comes to mileage, a Volvo XC90 weights 4394 lbs, and a Chrysler Pacifica hybrid weights 4943 lbs (this represents Curb weight, which is "the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and sometimes a full tank of fuel, *while not loaded with either passengers or cargo.*"
> 
> Accordind to fleetfinancials.com - "The average total cost of ownership (TCO) for a light-duty vehicle (under 10,000-pounds GVWR) *ranges from $5,000 to $8,000 per vehicle, per year.*" (where GVWR stands for Gross vehicle weight rating). So going back to the Uber-Volvo deal, TCO for 24.000 cars will be somewhere between *$120 to $190 million a year. *
> 
> And now let's a take minute and analyse what Uber wants to do versus what fleetfinacials.com recommends fleet owners to do.
> *1. Reduce the fleet size* - Obviously, Uber's next step (like any other company will do under the same model) will be to potentially INCREASE their fleet, and NOT reduce it.
> 
> *2. Cut miles traveled* - This is one that hurts, because Uber and any other potential player on the same field, will relate network efficiency (to please the regulators and the customers) to an exaggerate use of its vehicles (enthusiasts dreaming those cars could run 24/7 with no problem. As I demonstrated in my original post, if Volvo XC90 uses a tank a day, the car will cover 451.2 miles every day. If you ask any professional driver how much is 451.2 miles a day, when transporting people, they will tell you that is A LOT. I will come back to this figure a little later on.
> 
> *3 Get more mpg* - This is another tough one, because you have what you have. In city conditions, moving under 40 miles/hour, you can get better gas mileage, but Volvo XC90 has 22 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, so 24 mpg in the city driving under 40 mph seems to be a good value to consider.
> 
> *4. Lower fuel cost *- I've already mentioned this above.
> 
> *5. Reduce lifecycle costs* - This is important because - "many organizations retain and operate vehicles far past their optimum economic life, which can result in excessive maintenance costs, increased fuel costs as the vehicles decrease in fuel economy, and reduced utilization." So "After considering all relevant factors (e.g., initial *new vehicle cost*, reasonable projected *resale value*, fuel mpg, planned maintenance and projected repair, personal use payments), the fleet manager can prepare *short and long-term replacement plans*." This option could blow your mind when it comes to huge fleets with NO resale value, or resale purpose for that matter. If Uber needs 10 times more autonomous Volvos to be as effective as 1 million Uber drivers are today in the US, and replace their fleet on a regular cycle basis (could be between 5 to 7 years, 450 miles daily for 300 days equals 135.000 miles a year, equals 675.000 miles in 5 years or 945.000 miles in 7 years), *they will need to spend another $18 billion every cycle. *
> 
> *6. Lower acquisition costs *- If their goal is to eliminate car ownership, subsequently eliminate potential private customers from the car manufacturers dealerships, I don't see how car manufacturers will not hit back with harsh negotiations regarding any fleet acquisition prices, as long as more and more private customers will potentially change their behavior and that will directly hurt all car manufacturers. So, in my opinion, this is highly unlikely to happen.
> 
> *7. Assure Higher Resale Value *- This is out of question because A. the more miles you put on the cars the less resale value they maintain, and B. autonomous cars fleets goal will be to eliminate car ownership.
> 
> *8. Lower Maintenance Costs *- "Often, fleet managers adhere to outmoded beliefs for preventive maintenance (PM) practices, such as the belief that a PM should be performed every 3,000 miles. Such frequent PMs are only required for vehicles that operate under "severe" duty as defined by the OEM". Interestingly enough, it's good to mention how Uber, or Waymo, or Gm, or Lyft intention is to literally abuse those cars to achieve efficiency. Is no secret that they could use powerful computer systems to achieve that, but the moving robot it will suffer the road conditions, weather and riders stress for every single second. According to my calculations, with 450 miles every day, a Volvo XC90 will cover 3000 miles in less than 7 days, so if any fleet owner it will follow fleetfinancials.com recommendations, they will need to perform a preventive maintenance EVERY WEEK. Now, any child knows how that will exponentially increase the general cost of fleet maintenance, not reduce it.
> 
> *9. Lower Crash Costs *- Ideally, this supposed to be zero, but any hiccup will be incredibly expensive not on the financial side of the business, but on its Public Relations side of it. If customers don't use the robots, they don't move from the warehouse, you don't spend any money, but you don't make any either.
> 
> *10. Lower Overhead Costs *- Of course fleet owners don't want to pay for maintenance or cleaning, and if they will develop their own service shop and car cleaning networks (more billions out of their pockets upfront) thy wont. But in case they will find business partners to do those jobs for them, they will dig deep for more money to cover that.
> 
> And my conclusion is actually a question - *Who do you think it will pay for all this, if this becomes reality?*


There are people on this board who have literally run a taxi fleet and Greg thinks he knows more than them. Amazing.


----------



## Chris1973

iheartuber said:


> Those 450 lifetime rides you did with Uber must have been really hard on you
> 
> There are people on this board who have literally run a taxi fleet and Greg thinks he knows more than them. Amazing.


I don't get the joke, sorry.


----------



## iheartuber

I'm convinced that Uber knows full well that the SDC Volvo thing is going to fail "someday" but they are just kicking the can down the road to keep playing a shell game with their investors.



Chris1973 said:


> I don't get the joke, sorry.


Through my ace detective skills I found that the person posting as tomatopaste is most likely Greg Rogers who works at the Eno Center for Transportation. He has a bio page, and in it it says that he has experience as an Uber driver. It used to say he did 450 lifetime rides and maintained a 4.9 star rating but that info has mysteriously since been taken down since I "outed" him a few weeks ago.

https://www.enotrans.org/profiles/greg-rogers/

Also check out Greg's blog:
http://www.theautonomer.com/


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> I'm convinced that Uber knows full well that the SDC Volvo thing is going to fail "someday" but they are just kicking the can down the road to keep playing a shell game with their investors.


They panicked because of Waymo in Arizona. It is funny how Waymo also panicked, because they cannot afford to drop more money on this failure. That's why "Waymo CEO John Krafcik faces pressure from his boss, Google co-founder and Alphabet CEO Larry Page, to transform Waymo's impressive self-driving technology into a shipping product". There is no secret John and Larry need new diapers.


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> All you need to understand when referring to fleet maintenance is strictly related to the distance covered by the fleet vehicles. The less distance they cover, the less expensive maintenance will be, and the more miles they travel, the more money the fleet manager will spend on those cars maintenance. In addition to that, it is also the fuel cost.
> 
> "The two biggest factors in fleet costs are controlling depreciation and gasoline expenses. Together, these two costs generally make up about 70 per cent of fleet ownership and operating costs."
> 
> In my model I used a $2.10 cents figure for gasoline (Volvo XC90 24mpg combined for Uber or Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivan 32mpg - "The Pacifica Hybrid will go 33 miles on an electric charge, but not at highway speeds.", are both GASOLINE cars), which is a highly *undervalued* number - according to AAA, the national gasoline average price was $2.521 on Thanksgiving Day 2017. So, the real prices any fleet owners will pay for the fuel are more likely to be *higher* rather than lower.
> 
> When it comes to mileage, a Volvo XC90 weights 4394 lbs, and a Chrysler Pacifica hybrid weights 4943 lbs (this represents Curb weight, which is "the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and sometimes a full tank of fuel, *while not loaded with either passengers or cargo.*"
> 
> Accordind to fleetfinancials.com - "The average total cost of ownership (TCO) for a light-duty vehicle (under 10,000-pounds GVWR) *ranges from $5,000 to $8,000 per vehicle, per year.*" (where GVWR stands for Gross vehicle weight rating). So going back to the Uber-Volvo deal, TCO for 24.000 cars will be somewhere between *$120 to $190 million a year. *
> 
> And now let's a take minute and analyse what Uber wants to do, versus what fleetfinacials.com recommends fleet owners do.
> 
> *1. Reduce the fleet size* - Obviously, Uber's next step (like any other company will do under the same model) will be to potentially INCREASE their fleet, and NOT reduce it.
> 
> *2. Cut miles traveled* - This is one that hurts, because Uber and any other potential player on the same field, will relate network efficiency (to please the regulators and the customers) to an exaggerate use of its vehicles (enthusiasts dreaming those cars could run 24/7 with no problem.) As I mentioned in my original post, if Volvo XC90 uses a tank a day, the car will cover 451.2 miles every day. If you ask any professional driver how much is 451.2 miles a day, when transporting people, they will tell you that is A LOT. I will come back to this figure a little later on.
> 
> *3 Get more mpg* - This is another tough one, because you have what you have. In city conditions, moving under 40 miles/hour, you can get better gas mileage, but Volvo XC90 has 22 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, so 24 mpg in the city driving under 40 mph seems to be a good value to consider.
> 
> *4. Lower fuel cost *- I've already mentioned this above.
> 
> *5. Reduce lifecycle costs* - This is important because - "many organizations retain and operate vehicles far past their optimum economic life, which can result in excessive maintenance costs, increased fuel costs as the vehicles decrease in fuel economy, and reduced utilization." So "After considering all relevant factors (e.g., initial *new vehicle cost*, reasonable projected *resale value*, fuel mpg, planned maintenance and projected repair, personal use payments), the fleet manager can prepare *short and long-term replacement plans*." This option could blow your mind when it comes to huge fleets with NO resale value, or resale purpose for that matter. If Uber needs 10 times more autonomous Volvos to be as effective as 1 million Uber drivers are today in the US, and replace their fleet on a regular cycle basis (could be between 5 to 7 years, 450 miles daily for 300 days equals 135.000 miles a year, equals 675.000 miles in 5 years or 945.000 miles in 7 years), *they will need to spend another $18 billion every cycle. *
> 
> *6. Lower acquisition costs *- If their goal is to eliminate car ownership, subsequently eliminate potential private customers from the car manufacturers dealerships, I don't see how car manufacturers will not hit back with harsh negotiations regarding any fleet acquisition prices, as long as more and more private customers will potentially change their behavior and that will directly hurt all car manufacturers. So, in my opinion, this is highly unlikely to happen.
> 
> *7. Assure Higher Resale Value *- This is out of question because A. the more miles you put on the cars the less resale value they maintain, and B. autonomous cars fleets goal will be to eliminate car ownership.
> 
> *8. Lower Maintenance Costs *- "Often, fleet managers adhere to outmoded beliefs for preventive maintenance (PM) practices, such as the belief that a PM should be performed every 3,000 miles. Such frequent PMs are only required for vehicles that operate under "severe" duty as defined by the OEM". Interestingly enough, it's good to mention how Uber, or Waymo, or Gm, or Lyft intention is to literally abuse those cars to achieve efficiency (see *#2* above - I promised to go back to it). Is no secret that they could use powerful computer systems and complicated algorithms to achieve that, but the moving robot it will take and suffer the road conditions, weather and riders stress for every single second. According to my calculations, with 450 miles every day, a Volvo XC90 will cover 3000 miles in less than 7 days, so if any fleet owner it will follow fleetfinancials.com recommendations, they will need to perform a preventive maintenance EVERY WEEK. Now, any child knows how that will exponentially increase the general cost of fleet maintenance, not reduce it.
> 
> *9. Lower Crash Costs *- Ideally, this supposed to be zero, but any hiccup will be incredibly expensive not on the financial side of the business, but on its Public Relations side of it. If customers don't use the robots, they don't move from the warehouse, you don't spend any money, but you don't make any money either.
> 
> *10. Lower Overhead Costs *- Of course fleet owners don't want to pay for maintenance or cleaning, and if they will develop their own service shop and car cleaning networks (more billions out of their pockets upfront) they wont. But in case they will find business partners to do those jobs for them, they will dig deep for more money to cover that.
> 
> And my conclusion is actually a question - *Who do you think it will pay for all this, if this becomes reality?*


Answer: The customer

It's hilarious you don't even acknowledge that more miles means they're making more profit. Just silly.


----------



## driverdoug

Insurance costs will be astronomical until SDC’s establish a safety record.


----------



## tomatopaste

Chris1973 said:


> I don't get the joke, sorry.


When iheart has no response he makes up fake personas to try to discredit the person making the argument instead of trying to refute the argument. Case in point: a few posts back I said I get 70k out of my brake pads because I make it a game to be light on my brakes. I also said GM and Waymo will be able to get 100k due to the fact their self driving cars will be driven optimally by computer and both have regenerative braking.

Iheart had no response so instead he implied that GM must be paying me. He's also said I work for a think tank and that I'm Larry Page's nephew. You see, iheart finds himself with nothing to say quite often, hence the fake personas.


----------



## RamzFanz

iheartuber said:


> My point is the cost is not going to be "$10 a year"
> 
> My mechanic charges $100/hr for labor. Almost every other mechanic charges about the same price. That Seems to be fair market value. You really think you can get someone to do that job for min wage?
> 
> That's like trying to find a lawyer to work for min wage.


No, your garage charges $100 an hour (30% more than what mine charges), the mechanic makes a fraction of that.

You're comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> When iheart has no response he makes up fake personas to try to discredit the person making the argument instead of trying to refute the argument. Case in point: a few posts back I said I get 70k out of my brake pads because I make it a game to be light on my brakes. I also said GM and Waymo will be able to get 100k due to the fact their self driving cars will be driven optimally by computer and both have regenerative braking.
> 
> Iheart had no response so instead he implied that GM must be paying me. He's also said I work for a think tank and that I'm Larry Page's nephew. You see, iheart finds himself with nothing to say quite often, hence the fake personas.


Why do you use the words "fake (or false) persona"? Most people speaking regular English just say "that's not me, dude" but you use very specific words that sounds like it came from the legal dept

Just saying...


----------



## RamzFanz

driverdoug said:


> Insurance costs will be astronomical until SDC's establish a safety record.


These companies probably self insure.

In the end, insurance will drop to next to nothing.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> When iheart has no response he makes up fake personas to try to discredit the person making the argument instead of trying to refute the argument. Case in point: a few posts back I said I get 70k out of my brake pads because I make it a game to be light on my brakes. I also said GM and Waymo will be able to get 100k due to the fact their self driving cars will be driven optimally by computer and both have regenerative braking.
> 
> Iheart had no response so instead he implied that GM must be paying me. He's also said I work for a think tank and that I'm Larry Page's nephew. You see, iheart finds himself with nothing to say quite often, hence the fake personas.


Oh, I've given you response after response after response

After a while it gets boring.

So to relieve my boredom I did some detective work and found out who you really are. Greg

The proof I have that you are Greg is that after I "outed" you, the # of lifetime Uber rides (the embarrassingly low 450) was sponged from your bio


----------



## Strange Fruit

jocker12 said:


> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*


This guy contradicts Dara who recently told drivers to "do their math......we'll need more drivers when SDCs are being used". I don't remember how he justified that assertion. But his head of automative alliances is saying we need to be removed from the equation while Dara's equations say there will be more of us. Maybe Dara agrees with Jeff Miller, but just doesn't plan on "being commercial".
Or maybe they're just lying d-bags.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

iheartuber said:


> Again, if you Think you can get a mechanic to work for 1/5 the fair market value that's like saying you can get a lawyer to do the same.


Just to be devil's advocate, look at how they've managed to get us drive for 1/3 of taxi prices.

I think the true price is in the middle somewhere. Still a lot more than having US do it at no cost to Uber.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Answer: The customer
> 
> It's hilarious you don't even acknowledge that more miles means they're making more profit. Just silly.


By spending $18 billion every 5 (7) years only to cover for fleet renewal, means $3.6(2,6) billion a year. If you add all maintenance, cleaning, regulatory and operating costs, you can easly jump to $10 billion or even $15 billion a year with, REMEMBER, a fleet of 240.000 cars estimated to match what 1 million Uber drivers do today (cars estimated to cover 675.000 miles in 5 years or 945.000 miles in 7 years per unit).

Now let's look at Uber's 2016 performances, when they lost $2.8 billion on $20 billion gross bookings and $6.5 billion net revenue. If they made $6.5 billion and ended up losing $2.8 billion, that means they've spent $9.3 billion. You can argue how the difference from $20 billion to $9.3 billion was drivers cut (and I will give you the highest value in your argument advantage), so if they would have kept those money, they would have had additionally $11.7 billion to play with. So that would have been the drivers cut they hope to get if they remove the drivers, correct?

If we compare the numbers from the first paragraph, to the numbers from the second paragraph ($10 billion to $15 billion versus $11.7 billion) you will understand how, at the EXISTING Uber rates (which they are heavily subsidizing), they will barely make it even every year, and have NO profit whatsoever.

If you think they will make profit, please show us your calculations, or please stop making statements you have no clue about. (You sound like those silly commercials telling you "the more you spend, the more you save". That is hilarious)


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

tomatopaste said:


> I get 70k because I'm intentionally light on my brakes, it's almost a game. Both Waymo's Chrysler Pacifica and GM's Chevy Bolt have regenerative braking, and both will be driven optimally by computer. They'll be able to get 100k out of their brake pads with both hands tied behind their back.


That's funny because I get 90,000 on my brakes. And I'm no computer. Last vehicles were a Ford Focus and a GMC Safari. I have 51,000 on my current car, so we'll see how it goes. I'll need tires in about 10,000 miles though.


----------



## iheartuber

Strange Fruit said:


> This guy contradicts Dara who recently told drivers to "do their math......we'll need more drivers when SDCs are being used". I don't remember how he justified that assertion. But his head of automative alliances is saying we need to be removed from the equation while Dara's equations say there will be more of us. Maybe Dara agrees with Jeff Miller, but just doesn't plan on "being commercial".
> Or maybe they're just lying d-bags.


They are saying these things for one reason and in 5 words: shell game with the investors


----------



## jocker12

Strange Fruit said:


> This guy contradicts Dara who recently told drivers to "do their math......we'll need more drivers when SDCs are being used". I don't remember how he justified that assertion. But his head of automative alliances is saying we need to be removed from the equation while Dara's equations say there will be more of us. Maybe Dara agrees with Jeff Miller, but just doesn't plan on "being commercial".
> Or maybe they're just lying d-bags.


 I know. In this case my logical questions are:
Why would Jeff Miller tell a lie, as long as he knows his words could alienate the existing drivers, so his words don't put him in a better position?
and
Why would Dara lie? Because he can take it back at any time and change the story. That is exactly what corporations do.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> All you need to understand when referring to fleet maintenance is strictly related to the distance covered by the fleet vehicles. The less distance they cover, the less expensive maintenance will be, and the more miles they travel, the more money the fleet manager will spend on those cars maintenance. In addition to that, it is also the fuel cost.
> 
> "The two biggest factors in fleet costs are controlling depreciation and gasoline expenses. Together, these two costs generally make up about 70 per cent of fleet ownership and operating costs."
> 
> In my model I used a $2.10 cents figure for gasoline (Volvo XC90 24mpg combined for Uber or Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivan 32mpg - "The Pacifica Hybrid will go 33 miles on an electric charge, but not at highway speeds.", are both GASOLINE cars), which is a highly *undervalued* number - according to AAA, the national gasoline average price was $2.521 on Thanksgiving Day 2017. So, the real prices any fleet owners will pay for the fuel are more likely to be *higher* rather than lower.
> 
> When it comes to mileage, a Volvo XC90 weights 4394 lbs, and a Chrysler Pacifica hybrid weights 4943 lbs (this represents Curb weight, which is "the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and sometimes a full tank of fuel, *while not loaded with either passengers or cargo.*"
> 
> Accordind to fleetfinancials.com - "The average total cost of ownership (TCO) for a light-duty vehicle (under 10,000-pounds GVWR) *ranges from $5,000 to $8,000 per vehicle, per year.*" (where GVWR stands for Gross vehicle weight rating). So going back to the Uber-Volvo deal, TCO for 24.000 cars will be somewhere between *$120 to $190 million a year. *
> 
> And now let's a take minute and analyse what Uber wants to do, versus what fleetfinacials.com recommends fleet owners do.
> 
> *1. Reduce the fleet size* - Obviously, Uber's next step (like any other company will do under the same model) will be to potentially INCREASE their fleet, and NOT reduce it.
> 
> *2. Cut miles traveled* - This is one that hurts, because Uber and any other potential player on the same field, will relate network efficiency (to please the regulators and the customers) to an exaggerate use of its vehicles (enthusiasts dreaming those cars could run 24/7 with no problem.) As I mentioned in my original post, if Volvo XC90 uses a tank a day, the car will cover 451.2 miles every day. If you ask any professional driver how much is 451.2 miles a day, when transporting people, they will tell you that is A LOT. I will come back to this figure a little later on.
> 
> *3 Get more mpg* - This is another tough one, because you have what you have. In city conditions, moving under 40 miles/hour, you can get better gas mileage, but Volvo XC90 has 22 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, so 24 mpg in the city driving under 40 mph seems to be a good value to consider.
> 
> *4. Lower fuel cost *- I've already mentioned this above.
> 
> *5. Reduce lifecycle costs* - This is important because - "many organizations retain and operate vehicles far past their optimum economic life, which can result in excessive maintenance costs, increased fuel costs as the vehicles decrease in fuel economy, and reduced utilization." So "After considering all relevant factors (e.g., initial *new vehicle cost*, reasonable projected *resale value*, fuel mpg, planned maintenance and projected repair, personal use payments), the fleet manager can prepare *short and long-term replacement plans*." This option could blow your mind when it comes to huge fleets with NO resale value, or resale purpose for that matter. If Uber needs 10 times more autonomous Volvos to be as effective as 1 million Uber drivers are today in the US, and replace their fleet on a regular cycle basis (could be between 5 to 7 years, 450 miles daily for 300 days equals 135.000 miles a year, equals 675.000 miles in 5 years or 945.000 miles in 7 years), *they will need to spend another $18 billion every cycle. *
> 
> *6. Lower acquisition costs *- If their goal is to eliminate car ownership, subsequently eliminate potential private customers from the car manufacturers dealerships, I don't see how car manufacturers will not hit back with harsh negotiations regarding any fleet acquisition prices, as long as more and more private customers will potentially change their behavior and that will directly hurt all car manufacturers. So, in my opinion, this is highly unlikely to happen.
> 
> *7. Assure Higher Resale Value *- This is out of question because A. the more miles you put on the cars the less resale value they maintain, and B. autonomous cars fleets goal will be to eliminate car ownership.
> 
> *8. Lower Maintenance Costs *- "Often, fleet managers adhere to outmoded beliefs for preventive maintenance (PM) practices, such as the belief that a PM should be performed every 3,000 miles. Such frequent PMs are only required for vehicles that operate under "severe" duty as defined by the OEM". Interestingly enough, it's good to mention how Uber, or Waymo, or Gm, or Lyft intention is to literally abuse those cars to achieve efficiency (see *#2* above - I promised to go back to it). Is no secret that they could use powerful computer systems and complicated algorithms to achieve that, but the moving robot it will take and suffer the road conditions, weather and riders stress for every single second. According to my calculations, with 450 miles every day, a Volvo XC90 will cover 3000 miles in less than 7 days, so if any fleet owner it will follow fleetfinancials.com recommendations, they will need to perform a preventive maintenance EVERY WEEK. Now, any child knows how that will exponentially increase the general cost of fleet maintenance, not reduce it.
> 
> *9. Lower Crash Costs *- Ideally, this supposed to be zero, but any hiccup will be incredibly expensive not on the financial side of the business, but on its Public Relations side of it. If customers don't use the robots, they don't move from the warehouse, you don't spend any money, but you don't make any money either.
> 
> *10. Lower Overhead Costs *- Of course fleet owners don't want to pay for maintenance or cleaning, and if they will develop their own service shop and car cleaning networks (more billions out of their pockets upfront) they wont. But in case they will find business partners to do those jobs for them, they will dig deep for more money to cover that.
> 
> And my conclusion is actually a question - *Who do you think it will pay for all this, if this becomes reality?*


Lord you tend to ramble, Jockey. Were you born a ramblin' man?






I thought so.


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> By spending $18 billion every 5 (7) years only to cover for fleet renewal, means $3.6(2,6) billion a year. If you add all maintenance, cleaning, regulatory and operating costs, you can easly jump to $10 billion or even $15 billion a year with, REMEMBER, a fleet of 240.000 cars estimated to match what 1 million Uber drivers do today (cars estimated to cover 675.000 miles in 5 years or 945.000 miles in 7 years per unit).
> 
> Now let's look at Uber's 2016 performances, when they lost $2.8 billion on $20 billion gross bookings and $6.5 billion net revenue. If they made $6.5 billion and ended up losing $2.8 billion, that means they've spent $9.3 billion. You can argue how the difference from $20 billion to $9.3 billion was drivers cut (and I will give you the highest value in your argument advantage), so if they would have kept those money, they would have had additionally $11.7 billion to play with. So that would have been the drivers cut they hope to get if they remove the drivers, correct?
> 
> If we compare the numbers from the first paragraph, to the numbers from the second paragraph ($10 billion to $15 billion versus $11.7 billion) you will understand how, at the EXISTING Uber rates (which they are heavily subsidizing), they will barely make it even every year, and have NO profit whatsoever.
> 
> If you think they will make profit, please show us your calculations, or please stop making statements you have no clue about. (You sound like those silly commercials telling you "the more you spend, the more you save". That is hilarious)


Debating you is like debating a child having a tantrum.

I don't accept your numbers because they are laughable and agenda driven.

I will correct them for you when I have the opportunity.

Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Why do you use the words "fake (or false) persona"? Most people speaking regular English just say "that's not me, dude" but you use very specific words that sounds like it came from the legal dept
> 
> Just saying...


Guilty as charged. I usually try to use language as if I just fell off the turnip truck so the vaunted "UP community" can understand. However from time to time I forget who I'm taking to. My bad.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Guilty as charged. I usually try to use language as if I just fell off the turnip truck so the vaunted "UP community" can understand. However from time to time I forget who I'm taking to. My bad.


No that's not it. Here's how it went down:

Greg walks into the office of chief counsel, Eno Center for Transportation.

Greg: hey man I need your help, somebody figured out who I was on UP.. how do I reply.?
Chief Counsel: Deny everything but don't be specific. Use these exact words. Tell the guy he's creating a "false persona" of you.
Greg: ok thanks


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> No that's not it. Here's how it went down:
> 
> Greg walks into the office of chief counsel, Eno Center for Transportation.
> 
> Greg: hey man I need your help, somebody figured out who I was on UP.. how do I reply.?
> Chief Counsel: Deny everything but don't be specific. Use these exact words. Tell the guy he's creating a "false persona" of you.
> Greg: ok thanks


Funny how you're somehow not tech savvy enough to find their phone number and call them to verify your claim.

https://www.enotrans.org/about-eno/contact-eno/

Which is fine by me. You say stupid stuff, I slap you around for it. It's all good.


----------



## Ardery

jocker12 said:


> Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews
> 
> "Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."
> 
> "A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."
> 
> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*
> 
> "Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."
> 
> Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.
> 
> Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*
> 
> If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *
> 
> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).
> 
> Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.
> 
> In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.
> 
> Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.
> 
> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.
> 
> Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.


so, WHO is going to fill up the gas tanks? WHAT is going to happen when somebody vomits into the car? or dirties up the car? no driver... no cleaner.


----------



## Michael1230nj

Self Driving Cars Flying Cars Uber the Company of the Future. Just DRINK THE Kool -Aid and Pay no attention to that man behind the Curtain.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Funny how you're somehow not tech savvy enough to find their phone number and call them to verify your claim.
> 
> https://www.enotrans.org/about-eno/contact-eno/
> 
> Which is fine by me. You say stupid stuff, I slap you around for it. It's all good.


C'mon buddy. Of course I have your office number and email address.

However, two reasons I'm not gonna Call you at the office Greg:

1. I may have found out who you are but I'm not gonna make it easy for you to find out who I am. Figure it out yourself.
2. You're just going to deny it anyway so what's the point?



Ardery said:


> so, WHO is going to fill up the gas tanks? WHAT is going to happen when somebody vomits into the car? or dirties up the car? no driver... no cleaner.


Oh you're new here aren't you? These questions have all been asked and Greg has answers for them all. Common sense says it's not gonna be so easy as he says but he won't listen. At this point we just have to wait for it to happen for Greg to finally get it.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> C'mon buddy. Of course I have your office number and email address.
> 
> However, two reasons I'm not gonna Call you at the office Greg:
> 
> 1. I may have found out who you are but I'm not gonna make it easy for you to find out who I am. Figure it out yourself.
> 2. You're just going to deny it anyway so what's the point?


I enjoy slapping you around, Greg on the other hand might sue you for defamation of character.

*"Defamation of character* is a term that is used to describe when false statement is written or spoken about an individual with the intent of harming or slandering their reputation."

Sounds to me like Greg has an open and shut case. Saying he's that ne'er-do-well Tomato Paste could send you to the pokey for life.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I enjoy slapping you around, Greg on the other hand might sue you for defamation of character.
> 
> *"Defamation of character* is a term that is used to describe when false statement is written or spoken about an individual with the intent of harming or slandering their reputation."
> 
> Sounds to me like Greg has an open and shut case. Saying he's that ne'er-do-well Tomato Paste could send you to the pokey for life.


The burden of proof would have to be on Greg that I had the intention to harm his reputation.

I have no intent to harm the real Greg Rogers if in fact he is not tomatopaste

And even if he (you?) is tomatopaste I have no intention of harming his reputation. I am simply exercising my first amendment rights to say that I believe his ideas are wrong and I don't appreciate his arrogant tone.

Besides, whoever you are tomatopaste, I have "Sir'd" you on more than one occasion. Pretty hard to prove intent to harm someone's reputation when they've been "Sir'd"


----------



## Fubernuber

jocker12 said:


> Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews
> 
> "Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."
> 
> "A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."
> 
> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*
> 
> "Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."
> 
> Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.
> 
> Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*
> 
> If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *
> 
> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).
> 
> Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.
> 
> In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.
> 
> Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.
> 
> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.
> 
> Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.


What is stopping a much richer company like apple from launching "iride" with smarter more developed vehicles, with a bigger name and at lower cost per mile (apple can sustain losses much better than uber be because they dont have to take debt). I am using apple as an example. The answer to this question is simple. Other companies dont want to spend billions to establish a fleet of drivers which withing a decade will not be required. Other companies realize that self driving cars will solve 2 problems.
1. People wont need a for hire ride if they have a self driving car
2. There will be no need for a global operator of self driving cars because local operators have the price advantage.
Moral of the story is that this uber self driving car is all hype. The sdc will kill uber and they know it. If i had to guess this volvo deal is fake news but who knows, maybe they are that stupid to think sdc will help their business


----------



## iheartuber

Fubernuber said:


> What is stopping a much richer company like apple from launching "iride" with smarter more developed vehicles, with a bigger name and at lower cost per mile (apple can sustain losses much better than uber be because they dont have to take debt). I am using apple as an example. The answer to this question is simple. Other companies dont want to spend billions to establish a fleet of drivers which withing a decade will not be required. Other companies realize that self driving cars will solve 2 problems.
> 1. People wont need a for hire ride if they have a self driving car
> 2. There will be no need for a global operator of self driving cars because local operators have the price advantage.
> Moral of the story is that this uber self driving car is all hype. The sdc will kill uber and they know it. If i had to guess this volvo deal is fake news but who knows, maybe they are that stupid to think sdc will help their business


Think about it- if Uber really does intend to get into the SDC game what are the chances they will be successful? Pretty big risk, right?

So if they are doing this with the intention of making a go at it they really are taking a big gamble.

But... what if they really didn't give a hoot if it falls flat on its face or not? What if simply looking like they were moving forward in this direction or even if they do go through with it and it fails years down the road, just the idea that they maybe will be doing this is enough to appease their investors who are screaming bloody murder.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Debating you is like debating a child having a tantrum.
> 
> I don't accept your numbers because they are laughable and agenda driven.
> 
> I will correct them for you when I have the opportunity.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving.


You will correct numbers like... never. I wonder what numbers will you accept, if any? Problem is, you do not like to look at the numbers because they don't add up to fit your insane scenario, so is much easier to discard the math and say it's agenda driven. What agenda?

All you need to do is to think if you would like to be a fleet operator in these conditions, at these costs, with these predictable profits and losses. Makes me smile thinking how your self sprinkable sprinklers are a much much better option.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> You will correct numbers like... never. I wonder what numbers will you accept, if any? Problem is, you do not like to look at the numbers because they don't add up to fit your insane scenario, so is much easier to discard the math and say it's agenda driven. What agenda?
> 
> All you need to do is to think if you would like to be a fleet operator in these conditions, at these costs, with these predictable profits and losses. Makes me smile thinking how your self sprinkable sprinklers are a much much better option.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving to you too.


Bro, no need to scream at these guys, they're going to claim their "side" is right until the bitter end.

Just let it play itself out.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> The burden of proof would have to be on Greg that I had the intention to harm his reputation.
> 
> I have no intent to harm the real Greg Rogers if in fact he is not tomatopaste
> 
> And even if he (you?) is tomatopaste I have no intention of harming his reputation. I am simply exercising my first amendment rights to say that I believe his ideas are wrong and I don't appreciate his arrogant tone.
> 
> Besides, whoever you are tomatopaste, I have "Sir'd" you on more than one occasion. Pretty hard to prove intent to harm someone's reputation when they've been "Sir'd"


I'm not the one that's going to call Eno and turn you in. If they throw you in the pokey you'll probably only get like an hour of internet a week and won't be able to post stupid stuff. I won't get to slap you around, where's the fun in that?

No, those you have to worry about are the other "UP community" grand poobahs for making them look bad. Game of thrones.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I'm not the one that's going to call Eno and turn you in. If they throw you in the pokey you'll probably only get like an hour of internet a week and won't be able to post stupid stuff. I won't get to slap you around, where's the fun in that?
> 
> No, those you have to worry about are the other "UP community" grand poobahs for making them look bad. Game of thrones.


Well, whoever "rats me out" to Greg, it would be challenging for Greg to make a case against me for the reasons I described.

Also, he can't just sue me because "I said stuff" he would have to prove that I did so with the express reason to harm him specifically and he would have to have damages. (Like if he got fired for example). Too many moving parts. I think I'll be alright.

That's the problem with millenials today (assuming you are a millennial. You sure do talk like one and I'm not the first person on UP to say so).

Millenials think you can do anything you want just cus your feelings get hurt. Life is a little more complex than that.

Also I'm a little confused how my making the claim that you are Greg makes the "UP Community" look bad.

The way I see it, there's only two possibilities:

1. You really are Greg, and if so that only proves that I'm amazingly smart to have figured that out. If that's the case the worst I can see happening with regards to the UP poobahs is if by "outing you" I violated some rule. If I knew who you were beforehand and I outed you that would be a different story, but I figured this out all in my own. If "outing" is a violation and they bar me from UP oh well I suppose I spend too much time here anyway. If anything they should be proud that one of their members is that smart.

2. If you are not Greg and the real Greg is doing his thing living his life and nothing happens to him, what reason would anyone even care? As for me "soiling the reputation of an otherwise innocent man" ive been clear from the start that I'm not 100% sure you are Greg even though it looks a lot like you just might be. "Damages" sounds tough to make stick in this case.

Actually there's a third option:
You are Greg, the Waymo thing in Phoenix completely fails, and the higher ups at Google decide that the reason why is because their Data was sub-par and they fire Eno and then Eno fires you. Then, needing someone to blame, you come after me. (This option is totally hypothetical-- or is it? LOL)


----------



## tomatopaste

bobby747 said:


> this is not wort reading. my reason is in phila we have 20000 plus drivers .. that first order would not do nyc and phila...
> if they ordered 10000000000000000 cars. thats great has we wont need to post are neg. shit. and we may all have better jobs..it is not that hard to do that..
> forget taxi papers .
> what does 1 car cost to insure with no driver and no proven track record on self driving cars


Can you please run this through Google translate and repost. Thanks.



iheartuber said:


> Well, whoever "rats me out" to Greg, it would be challenging for Greg to make a case against me for the reasons I described.
> 
> Also, he can't just sue me because "I said stuff" he would have to prove that I did so with the express reason to harm him specifically and he would have to have damages. (Like if he got fired for example). Too many moving parts. I think I'll be alright.
> 
> That's the problem with millenials today (assuming you are a millennial. You sure do talk like one and I'm not the first person on UP to say so).
> 
> Millenials think you can do anything you want just cus your feelings get hurt. Life is a little more complex than that.
> 
> Also I'm a little confused how my making the claim that you are Greg makes the "UP Community" look bad.
> 
> The way I see it, there's only two possibilities:
> 
> 1. You really are Greg, and if so that only proves that I'm amazingly smart to have figured that out. If that's the case the worst I can see happening with regards to the UP poobahs is if by "outing you" I violated some rule. If I knew who you were beforehand and I outed you that would be a different story, but I figured this out all in my own. If "outing" is a violation and they bar me from UP oh well I suppose I spend too much time here anyway. If anything they should be proud that one of their members is that smart.
> 
> 2. If you are not Greg and the real Greg is doing his thing living his life and nothing happens to him, what reason would anyone even care? As for me "soiling the reputation of an otherwise innocent man" ive been clear from the start that I'm not 100% sure you are Greg even though it looks a lot like you just might be. "Damages" sounds tough to make stick in this case.
> 
> Actually there's a third option:
> You are Greg, the Waymo thing in Phoenix completely fails, and the higher ups at Google decide that the reason why is because their Data was sub-par and they fire Eno and then Eno fires you. Then, needing someone to blame, you come after me. (This option is totally hypothetical-- or is it? LOL)


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Can you please run this through Google translate and repost. Thanks.
> 
> View attachment 178529





tomatopaste said:


> Can you please run this through Google translate and repost. Thanks.
> 
> View attachment 178529


Alright look, slapping myself on the back for figuring this out is nice but I need to move on. It's not a good look anyway.

You and I had our differences of opinion but the fact of the matter is Waymo is up and running in Phoenix now and at some point it's either going to take off- or it's not. You claim it will, I claim it won't. We each have our reasons. At this point it's not up to either of us to decide- the public has to.

So, in the words of your esteemed colleague "Monica" (I'm sure that's not her real name): "we just have to let it play out."

So that's what we will do.

As for whether or not you are or are not Greg Rogers... I had my fun, now it's time to move on. If you really are Greg it must have scared the wits out of you that I figured that out and I can see how you would be wanting to sue me for that. If not, you can have a good laugh at what an idiot I am.... which is what you've been doing all along.

One last thing: if you really are Greg, I was able to find out who you are because Monica divulged too much info. So blame her.


----------



## corsair

It's all smoke and mirrors as usual to mislead the public and investors ahead of a possible IPO. What would you expect from an unethical scumbag company like Uber ?
Despite their best efforts to steal self driving technology from others they are still far from being able to offer self driving cars.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-orders-24-000-volvo-xc90-plug-in-hybrids.219631/#post-3282852


----------



## jocker12

corsair said:


> It's all smoke and mirrors as usual to mislead the public and investors ahead of a possible IPO. What more could you expect from an unethical scumbag company like Uber ?
> Despite their best efforts to steal self driving technology from others they are still far from being able to offer self driving cars.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-orders-24-000-volvo-xc90-plug-in-hybrids.219631/#post-3282852


Do you know what an IPO is and how it works for the original investors?

So you are posting another thread about the same exact topic (see my original post - please have the curiosity and read the main post on a topic you are commenting on) that didn't gain as much traction as this one did?


----------



## corsair

jocker12 said:


> Do you know what an IPO is and how it works for the original investors?
> 
> So you are posting another thread about the same exact topic (see my original post - please have the curiosity and read the main post on a topic you are commenting on) that didn't gain as much traction as this one did?


No thanks, read it yourself.


----------



## Oscar Levant

jocker12 said:


> Volvo Cars to supply Uber with up to 24,000 self-driving cars
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...iving-cars-idUSKBN1DK1NH?utm_source=applenews
> 
> "Should Uber buy all 24,000 cars, it would be Volvo's largest order by far and the biggest sale in the autonomous vehicle industry, giving Uber, which is losing more than $600 million a quarter, its first commercial fleet of cars."
> 
> "A new Volvo XC90 typically retails from a starting price of around $50,000."
> 
> "*It only becomes a commercial business when you can remove that vehicle operator from the equation," Jeff Miller, Uber's head of automotive alliances, said.*
> 
> "Miller said a small number of cars would be purchased using equity and others would be bought using debt financing."
> 
> Now remember how these cars are not electric, so they will need to refuel on a daily basis, need oil changes and regular maintenance (including brakes, shocks and tires changes) for every 50.000 miles.
> 
> Volvo XC90 has a combined 24 miles per gallon fuel efficiency at a 18.8 gallons fuel tank capacity, so it will be able to cover 451.2 miles per tank. At a $2.10 per gallon gasoline price, one car it will cost roughly $40 to refuel its tank, and refueling 24.000 cars on a daily basis will cost Uber $960.000. *So that is $1 million a day only for fuel ($365 million per year).*
> 
> If Volvo sells 1000 units for, let's say $60.000, with the self driving hardware and software installed, they will cost Uber $60 million. 20.000 units will cost $1.2 billion and all* 24.000 units will cost $1.44 billion. *
> 
> If those cars will empty their tanks every day, changing brakes and tires ($1000) every 50.000 miles will happen every 110 days, so they will need new brakes and tires 3 times a year (*another $3000 per car - $72 million for all 24.000 units per year*).
> 
> Now pay attention - electric cars are right around the corner, so much sooner than later, Uber will need to replace its 24000 gasoline based cars for electric cars.
> 
> In terms of fleet numbers, there are estimated 327.000 Uber drivers in the US (2015 figures), so 24.000 cars are not going to be able to entirely replace that. So Uber, based on their numbers and their priorities needs to deploy their cars away from big cities to avoid software glitches and big possible lawsuits (until they will be confident with the technology and possible have people use it). In this situation they will not bank big profits because money are in the big cities.
> 
> Uber second option will be to deploy directly inside the big cities for big profits, and take the risk to kill the technology if not embraced by the consumers, and face possible technology problems, as the hardware and the software are still in their infancy phase.
> 
> No matter how you put it, they are doomed to fail and also doomed to annihilate the self driving cars hype and the autonomous technology, once the consumers will have access to it and they will understand its huge limitations and great inconveniences.
> 
> Edit - I have not considered the cars cleaning infrastructure Uber needs to develop because those cars need to be checked after every single ride, and the local permits costs, because local authorities will switch back to taxi permits values as long as there will be no "flexible" independent contractor driving time to make it difficult for the cities to time the services.


 there might be some distant Shore some vague Promise Land where self-driving Vehicles will turn Uber to profitability but the transition will cost billions so the big question is will they be able to weather the storm? I frankly doubt it



jocker12 said:


> Do you know what an IPO is and how it works for the original investors?
> 
> So you are posting another thread about the same exact topic (see my original post - please have the curiosity and read the main post on a topic you are commenting on) that didn't gain as much traction as this one did?


 once you go public that changes the game entirely, if you don't show profits you're going to sink real fast as those stock values tank, right?


----------



## jocker12

Oscar Levant said:


> there might be some distant Shore some vague Promise Land where self-driving Vehicles will turn Uber to profitability but the transition will cost billions so the big question is will they be able to weather the storm? I frankly doubt it


I've said it before; I think they've panic about Waymo testing in Arizona, but I don't think Waymo wants to have a self driving fleet for a self driving app based taxi cab like service, They do not build cars, they are not car fleet management company. They are a technology corporation (like Uber pretends to be today, because they don't own any vehicles used for car sharing) and they have a PRODUCT to sell - self driving cars technology (hardware and software). Them testing in Arizona, in my opinion, is not for an app based self driving cars service. It is to convince the public and potential clients (car manufacturers, by showing them happy people using their cars) this is something that could be implemented for the future. To make an analogy to what I am talking about, think of Android operating system heavily used by smartphones manufacturers (Samsung, LG, HTC or Huawei). Of course they have their own Pixel phones, but owning fleets of self driving app based taxi like service, it is virgin territory for Google, or Apple in that regard.



Oscar Levant said:


> once you go public that changes the game entirely, if you don't show profits you're going to sink real fast as those stock values tank, right?


An IPO will make the original investors get their money back with possible big profits and they will possible move to different new investments. This was the reason the main large Uber investors kept pushing Travis Kalanick for an IPO when Uber got over evaluated to $70 billion. They wanted their rewards when business was going relatively smooth and people were mesmerized by the simplicity and the business potential effectiveness (that $70 billion evaluation should have had some real basis, right). That was the time to get their money back and leave. But stubborn Kalanick kept doing his BS targeting world domination.


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> You will correct numbers like... never. I wonder what numbers will you accept, if any? Problem is, you do not like to look at the numbers because they don't add up to fit your insane scenario, so is much easier to discard the math and say it's agenda driven. What agenda?
> 
> All you need to do is to think if you would like to be a fleet operator in these conditions, at these costs, with these predictable profits and losses. Makes me smile thinking how your self sprinkable sprinklers are a much much better option.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving to you too.


Your numbers are so clownish and agenda driven, I don't even know where to start.

You bore me.

I will destroy them at my leisure. Until then, just remember, SDCs are already alive and well.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> SDCs are already alive and well.


You mean like the Segway?


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> You mean like the Segway?


I think there are more Segways!!


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Your numbers are so clownish and agenda driven, I don't even know where to start.
> 
> You bore me.
> 
> I will destroy them at my leisure. Until then, just remember, SDCs are already alive and well.


Unfortunately, I made my calculations with numbers in your favor, so everything is rounded up or inflated to help your case, not mine.

SDC's are like WMD's you were told were well and alive in Iraq in 2003. Feel my analogy here? How many people got stupid and believed what they were told? How everything looks like today, 14 years later?

Learn how to drive, wake up and stop dreaming?

Edit - meanwhile, Uber reports more and higher losses - http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...ns-to-16-billion-in-the-third-quarter-2017-11


----------

