# Why It's Getting Harder for Uber to Break the Law - SLATE 12/22/16



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*Why It's Getting Harder for Uber to Break the Law*
By Henry Grabar / SLATE 12.22.16
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._shows_how_owning_cars_is_changing_uber_s.html

On Wednesday, an Uber spokesperson said, California stripped the registration from the autonomous Volvos that the company had put into service in San Francisco...

Uber has long flouted local laws until they could be bent to suit its operations or pre-empted in the statehouse. As the San Francisco case demonstrates, that posture gets harder to maintain as the company shifts from software to hardware. The days of Uber playing the outlaw startup are vanishing as the company acquires millions in fixed assets


----------



## player81 (Jan 31, 2015)

Yeah they can't argue the "we're just a tech company" line if they actually own cabs. Driverless cabs should be required to have same commercial insurance as regular cabs. I hope that hits them in the pocket more than paying human drivers a decent rate


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

player81 said:


> Yeah they can't argue the "we're just a tech company" line if they actually own cabs. Driverless cabs should be required to have same commercial insurance as regular cabs. I hope that hits them in the pocket more than paying human drivers a decent rate


That assumes of course that in the long run they will actually own the cars. My own wild-ass guess is that eventually they will outsource all of that messy ownership stuff to professional fleet management companies (such as car rental companies) who will own and operate the cars as efficiently as possible.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

If Uber or another company owns the cars specially for this purpose, they would seem to be commercially owned by the company and not truly under the TNC definitions anymore. Then they are more like a cab, livery, or limo company. TNC is usually defined as drivers using their personal vehicles:










Further, there are studies that say even in the best case scenario the cost to operate self driving cars will not be any cheaper than the existing UberX rates.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176672-autonomous-taxis-why-you-may-never-own-a-self-driving-car

Even if the rate gets to .35 per driven mile, double that for dead miles. Now it's a cost of .70 per paid mile just in hard costs for the car. Add in about a 25% profit and the rate would have to be near $1 per paid mile.

Some studies place the rate about twice that high however. That would require charging a rate of almost $2 per paid mile.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

grams777 said:


> Even if the rate gets to .35 per driven mile, double that for dead miles.


Using driver's personal vehicles that's true - but eliminate the driver and the car can just park somewhere for hours waiting for its next nearby ride request. The whole point is that a TNC can use its computers and collective data to distribute cars in a city efficiently - improving the pick-up times and reducing dead miles. Now consider that these autonomous cars will eventually all be electric and/or extremely fuel efficient hybrids and you can start to see the reduction in cost to operate them.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Using driver's personal vehicles that's true - but eliminate the driver and the car can just park somewhere for hours waiting for its next nearby ride request. The whole point is that a TNC can use its computers and collective data to distribute cars in a city efficiently - improving the pick-up times and reducing dead miles. Now consider that these autonomous cars will eventually all be electric vehicle and/or extremely fuel efficient hybrids and you can start to see the reduction in cost to operate them.


Maybe. But that's all best case scenarios. A lot of cars will have to take trips in one direction and come back dead based on demand and events. Further there will be little elastic supply. Will Uber have enough cars idle all week long just to meet weekend demand? The fixed costs of that would be huge.

Also the .35 per mile is the lowest study and maybe not realistic. A more in depth study placed the full cost in best case at .60 - $1 per driven mile including more realistic costs for cleaning and things.

As it is now, for the most part drivers are driving for little and don't truly make that much if anything. They already own the cars for other purposes so the fixed costs are somewhat shared. And it allows for variable peak supply of cars at a relatively little extra cost.

There may be a reason for the cars, but when all is said and done I highly doubt they could operate lower than current X rates.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Here's a pretty detailed study on the likely costs and implications of operating autonomous vehicles:

http://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf

Excerpt:


----------



## player81 (Jan 31, 2015)

Uber drivers will be worse to robot cars than cab drivers are to Uber drivers. Who's gonna see me bust the glass and throw a bag of poop in there?


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

player81 said:


> Uber drivers will be worse to robot cars than cab drivers are to Uber drivers. Who's gonna see me bust the glass and throw a bag of poop in there?


Of interest, in the study quoted above, they break down a considerable amount of expenses to cover cleanup and damages:


Cleaning and vandalism. Taxis and public transit vehicles require frequent cleaning when passengers litter, smoke, spill food and drinks, spit or bring pets, and repairs when vehicles are vandalized. To minimize these risks self-driving taxis will need hardened surfaces, durable fabrics, minimal moving parts, electronic surveillance, and aggressive enforcement. Assuming that vehicles make 200 weekly trips, 5-15% of passengers leave messes with $10-30 average cleanup costs, and 1-4% vandalize vehicles with $50-100 average repair costs, these costs would average between $200 and $1,700 per vehicle-week.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

grams777 said:


> Maybe. But that's all best case scenarios. A lot of cars will have to take trips in one direction and come back dead based on demand and events. Further there will be little elastic supply. Will Uber have enough cars idle all week long just to meet weekend demand? The fixed costs of that would be huge.
> 
> Also the .35 per mile is the lowest study and maybe not realistic. A more in depth study placed the full cost in best case at .60 - $1 per driven mile including more realistic costs for cleaning and things.
> 
> ...


Right now I can rent a car and drive it 1,000 miles for the cost of gas + around $35. If the professional fleet management companies (car rental companies) were losing money on that rental, they wouldn't be in the business. The profit is in the ability to efficiently utilize the vehicles and depreciate them rapidly.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right now I can rent a car and drive it 1,000 miles for the cost of gas + around $35. If the professional fleet management companies (car rental companies) were losing money on that rental, they wouldn't be in the business. The profit is in the ability to efficiently utilize the vehicles and depreciate them rapidly.


Sure. That's .35 per mile plus gas per driven mile for a personal use car rental. Now add commercial use and dead miles and extra idle cars needed for peak demand and damages and cleaning for hundreds of trips a week and an extra $5k plus of self driving equipment.

Take morning airport runs just as one example. Are all the cars going to park at the airport and wait for return trips while no cars are left for the rest of the city?

Then add nights and weekends and events when demand increases 2-3x. What will those cars do the rest of the week with no demand for them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

grams777 said:


> Of interest, in the study quoted above, they break down a considerable amount of expenses to cover cleanup and damages:
> 
> 
> Cleaning and vandalism. Taxis and public transit vehicles require frequent cleaning when passengers litter, smoke, spill food and drinks, spit or bring pets, and repairs when vehicles are vandalized. To minimize these risks self-driving taxis will need hardened surfaces, durable fabrics, minimal moving parts, electronic surveillance, and aggressive enforcement. Assuming that vehicles make 200 weekly trips, 5-15% of passengers leave messes with $10-30 average cleanup costs, and 1-4% vandalize vehicles with $50-100 average repair costs, these costs would average between $200 and $1,700 per vehicle-week.


Again, that's just assumption. I assume that since cars are already decked out with incredibly sophisticated cameras and radar and sensors, that adding in what is needed to monitor pax behavior will be a no-brainer. Light a cigarette in a car - it comes to stop, the windows roll-down and the doors open. Damage something and your credit card is charged $500 or more. Car requires clean-up - it drives itself to a service facility.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Again, that's just assumption. I assume that since cars are already decked out with incredibly sophisticated cameras and radar and sensors, that adding in what is needed to monitor pax behavior will be a no-brainer. Light a cigarette in a car - it comes to stop, the windows roll-down and the doors open. Damage something and your credit card is charged $500 or more. Car requires clean-up - it drives itself to a service facility.


I'll bet Uber will do a much better job of taking cleaning fees seriously once it's their cars.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

grams777 said:


> Sure. That's .35 per mile plus gas per driven mile for a personal use car rental. Now add commercial ...


Nope - that's *$0.035/mile* (three and half cents). Commercial insurance for driverless cars will be much less than commercial insurance is for me because the cars get in fewer accidents (eliminating human error - the cause of nearly all accidents). Even now, I can buy a commercial policy for $4,000/yr. I'd be stunned if commercial liability insurance for a driverless car owned by a fleet management company was not (eventually) lower than the cost of full coverage paid for by an individual for personal use of a vehicle. But even at $4,000/yr, that's nly $0.04/mi for a car utilized only 100,000 miles/yr.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nope - that/s $0.035 (three and half cents). Commercial insurance for driverless cars will be much less than commercial insurance for me because the cars get in fewer accidents (eliminating human error - the cause of nearly all accidents). Even now, I can buy a commercial policy for $4,000/yr. I'd be stunned if commercial liability insurance for a driverless car owned by a fleet management company was not (eventually) lower than the cost of full coverage paid for by an individual for personal use of a vehicle.


I don't think anyone is making money if they're renting you a car at the rate of $3,500 for 100k miles. That's not realistic for autonomous car operations or much else for that matter. It may serve some anecdotal purpose, but there's no viable study for that being a real cost to operate a vehicle.

I'd say to at least use something reasonable and objective as a starting point such as one of the studies quoted above or similar.

http://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176672-autonomous-taxis-why-you-may-never-own-a-self-driving-car

http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB16SAEVsModeChoice.pdf

Given all this, there might be two right answers where the cost is both high and low at the same time.

The way it could work (for Uber) is to eventually get individuals to buy and mechanically maintain the cars. Then pay the owners say 10 cents per mile or something well below what it fully costs to own and operate. That solves the private non commercial ownership and variable supply issues as well. Perhaps Uber could even arrange for the maintenance and repairs and subtract them from the owner rental proceeds.

Uber could summon the cars for sharing only as needed. Maybe it has tens or hundreds of thousands of cars signed up in different cities to be used at will. And it could perhaps even have 1,000 of them parked near the airport after AM airport runs waiting for later return trips. Then it could do the same thing on weekend nights and events. This way they avoid the fixed costs of having too many cars doing nothing the rest of the time.

The owners might be happy. If their car goes 100 miles a day for Uber and they get paid $300 a month. Perhaps this is the end game.

The owners might be at work all thrilled that their car is 'earning them money' during the day. Or 'making money' for them while they sleep.

Of course, there's the slight problem of an extra 30-40k miles per year on the car. But that's the owners issue when paying for maintenance, repairs and after 5 years it's got over 200k miles on it and probably needs to be replaced.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

grams777 said:


> I don't think anyone is making money if they're renting you a car at the rate of $3,500 for 100k miles. That's not realistic for autonomous car operations or much else for that matter. It may serve some anecdotal purpose, but there's no viable study for that being a real cost to operate a vehicle.


It seems to me you're considering only expenses and not the whole financial picture. The car costs $25,000 new (made-up # it doesn't really matter) - is used for 12 months and 100,000 miles - is fully depreciated (accelerated depreciation) - and is sold as a one year old car for, say, $18,000. The cost for the year, before fuel/maintenance/ins, is $$7,000. The full $25,000 has been depreciated. The $18,000 in resale is revenue. The car generated 100,000 miles of revenues (approximately $50,000 at HALF current TNC rates).

That's $68,000 of revenue on what at most is around $20,000 in expense
($7,000 + $4,000 fuel + $4,000 ins + $1,000 in maintenance + $4,000 in whatever)
A gross profit of $48,000.



> The way it could work (for Uber) is get individuals to buy and mechanically maintain the cars. Then pay the owners say 5-10 cents per mile or something well below what it fully costs to own and operate. That solves the variable supply issue as well.


That's one of the models being discussed ( and is already being pursued by Tesla)

I wouldn't be surprised to see the fleet management companies cover the cities/metro areas with autonomous vehicles for the TNCs - and the TNCs still using drivers/cars in areas with less dense populations.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Another thing that could reduce costs is if they siphon off more of the normal car rental demand. A lot that demand is during business days and relatively slow over the weekends. That would help balance out a fixed fleet size scenario.

Much of the problem with things now is too many cars doing nothing with maybe paid miles for only 10-20 minutes out of an hour.

I'd really love to see the structure of fares, surge, damages, number of idle cars, long pickup times for short rides, and letting passengers get away with everything once the cars are owned by Uber (or other fleet management).

It's easy enough for Uber to get some driver to go 20 minutes out to the fringe of a coverage zone for a 1 mile trip then dead head back since there are no other rides there. Uber still profits while the driver takes it big in the shorts.

Once Uber has skin in the game, I'll bet that new advanced fixed fare starts compensating themselves for that.

So I think there will also be better revenue streams for Uber that would be different than drivers get now. Smoke in the car? $300 damages. Puke $500. They could probably photo snapshot the condition of the car before and after each ride to see who did what.

Drive an hour with 40 dead miles for a $4 fare ... doubtful. And I don't think we'd be hearing, oh well, that ground in mud/glitter/ink that got tracked all over is just normal.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Where will these autonomous vehicles stage/wait when unoccupied? I suppose some will return to airports, but these cars may be dozens of miles from an airport, drop a passenger off at a hotel/residence, and potentially not receive another ride request for 15-30 minutes.

Hotels aren't going to want them clogging their parking facilities, nor will cities and their paid parking. There may be limited staging areas à la taxi stands, but, I don't see a lot of city infrastructure invested in things like this.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> Where will these autonomous vehicles stage/wait when unoccupied? I suppose some will return to airports, but these cars may be dozens of miles from an airport, drop a passenger off at a hotel/residence, and potentially not receive another ride request for 15-30 minutes.
> 
> Hotels aren't going to want them clogging their parking facilities, nor will cities and their paid parking. There may be limited staging areas à la taxi stands, but, I don't see a lot of city infrastructure invested in things like this.


Articles have been published describing multi-story elevator car garages that can store cars much more space-efficiently than current garages (so much less space is needed when moving cars around without having to consider humans).


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Articles have been published describing multi-story elevator car garages that can store cars much more space-efficiently than current garages (so much less space is needed when moving cars around without having to consider humans).


These have existed for close to 10 years... but still won't be very helpful for keeping an active fleet of autonomous TNC vehicles. The success of Uber/Lyft depends on having vehicles located spread throughout the network, not stacked in hubs. If you park 100 TNC vehicles in a structure, 25% of those vehicles will never receive a dispatch because there will always be another vehicle closer (not *never*... but so infrequently that 25% of the fleet parked in a 24 hour period will be idle 95% of the time).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> These have existed for close to 10 years... but still won't be very helpful for keeping an active fleet of autonomous TNC vehicles. The success of Uber/Lyft depends on having vehicles located spread throughout the network, not stacked in hubs. If you park 100 TNC vehicles in a structure, 25% of those vehicles will never receive a dispatch because there will always be another vehicle closer (not *never*... but so infrequently that 25% of the fleet parked in a 24 hour period will be idle 95% of the time).


I think you missed the point of the question which was about scaling available cars to meet the demands in an area - and where the un-needed cars would be at rest (presumably for re-fueling and cleaning). The idea is to always have only the number of cars needed 'in-service' at any given time.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I think you missed the point of the question which was about scaling available cars to meet the demands in an area - and where the un-needed cars would be at rest (presumably for re-fueling and cleaning). The idea is to always have only the number of cars needed 'in-service' at any given time.


Which question? I originated a question about where these vehicles will stage when unoccupied. I didn't ask about where the fleet would be managed - just what happens to a vehicle that drops off a ride and is now idle.

If you always return a vehicle to it's nearest "home" - then you are talking about a large amount of dead miles.

So my question, to rephrase, is trying to answer the following situation:
I arrive back in my local airport and take an autonomous Uber ride back to my home in the suburbs. I live roughly 18 miles from the airport, and 18 miles from "downtown". After the car drops me off, where does it go? Does it sit in front of my house awaiting a new dispatch? Does it return to the airport and "hope" for a dispatch along the way? Does it circle the block?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> So my question, to rephrase, is trying to answer the following situation:
> I arrive back in my local airport and take an autonomous Uber ride back to my home in the suburbs. I live roughly 18 miles from the airport, and 18 miles from "downtown". After the car drops me off, where does it go? Does it sit in front of my house awaiting a new dispatch? Does it return to the airport and "hope" for a dispatch along the way? Does it circle the block?


18 miles? A half gallon of gas on a normal car - a pint in a hybrid - none for an electric car. Cars don't 'hope' for rides the way some drivers do - they go where the historical data tells them to go, whether that's to sit tight for a few minutes or head to a nearby area - or head back to the mother-ship. That's what computers are good at - and that's what drives efficiency. When we all start nay-saying about the logistics, don't you think we sound just like the nay-sayers at the turn of the last century poo-poohing the automobile with quips like 'where will they re-fuel?'... or those who blew off cellphones early on because 'what good is a phone if you can only use it when in your a big city with service?' or those who asked 'why would anyone ever want a computer in their home'?


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Also consider Uber has alot more information available than what they share with drivers. They know who has the app open, when and where. They know what scheduled rides are coming. They know stastically what rides are likely to happen as well. None of that is usually shared with drivers who can only take a best guess or randomly wander about. Also there would be little need to waste miles trying to out locate other drivers.

Imagine the car that drops you off 'sees' a nearby rider with the app open typing in a destination. Or maybe there's a scheduled ride coming in 10 minutes. That car could be routed to it or even assigned provisionally on its way as it gets close. Then add in dynamically assigned Pool rides and things can get very efficient (for Uber).

How many times did you leave an area and 5 minutes later got pinged nearby and had to backtrack. Most likely Uber had known something about the chances of a ride when the rider opened the app minutes earlier.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 18 miles? A half gallon of gas on a normal car - a pint in a hybrid - none for an electric car. Cars don't 'hope' for rides the way some drivers do - they go where the historical data tells them to go, whether that's to sit tight for a few minutes or head to a nearby area - or head back to the mother-ship. That's what computers are good at - and that's what drives efficiency. When we all start nay-saying about the logistics, don't you think we sound the nay-sayers at thg turn of the last century poo-poohing the automobile with quips like 'where will they re-fuel?'... or those who blew off cellphones early on because 'what good is a phone if you can only use it when in your a big city with service?' or those who asked 'why would anyone ever want a computer in their home'?


It still doesn't answer the question.

"It goes where it's needed.", isn't an answer. I'm saying it's NOT needed - however - statistically speaking - the algorithms know it will be needed, just not when (5 minutes or 50 minutes). What does it do in the meantime?

To sustain service levels in established markets, Uber will need thousands of cars. These cars will either be occupied, unoccupied/unassigned, assigned and en-route, returning to base (cleaning, etc.), or re-positioning for demand.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> It still doesn't answer the question.
> 
> "It goes where it's needed.", isn't an answer.


 Well, it may not satisfy you (sorry) but it is an answer. Uber is a data driven company. Supply & Demand were just the beginning. We're seeing implementation of predictive algorithms and very complex routing and re-routing.


> ...the algorithms know it will be needed, just not when (5 minutes or 50 minutes). What does it do in the meantime?


 The system does know 'when' - based on historical demand that is constantly updated. If the system 'sees' that someone at 12 Elm St is looking for a car every M-F at 7:30A, you can bet the system will make sure a car is nearby - based on the order request history. After the morning rush hour (or Sat night bar close) most cars will be ordered to put themselves to bed somewhere (likely a garage facility), while others will be ordered to where the system feels they will be needed next. Like all things based on math, statistics and historical data, the systems will get better with time and use.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Well, it may not satisfy you (sorry) but it is the answer. Uber is a data driven company. Supply & Demand were just the beginning. We're seeing implementation of predictive algorithms and very complex routing and re-routing.


If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

If an autonomous Uber vehicle doesn't need a passenger, does it exist?

Philosophical questions that may never be answered.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

lol... Then again, it thinks, therefore it is.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Electric cars use plenty of petrol.
If the local generating station (PG&E etc) burned oil to turn it's turbines, you betcha that electric car is running on pure petrol. Getting off the grid is far more difficult than simply plugging your car into 110/220 outlet.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Electric cars use plenty of petrol.
> If the local generating station (PG&E etc) burned oil to turn it's turbines, you betcha that electric car is running on pure petrol. Getting off the grid is far more difficult than simply plugging your car into 110/220 outlet.


Not exactly:

*Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015 
[source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3]*

Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
*Petroleum = 1%*


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not exactly:
> 
> *Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015
> [source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3]*
> ...


Natural gas and coal are not clean fuel sources. So even if I'm wrong, which I'm not sure I am, 67℅ of your sourced fuels are dirty.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

'_my_' fuel sources? What - you don't use electricity?
Unless I'm mistaken, which I'm not,  the discussion is about cost - not cleanliness.
But seriously - discussions of future technologies that assume yesterday's technologies won't change are kind of pointless.
Then again, guesses about tomorrow's technologies are nothing more than wild-ass-guesses, too
(unless you or I are Arthur Clarke. Hugo Gernsback, H.G. Wells, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, John Bruner, etc.)


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> '_my_' fuel sources? What - you don't use electricity?
> Unless I'm mistaken, which I'm not,  the discussion is about cost - not cleanliness.
> But seriously - discussions of future technologies that assume yesterday's technologies won't change are kind of pointless.
> Then again, guesses about tomorrow's technologies are nothing more than wild-ass-guesses, too
> (unless you or I are Arthur Clarke. Hugo Gernsback, H.G. Wells, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, John Bruner, etc.)


John Brunner has been shockingly correct.
The fuel sources you listed for how electricity is generated in America, I don't believe oil is only 1℅. Where did you source that, Mother Jones?
Edit: OK those numbers look pretty credible across several information sources online. So although I was wrong about oil being the top source for generating electricity in USA, I was not wrong about the fact that the majority of juice an electric car uses in Murica is generated by a dirty, polluting fuel.
Just because a CAR doesn't have an exhaust pipe doesn't mean it's not polluting the environment.

By today's numbers, 67℅ of the fuel sources for electricity are dirty and harming the environment.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> John Brunner has been shockingly correct.
> The fuel sources you listed for how electricity is generated in America, I don't believe oil is only 1℅. Where did you source that, Mother Jones?
> Edit: OK those numbers look pretty credible across several information sources online. So although I was wrong about oil being the top source for generating electricity in USA, I was not wrong about the fact that the majority of juice an electric car uses in Murica is generated by a dirty, polluting fuel.
> Just because a CAR doesn't have an exhaust pipe doesn't mean it's not polluting the environment.


I think you posted in the wrong section.
The 'green energy' section is down the hall to the left.
The COST of fuel to operate an electric car is far less than the cost of fuel to operate an internal combustion engine powered car.
Oh... and cleaner. And yes, I posted the source of the numbers in my post: The US Department of Energy)



> By today's numbers, 67℅ of the fuel sources for electricity are dirty and harming the environment.


Yup - and the funny thing is, the cars are just as dirty or clean whether there is a driver behind the wheel or a cumputer.


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

player81 said:


> Yeah they can't argue the "we're just a tech company" line if they actually own cabs. Driverless cabs should be required to have same commercial insurance as regular cabs. I hope that hits them in the pocket more than paying human drivers a decent rate


Even can companies are a" technology company" as Cabs and Limos can be reserved online and ordered via some apps like iHail. So booyaa Uber. Nothing special about your black and white ass.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ozzyoz said:


> Even can companies are a" technology company" as Cabs and Limos can be reserved online and ordered via some apps like iHail. So booyaa Uber. Nothing special about your black and white ass.


hehe - let me know how well iHail works for you when you get off the plane in Philly - or Dallas - or anywhere in the world other than MSP. 
No - I am not going to install and register 250 different apps.

... and MSP to the Walker Arts Center: 
$36.50 Taxi/iHail ($42 w/15% tip) ​ vs.
$~18 Uber  (~$22 w/15% tip)​
That's a 50% savings to the consumer.

Booyah.


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe - let me know how well iHail works for you when you get off the plane in Philly - or Dallas - or anywhere in the world other than MSP.
> No - I am not going to install and register 250 different apps.
> 
> ... and MSP to the Walker Arts Center:
> ...


I'm not referring to prices here. I'm referring to how Uber uses technology company as an excuse. Other services are also technology companies and msp airport always surges at 2x with Uber.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Why It's Getting Harder for Uber to Break the Law*
> By Henry Grabar / SLATE 12.22.16
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._shows_how_owning_cars_is_changing_uber_s.html
> 
> ...


Not enough Uber kitten promotions.
They forgot the soft and cuddly front while replacing us with Robots !


----------



## Speedyracer (Aug 17, 2016)

You guys are thinking to black and white. It doesn't have to be all in or all out. We would be the back up for busy times. You know... " Get your side hustle on " I'm guessing there fleet would handle the normal periods. Then when it's busy... Guess who steps in to cover the slack ? Us that's who. Weekends, events, new years Eve etc... Get your side hustle on!


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That assumes of course that in the long run they will actually own the cars. My own wild-ass guess is that eventually they will outsource all of that messy ownership stuff to professional fleet management companies (such as car rental companies) who will own and operate the cars as efficiently as possible.


You may be onto something. Uber has some type of partnership with Hertz in Nashville, TN.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

grams777 said:


> If Uber or another company owns the cars specially for this purpose, they would seem to be commercially owned by the company and not truly under the TNC definitions anymore. Then they are more like a cab, livery, or limo company. TNC is usually defined as drivers using their personal vehicles:
> 
> View attachment 84887
> 
> ...


IMO...Uber, along with other tech companies, are experimenting with AI to sell the technology to the trucking industry as well.


----------



## groovyguru (Mar 9, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That assumes of course that in the long run they will actually own the cars. My own wild-ass guess is that eventually they will outsource all of that messy ownership stuff to professional fleet management companies (such as car rental companies) who will own and operate the cars as efficiently as possible.


Naw, they'll con people who "want to own a profitable franchise business and be their own boss" to buy a number of manufacture defect self driving cars from a selection of in the pocket fleet dealers at high mark ups through a crooked finance company offering high interest - easy qualify - low payment - long term - loans with included worthless insurance from some no-name company with no address that only covers liability claims to uBer and "business affiliates" and serviced (mandatory in contract) by unqualified monkeys working for minimum wages at Jiffy Lube, Penske, and other "service centers" (depending on your geographic location) and then jack with the rates, dropping them 30% or more in an evening and driving "franchise" owners into bankruptcy after repossessing their self driving cars and selling them off to new starry eyed franchisees.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Why It's Getting Harder for Uber to Break the Law*
> By Henry Grabar / SLATE 12.22.16
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._shows_how_owning_cars_is_changing_uber_s.html
> 
> ...


Why It's getting harder for Uber to break the Law?
Simple,anyone everyone figures/finds out who they are dealing with .

http://qz.com/874548/uber-asked-a-l...lf-driving-cars-and-offered-back-very-little/
*This is What uber asked from city of Pittsburgh .*


*Non-exclusive access to certain bus lanes (not busways)-this would not be exclusive to the company, but rather would be for any providers of on-demand self-driving service.*
*Designation/painting of dedicated lanes in particularly difficult areas and intersections for use by on-demand, self-driving cars.*
*Designation/painting of dedicated pickup-dropoff areas around select spots for on-demand, self-driving cars.*
*Improved signaling/signage at certain intersections to optimize movement of self-driving cars.*
*Installation of DSRC signals that can be utilized by self-driving cars-I believe this is already part of the city's Smart Cities application.*
*Installation of bike lanes on select streets, which, in addition to promoting bike use, would create an easier/safe environment for self-driving cars.*
*Non-exclusive access to municipal parking lots to allow staging of self-driving cars while they are awaiting dispatch-understood that there would be some cost associated with this which participating providers would be expected to bear.*
*Prioritization of snow removal so as to permit continued service on these routes.*
*This is what uber offered in return.

*

Still looking?


----------



## TheEqualizer (Jan 2, 2017)

And if Uber ever realise their plan of replacing all drivers with DriverLess vehicles, be sure they'll have less vehicles, as that will cost them .... but in the end, the US being what it is, I can imagine crazy numbers being claimed in the Courts, everytime an Uber has an UberCRASH!


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Here's the reality of driverless cars: They are not now nor will they ever actually be a viable alternative or replacement for human controlled cars.

Why? 

1. Because other cars on the road are driven by humans and no computer now or ever will be able to think or reason well enough to understand humans and our horrible horrible decisions behind the wheel.
2. Because no amount of programming will be able to level a playing field with weather that is ever changing. Not to mention the same motivation will be in place to keep the automated fleet on unsafe roads as currently puts 6x and 8x surges during those same time... only the computer won't care about it's own life and will do as it's Uber controller says.
3. Legality vs Reality with the bonus of liability: Every driven on a highway on a nice day... you know, when everyone in the slow lane is going 70 in the 55 and 80 in the fast lane and it's totally not a problem until everyone almost pancakes into the old man insisting on going 55? That. I want to be a fly on the wall for the first programmer to call the legal department to see if it's ok to program it to go 70 in a 55. I don't want to be the lawyer that says "OK" and then has a UBER car programmed by UBER or with programming approved by UBER that gets into an accident while it is breaking the law...
4. Moral Hazard: People simply won't give a crap about what they do in or to an automated Uber... How much do you want to be in an UBER autocar at 3am Saturday night? How long until the first junkie leaves a used needle on the floor/seat or pervert leaves some DNA in a baggie for your next rider?


That's just a few reasons, I could type all night.

Why are they dumping money into them by the truckload? 

1. It's not their money, it's investors or loans. (Google "Agency issue" in a management context for more info)
2. It's how they are getting investors to invest in a doomed company. It's the carrot of this investment bait and switch.


Wait... You think Uber is doomed?

You betcha. 

You have a company who rips off taxis using an app that collects 25% and the company doesn't have to pay for gas, use their own cars, pay salary, pay payroll taxes, maintain a fleet, clean a fleet... ect.

Uber realistically has few expenses they must pay: I.T., insurance, legal, Corporate personell and payment processing fees.
Uber also has things they choose to pay for: Offices, marketing (yes, I know you have to advertise, but it's technically optional), research and development.

The second part is why they lose money

Now... read any article on "Why is Uber losing money" and they'll lead with "Driver Subsidies" followed quickly with a brief mention of driverless cars... but that's bull****

Driver Subsidies... you mean the 75% you are paying drivers? Yes, I'm 100% sure it's the greatest direct expense on your direct revenue, but let's not forget it's a perfectly acceptable expense because it's the basis of your entire revenue stream... It's not even a COGS really, since it's a service provided by a contractor it's actually a transaction cost... but I digress... 

The plain fact is if you have all fixed costs and no variable costs and you lose billions a year... you're terrible at this whole management thing and shouldn't run a hotdog stand.

Don't even get me started on what could end up rivaling asbestos for the largest class action ever on the "Contractor vs employee" front, especially once the IRS decides they'd like the billions in taxes they should be owed.





That's reality: I wouldn't invest a wooden nickel into UBER as a company. Those who do are betting on driverless cars (which will never happen on anything but a 30 second "yay look at us" news clip scale) or expect that UBER will either A. Have an IPO driven by "oooh, shiny technology" investors (See also the late 90s and any stock with com in it's name) B. A buyout by google or any other incredibly cash heavy tech company that can afford to risk a multi-billion dollar flop write-off as an expense to show how "hip and with-it" they are to keep benefiting their other, tired, cash cows.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

TheEqualizer said:


> And if Uber ever realise their plan of replacing all drivers with DriverLess vehicles, be sure they'll have less vehicles, as that will cost them .... but in the end, the US being what it is, I can imagine crazy numbers being claimed in the Courts, everytime an Uber has an UberCRASH!


I can only imagine the teams of drooling personal injury lawyers with already written subpoenas for computer code to pick apart in their "a reasonable person driving a car could have avoided this accident" claim.


----------



## iUBERdc (Dec 28, 2016)

senorCRV said:


> I can only imagine the teams of drooling personal injury lawyers with already written subpoenas for computer code to pick apart in their "a reasonable person driving a car could have avoided this accident" claim.


How easy do you think it will be to cut off or just push around these self driving cars? Seem alike you could just have your way driving around them since they always want to avoid an accident.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

iUBERdc said:


> How easy do you think it will be to cut off or just push around these self driving cars? Seem alike you could just have your way driving around them since they always want to avoid an accident.


Are you saying you'd like to see their hard brake report?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SmokestaXX said:


> You may be onto something. Uber has some type of partnership with Hertz in Nashville, TN.


It's not my own observation; just something I've seen written about in business publications... but since Uber's business model thus far has been to limit their liability exposure and their hard assets, it seems like it would be the direction they would want to go, long-term - after all, once they own 'the fleet' they would no longer be a 'technology company' - but rather a transportation company - which would swing wide-open the door to regulation that they've fought so hard to avoid.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's not my own observation; just something I've seen written about in business publications... but since Uber's business model thus far has been to limit their liability exposure and their hard assets, it seems like it would be the direction they would want to go, long-term - after all, once they own 'the fleet' they would no longer be a 'technology company' - but rather a transportation company - which would swing wide-open the door to regulation that they've fought so hard to avoid.


Uber has hard assets? You know, ones that aren't twice leveraged with debt already.

Maybe the fact that they are in a service business and have such a level of hard assets is why they aren't making any money.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> Uber has hard assets? You know, ones that aren't twice leveraged with debt already.
> 
> Maybe the fact that they are in a service business and have such a level of hard assets is why they aren't making any money.


They just built a fancy Corporate headquarters somewhere in Northern California.
But what other hard assets would they have which are high overhead?
Lawyers, that's what. This is the least law abiding company since the robber baron era.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

andaas said:


> Where will these autonomous vehicles stage/wait when unoccupied? I suppose some will return to airports, but these cars may be dozens of miles from an airport, drop a passenger off at a hotel/residence, and potentially not receive another ride request for 15-30 minutes.
> 
> Hotels aren't going to want them clogging their parking facilities, nor will cities and their paid parking. There may be limited staging areas à la taxi stands, but, I don't see a lot of city infrastructure invested in things like this.


Probably in dark alley ways or in front of walmart.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> They just built a fancy Corporate headquarters somewhere in Northern California.
> But what other hard assets would they have which are high overhead?
> Lawyers, that's what. This is the least law abiding company since the robber baron era.


Yup. John Dillinger, Bonnie, Clyde, Butch, Sundance et al, would be green with envy.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> They just built a fancy Corporate headquarters somewhere in Northern California.
> But what other hard assets would they have which are high overhead?
> Lawyers, that's what. This is the least law abiding company since the robber baron era.


Remember kids, it's "Driver Subsidies" that cost UBER all their profit... It's not their ventures into exponentially more costly endeavors like driverless cars, incentives that require every new customer spend an average of $100 to break even and burning through drivers like it was as free as the gasoline they burn.


----------



## Do tell (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> Remember kids, it's "Driver Subsidies" that cost UBER all their profit... It's not their ventures into exponentially more costly endeavors like driverless cars, incentives that require every new customer spend an average of $100 to break even and burning through drivers like it was as free as the gasoline they burn.


Uber has never paid one cent in "Driver Subsidies".


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Just think about how hard it is to pick up some people. Think about how sometimes we're forced to stop somewhere where it's not really safe. Think about how hard it's going to be for these ridiculous SDC's to determine where to stop or park for a rider.

It's just not going to work. But as long as these things keep the investor money coming in to pay my weekly bonuses, I'm all for it. 

Then when Uber finally concedes and we know they will have to at some point, then they will raise the rates and we will still be able to make money, not from bonuses but from fares.


----------



## Trebor (Apr 22, 2015)

player81 said:


> Uber drivers will be worse to robot cars than cab drivers are to Uber drivers. Who's gonna see me bust the glass and throw a bag of poop in there?


While I am waiting for pings, I am going to place this sign behind my vehicle and watch the driverless cars line up. When I get the ping, I will continue on my way.


----------



## merkurfan (Jul 20, 2015)

SmokestaXX said:


> IMO...Uber, along with other tech companies, are experimenting with AI to sell the technology to the trucking industry as well.


Benz already has one.


----------



## Trebor (Apr 22, 2015)

merkurfan said:


> Benz already has one.


We will see these become legal first. (18 wheeler's in general) Just think of the Tesla's self driving feature, that is meant to ONLY be used on highways. Highways are easier to navigate and the lines are easier to see (what these cars currently rely greatly on)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Trebor said:


> We will see these become legal first. (18 wheeler's in general) Just think of the Tesla's self driving feature, that is meant to ONLY be used on highways. Highways are easier to navigate and the lines are easier to see (what these cars currently rely greatly on)


The trucking stuff is very cool: A truck with an engineer (driver) leads a caravan of semis that are all equipment that talks to each other - allowing the trucks ride the wake of the truck in front of them at very close distances - maximizing fuel efficiency.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

I'm not one to say never but, all this AI driverless tech stuff is probably 20yrs away from being the norm. The technology is here and works but liability is a huge hinderance IMO. It's no different than states legalizing marijuana. Until the federal government legislates it, it's irrelevant. I mean San Fran booted Ubers the driverless cars and thats their homebase. Something just doesn't add up.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

merkurfan said:


> Benz already has one.


Who's gonna fuel this up. Who's gonna change a light bulb on I80 in desolate Wyoming. How will it know to pull over for a random inspection by Smokey? These seem like marginal questions but if u can't bump a dock, ur not trucking.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

grams777 said:


> Of interest, in the study quoted above, they break down a considerable amount of expenses to cover cleanup and damages:
> 
> 
> Cleaning and vandalism. Taxis and public transit vehicles require frequent cleaning when passengers litter, smoke, spill food and drinks, spit or bring pets, and repairs when vehicles are vandalized. To minimize these risks self-driving taxis will need hardened surfaces, durable fabrics, minimal moving parts, electronic surveillance, and aggressive enforcement. Assuming that vehicles make 200 weekly trips, 5-15% of passengers leave messes with $10-30 average cleanup costs, and 1-4% vandalize vehicles with $50-100 average repair costs, these costs would average between $200 and $1,700 per vehicle-week.


In other words ,a rolling prison cell with no ameneties no chargers,no conversation,no MC Donald's drive through. The Drivers should easily get all of ubers business with a good app.,and the human service touch.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SmokestaXX said:


> Who's gonna fuel this up. Who's gonna change a light bulb on I80 in desolate Wyoming. How will it know to pull over for a random inspection by Smokey? These seem like marginal questions but if u can't bump a dock, ur not trucking.


see: https://uberpeople.net/threads/why-...law-slate-12-22-16.128529/page-4#post-1917114


----------



## iUBERdc (Dec 28, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The trucking stuff is very cool: A truck with an engineer (driver) leads a caravan of semis that are all equipment that talks to each other - allowing the trucks ride the wake of the truck in front of them at very close distances - maximizing fuel efficiency.


Can't wait for all those gallons of gas to be saved to be wiped out by one accident.


----------



## iUBERdc (Dec 28, 2016)

Trebor said:


> While I am waiting for pings, I am going to place this sign behind my vehicle and watch the driverless cars line up. When I get the ping, I will continue on my way.


It will be fun to prank self-driving cars for sure!!


----------



## yeahTHATuberGVL (Mar 18, 2016)

grams777 said:


> Even if the rate gets to .35 per driven mile, double that for dead miles. Now it's a cost of .70 per paid mile just in hard costs for the car. Add in about a 25% profit and the rate would have to be near $1 per paid mile.


Over $1/paid mile if they plan to eat costs of Pool and balance luxury Uber rides. Plus, they'd have to pay some ridiculous amount for other companies to cover their fleet costs.


----------



## yeahTHATuberGVL (Mar 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Well, it may not satisfy you (sorry) but it is an answer. Uber is a data driven company. Supply & Demand were just the beginning. We're seeing implementation of predictive algorithms and very complex routing and re-routing. The system does know 'when' - based on historical demand that is constantly updated. If the system 'sees' that someone at 12 Elm St is looking for a car every M-F at 7:30A, you can bet the system will make sure a car is nearby - based on the order request history. After the morning rush hour (or Sat night bar close) most cars will be ordered to put themselves to bed somewhere (likely a garage facility), while others will be ordered to where the system feels they will be needed next. Like all things based on math, statistics and historical data, the systems will get better with time and use.


But putting a car in the vicinity doesn't account for outliers to the curve. My pattern can easily be disrupted by my businessman neighbor that happens to oversleep for a flight, because the app would detect that pre-assigned car as the closest car. FIFO should overrule the chance at a predetermined request, no?


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Coal and natural gas ARE petrol

Theres literally technologies for synthesizing artificial petrol from coal and natural gas



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not exactly:
> 
> *Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015
> [source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3]*
> ...


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Adieu said:


> Coal and natural gas ARE petrol
> 
> Theres literally technologies for synthesizing artificial petrol from coal and natural gas


I thought I remembered that factoid, but I've been busy making money so didn't look it up.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I thought I remembered that factoid, but I've been busy making money so didn't look it up.


I'm anti-semantic.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> see: https://uberpeople.net/threads/why-...law-slate-12-22-16.128529/page-4#post-1917114


Lol...sure


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That assumes of course that in the long run they will actually own the cars. My own wild-ass guess is that eventually they will outsource all of that messy ownership stuff to professional fleet management companies (such as car rental companies) who will own and operate the cars as efficiently as possible.


Eventually (20 yrs give or take), when enough autonomous cars have been produced and purchased, the model will be exactly as is today, minus the driver. You'll let uber borrow your car when you feel like it, and you'll sit on the couch collecting a fee. The whole concept of ride share is that we can more efficiently get people places by utilizing existing but otherwise idle fleet. I don't foresee uber seriously putting out the the capital to have their own autonomous fleet in every city. Especially when you think about the fact that another part of the model is to have a flexible fleet that scales up and down immediately with demand.

No my friends, this autonomous car uber I running right now is purely test. Eventually they'll be borrowing all of our autonomous cars when we are willing to let them!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Buber2005 said:


> Eventually (20 yrs give or take), when enough autonomous cars have been produced and purchased, the model will be exactly as is today, minus the driver. You'll let uber borrow your car when you feel like it, and you'll sit on the couch collecting a fee. The whole concept of ride share is that we can more efficiently get people places by utilizing existing but otherwise idle fleet. I don't foresee uber seriously putting out the the capital to have their own autonomous fleet in every city. Especially when you think about the fact that another part of the model is to have a flexible fleet that scales up and down immediately with demand.
> 
> No my friends, this autonomous car uber I running right now is purely test. Eventually they'll be borrowing all of our autonomous cars when we are willing to let them!


Pish posh.
No one is going to let Uber "borrow" their SDC for peanuts to let drunks vomit in them.
Fleets may exist which power wash the insides every morning at 05:00, but NO ONE is going to try and earn $3.00 for vomit and "chazz was heer" carved into the Naugahyde.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

Think about it, I'm pegging you as one of the "uber is so unfair and evil" on here. Why would they let their own cars get vomited in if they can borrow someone else's?


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

Sdc will be so prevalent in 20 years, everyone will have it


----------



## iUBERdc (Dec 28, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Pish posh.
> No one is going to let Uber "borrow" their SDC for peanuts to let drunks vomit in them.
> Fleets may exist which power wash the insides every morning at 05:00, but NO ONE is going to try and earn $3.00 for vomit and "chazz was heer" carved into the Naugahyde.


Yea I don't see people with Lexus and BMW going out to do UBERX for peanuts. What makes UBER and their trolls think the people with snazzy new self driving cars are gonna let UBER borrow them and get them destroyed with wear/tear and pax vomit/ass smell/buggers?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Buber2005 said:


> Think about it, I'm pegging you as one of the "uber is so unfair and evil" on here. Why would they let their own cars get vomited in if they can borrow someone else's?


Of course I'm an Anti Uber Troll, that goes without saying.
Tell me two things honestly:
1) would you have let your son sleep over at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch?
2) will you be lending your new SDC to Uber for a vomit and switchblade party?

These are rhetorical questions.
If the answer to either one is yes, seek help.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Point being, by the time actual fully autonomous SDCs are approved, Uber will either be gone or have a worse reputation than Enron.
No one is going to enter an Uber contract with less than 500 cars and the repair facility to go with it.

This fantasy of simply earning free money while you sleep is just that, a fantasy.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Of course I'm an Anti Uber Troll, that goes without saying.
> Tell me two things honestly:
> 1) would you have let your son sleep over at Michael Jackson's Neverland hi Ranch?
> 2) will you be lending your new SDC to Uber for a vomit and switchblade party?
> ...


LOL, when you put it in those terms...

I think the Sdc tech will be a requirement in 20 years time, after its proven to drastically reduce road fatalities, which is one if the highest causes of death in America. An NY guess is uber will be lobbying hard for Sdc tech to be required on all new vehicles, after they grab a few more patents in that space

My point is that in 28 years you'll have people with 10 yr old used sdcs who are as willing to lend then out for cash as today's drivers are willing to sacrifice time with friends and family to drive. There's always a price a which someone will participate.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

And it's not free money, it's earning a fee in exchange for letting someone use an asset that you own. It's called rent, and a very common business model for expensive assets.... 

For instance, you probably rent your home.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

And why would they have a worse reputation than enron? People LOVE uber. Every passenger loves it. Only disgruntled drivers who think they should make $50-60k per year with no skills are unhappy with Uber. The customers absolutely love it. I have never had a pax sat they wish they could have just taken a taxi instead or deal with their own vehicle. These forums are so short sighted.


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber has never paid one cent in "Driver Subsidies".


Please notify my tax guy, he insists i have to report all those incentives and referral bonuses as income on my return.

I figure Uber lost well over $1000 on our mutual partnership... because I quit driving after about 6 weeks ( part time).


----------



## iUBERdc (Dec 28, 2016)

Buber2005 said:


> LOL, when you put it in those terms...
> 
> I think the Sdc tech will be a requirement in 20 years time, after its proven to drastically reduce road fatalities, which is one if the highest causes of death in America. An NY guess is uber will be lobbying hard for Sdc tech to be required on all new vehicles, after they grab a few more patents in that space
> 
> My point is that in 28 years you'll have people with 10 yr old used sdcs who are as willing to lend then out for cash as today's drivers are willing to sacrifice time with friends and family to drive. There's always a price a which someone will participate.


30000 Americans day every year by guns but actually more guns are being sold than ever and gun bills die before every leaving a committee in Congress. Americans don't care about other people dying, and Americans will never give up their cars or their guns or their mansions or anything to 'make the world a better cleaner and safer place for other people'


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

iUBERdc said:


> Yea I don't see people with Lexus and BMW going out to do UBERX for peanuts. What makes UBER and their trolls think the people with snazzy new self driving cars are gonna let UBER borrow them and get them destroyed with wear/tear and pax vomit/ass smell/buggers?


Isn't that assuming that sdc will all be Lexus/BMW/Mecreceds/Tesla?
Isn't it more likely that as economy of scale in manufacturing does its thing that we will also be talking about 'Toyota Sentra SDC'


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

jester121 said:


> Please notify my tax guy, he insists i have to report all those incentives and referral bonuses as income on my return.
> 
> I figure Uber lost well over $1000 on our mutual partnership... because I quit driving after about 6 weeks ( part time).


Referrals aren't just 'driver incentives' - diver and rider referrals are a 'marketing expense'. That has nothing to do with what income you report.


----------



## iUBERdc (Dec 28, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Isn't that assuming that sdc will all be Lexus/BMW/Mecreceds/Tesla?
> Isn't it more likely that as economy of scale in manufacturing does its thing that we will also be talking about 'Toyota Sentra SDC'


Poor people aren't going to pay extra money to get self driving if they can drive their own car for free


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

iUBERdc said:


> Poor people aren't going to pay extra money to get self driving if they can drive their own car for free


as was noted earlier - when a technology proves to be able to save lives, it will incorporated into the manufacturing. I don't doubt that in a few generations, SDC will be the only cars manufactured - even if they can also be operated manually. In other words - I suspect that at some point in the future auto manufacturers will be required to incorporate self-driving technology.

The less than wealthy who want a new car, right now are strapped with a car payment.
They/we can drive Uber to try to offset some of that expense - but in addition to the added expenses and depreciation, it also costs us our time. Leasing your car out to a TNC while you're not using it could be a way to more efficiently help defray the cost of car ownership.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

iUBERdc said:


> 30000 Americans day every year by guns but actually more guns are being sold than ever and gun bills die before every leaving a committee in Congress. Americans don't care about other people dying, and Americans will never give up their cars or their guns or their mansions or anything to 'make the world a better cleaner and safer place for other people'


Yea, nobody really making any of the points you're arguing against buddy... But glad to hear your view on the unrelated matter.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> as was noted earlier - when a technology proves to be able to save lives, it will incorporated into the manufacturing. I don't doubt that in a few generations, SDC will be the only cars manufactured - even if they can also be operated manually. In other words - I suspect that at some point in the future auto manufacturers will be required to incorporate self-driving technology.
> 
> The less than wealthy who want a new car, right now are strapped with a car payment.
> They/we can drive Uber to try to offset some of that expense - but in addition to the added expenses and depreciation, it also costs us our time. Leasing your car out to a TNC while you're not using it could be a way to more efficiently help defray the cost of car ownership.


Michael - Cleveland input is on point, much appreciate another reasonable voice in the midst of all the rabble!


----------



## UberNaToo (Dec 9, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Why It's Getting Harder for Uber to Break the Law*
> By Henry Grabar / SLATE 12.22.16
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._shows_how_owning_cars_is_changing_uber_s.html
> 
> ...


Both major parties are now owned by the corporations.

Uber will get what it wants with the river of lobbyist money it will rain down on limp dick politicians ad corporate shills. Only organized labor will bend them to the workers will.


----------



## RussellP (Dec 9, 2016)

UberNaToo said:


> Both major parties are now owned by the corporations.
> 
> Uber will get what it wants with the river of lobbyist money it will rain down on limp &%[email protected]!* politicians ad corporate shills. Only organized labor will bend them to the workers will.


Are now owned? They've been owned for many many decades... It's supposed to be a republic where we elect representatives to vote on laws on our behalf. Instead we elect them, then they get paid off by corporations to vote on their behalf instead of ours. Welcome to the Oligarchy... With Uber valued at 60 billion and Lyft at 5 billion, I'm sure they'll be sending plenty of money to Washington, and many state capitals to buy their way... If TNC drivers could unionize though we'd all be way better off. There's nothing preventing Uber from screwing drivers over however they want...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RussellP said:


> There's nothing preventing Uber from screwing drivers over however they want...


Yes there is: You.
If enough drivers stop driving, Uber will do whatever it needs to keep the cars on the road.
However, the likelihood of enough drivers actually hanging it up (when they have mouths to feed) is? Next to zero.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It seems to me you're considering only expenses and not the whole financial picture. The car costs $25,000 new (made-up # it doesn't really matter) - is used for 12 months and 100,000 miles - is fully depreciated (accelerated depreciation) - and is sold as a one year old car for, say, $18,000. The cost for the year, before fuel/maintenance/ins, is $$7,000. The full $25,000 has been depreciated. The $18,000 in resale is revenue. The car generated 100,000 miles of revenues (approximately $50,000 at HALF current TNC rates).
> 
> That's $68,000 of revenue on what at most is around $20,000 in expense
> ($7,000 + $4,000 fuel + $4,000 ins + $1,000 in maintenance + $4,000 in whatever)
> ...


Have you tried appraising a used car, one year old, with 100k miles on it. Normal car valuation metrics assume 15k annual miles. So I think you will find the value has depreciated more than the +-28% you suggest. Then from that "gross profit" one has to reinvest into a new replacement vehicle...Which will inevitably cost more than the first one. Numbers not so glossy now.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

player81 said:


> Yeah they can't argue the "we're just a tech company" line if they actually own cabs. Driverless cabs should be required to have same commercial insurance as regular cabs. I hope that hits them in the pocket more than paying human drivers a decent rate


Off topic, but...Seriously, can you change your avatar?


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right now I can rent a car and drive it 1,000 miles for the cost of gas + around $35. If the professional fleet management companies (car rental companies) were losing money on that rental, they wouldn't be in the business. The profit is in the ability to efficiently utilize the vehicles and depreciate them rapidly.


They absolutely "lost money on that rental". On that specific transaction that is. But most of their transactions do not incur that high mileage cost. And your calculation doesn't begin to consider their total overhead costs of running their business. Does that friendly customer service agent work for free?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right now I can rent a car and drive it 1,000 miles for the cost of gas + around $35. If the professional fleet management companies (car rental companies) were losing money on that rental, they wouldn't be in the business. The profit is in the ability to efficiently utilize the vehicles and depreciate them rapidly.


But most people who rent a car don't do that. It's like an all you can eat buffet. Maybe a few people eat so much the restaurant loses money on that person, but most don't.

A lot of rentals are for people whose car is in the shop or while waiting for collision repairs or a new car after theirs is wrecked. They don't drive more than they would anyway. To work and back and the store. I've had many rentals and even delivering pizza I've never put more than 150 miles on one in a day. But for the week it averaged far less. Some days it was 0.

The people that DO rent cars for a road trip are driving highway miles, not through pothole city.

It's just not a good comparison IMO.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Articles have been published describing multi-story elevator car garages that can store cars much more space-efficiently than current garages (so much less space is needed when moving cars around without having to consider humans).


Right, and these will be built for free and by whom. Where will these hundreds of millions in construction costs be accounted for in your model?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It seems to me you're considering only expenses and not the whole financial picture. The car costs $25,000 new (made-up # it doesn't really matter) - is used for 12 months and 100,000 miles - is fully depreciated (accelerated depreciation) - and is sold as a one year old car for, say, $18,000. The cost for the year, before fuel/maintenance/ins, is $$7,000. The full $25,000 has been depreciated. The $18,000 in resale is revenue. The car generated 100,000 miles of revenues (approximately $50,000 at HALF current TNC rates).
> 
> That's $68,000 of revenue on what at most is around $20,000 in expense
> ($7,000 + $4,000 fuel + $4,000 ins + $1,000 in maintenance + $4,000 in whatever)
> ...


How are all these cars going to drive 100,000 miles a year when most will be sitting idle 90% of the time IF there are to be enough for times that there is high demand?

It's like a rental company always keeping 10x the number of cars usually rented out just so they can handle it when it's really busy. But they don't. If it gets busy (like when it floods here and suddenly lots more people need cars when theirs get flooded) there are simply not enough. They send them in from other states but it doesn't ever keep up. (I know this from personal experience).

The current system only works for uber because idle cars cost them nothing. Technically, for a driver who already has the car, other than maybe more insurance, if the car is not running, it's not costing him either (except his time if he's in it and not at home). That's not the case if uber has to rent or buy the cars.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Speedyracer said:


> You guys are thinking to black and white. It doesn't have to be all in or all out. We would be the back up for busy times. You know... " Get your side hustle on " I'm guessing there fleet would handle the normal periods. Then when it's busy... Guess who steps in to cover the slack ? Us that's who. Weekends, events, new years Eve etc... Get your side hustle on!


I'm guessing once someone pukes in a car they'll only ever be assigned to us. Unless the robot car is all plastic and can be hosed out (for $200).

I think you're right about this, but what will uber do when all cars become self driving? The logical conclusion to all this is that humans stop driving and the sdc is the only thing on the road.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> In other words ,a rolling prison cell with no ameneties no chargers,no conversation,no MC Donald's drive through. The Drivers should easily get all of ubers business with a good app.,and the human service touch.


Well what happens then is another company starts up with REAL HUMAN DRIVERS for a higher price. Uber will be left with pool pax.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm guessing once someone pukes in a car they'll only ever be assigned to us. Unless the robot car is all plastic and can be hosed out (for $200).
> 
> I think you're right about this, but what will uber do when all cars become self driving? The logical conclusion to all this is that humans stop driving and the sdc is the only thing on the road.


I imagine self driving car interiors will look like carnival rides.
All hard plastic and thick vinyl with rubber floors.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

iUBERdc said:


> Yea I don't see people with Lexus and BMW going out to do UBERX for peanuts. What makes UBER and their trolls think the people with snazzy new self driving cars are gonna let UBER borrow them and get them destroyed with wear/tear and pax vomit/ass smell/buggers?


Hmmm, aren't they already doing that PLUS having to be in the car with the pax?

Don't underestimate people's willingness to buy into the dream: "Let your car work for you! Earn up to $1000 a night while you sleep."

I can see the craigslist ads already.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Buber2005 said:


> Eventually (20 yrs give or take), when enough autonomous cars have been produced and purchased, the model will be exactly as is today, minus the driver. You'll let uber borrow your car when you feel like it, and you'll sit on the couch collecting a fee. The whole concept of ride share is that we can more efficiently get people places by utilizing existing but otherwise idle fleet. I don't foresee uber seriously putting out the the capital to have their own autonomous fleet in every city. Especially when you think about the fact that another part of the model is to have a flexible fleet that scales up and down immediately with demand.
> 
> No my friends, this autonomous car uber I running right now is purely test. Eventually they'll be borrowing all of our autonomous cars when we are willing to let them!


OK...But if I'm going to sublease my AV to Uber I need to cover my cost and provide for re-investment into replacements. So...I need about .$50/mi from uber just to break even.They still need to charge pax $.70ish/mi so they get a rip. Where are the HUGE profits in any of this? If they sold 50,000,000 miles, that's $10M total net revenue to them. Where are the Billions?


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Buber2005 said:


> LOL, when you put it in those terms...
> 
> I think the Sdc tech will be a requirement in 20 years time, after its proven to drastically reduce road fatalities, which is one if the highest causes of death in America. An NY guess is uber will be lobbying hard for Sdc tech to be required on all new vehicles, after they grab a few more patents in that space
> 
> My point is that in 28 years you'll have people with 10 yr old used sdcs who are as willing to lend then out for cash as today's drivers are willing to sacrifice time with friends and family to drive. There's always a price a which someone will participate.


OK YES! I agree with this completely. But there is not currently huge operating profit for UberX. And Uber is losing money. So if this vision actualizes, I ask again, where is the Billions in profit coming from? Aged SDCs, generating pennies per mile in revenue cannot mathematically become hundreds of millions of economic profit dollars. Not possible.

So the debate is NOT about the viability of SDC. But IS about the viability of an Enterprise valued at $60B and currently losing money with its operating business model. And then how exactly will this Enterprise use SDC to generate Billions of dollars in profit for its investors? Because if they lower rate based on a presumed "lower cost", the same metrics apply to their future revenue streams. This is THE question.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> OK...But if I'm going to sublease my AV to Uber I need to cover my cost and provide for re-investment into replacements. So...I need about .$50/mi from uber just to break even.They still need to charge pax $.70ish/mi so they get a rip. Where are the HUGE profits in any of this? If they sold 50,000,000 miles, that's $10M total net revenue to them. Where are the Billions?


Whelp, they're going to sell a whole lot more that 50,000,000 miles, given that's what they might currently do in a day...


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Buber2005 said:


> And it's not free money, it's earning a fee in exchange for letting someone use an asset that you own. It's called rent, and a very common business model for expensive assets....
> 
> For instance, you probably rent your home.


Yes. But I pay a PREMIUM to rent. It is not cheaper than owning a home. Uber is saying the opposite. If I rent my AV to Uber, you can bet I am charging them more than it cost me to operate. And an new SDC is going to cost me a lot more than my current ten year old minivan. A LOT more. Simple.


----------



## Buber2005 (Jan 1, 2017)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> OK YES! I agree with this completely. But there is not currently huge operating profit for UberX. And Uber is losing money. So if this vision actualizes, I ask again, where is the Billions in profit coming from? Aged SDCs, generating pennies per mile in revenue cannot mathematically become hundreds of millions of economic profit dollars. Not possible.
> 
> So the debate is NOT about the viability of SDC. But IS about the viability of an Enterprise valued at $60B and currently losing money with its operating business model. And then how exactly will this Enterprise use SDC to generate Billions of dollars in profit for its investors? Because if they lower rate based on a presumed "lower cost", the same metrics apply to their future revenue streams. This is THE question.


If they make $0.10 per mile, and drive 1 billion miles, then they'll make $100 million. That is the math. I think you're point is "how could they drive that many miles"? But in a country of 300 million people, a billion miles isn't all that much. I just saw a dot stat that indicated total annual passenger miles are in the the trillions. I think you're underestimaying they potential scale of the solution.


----------



## Speedyracer (Aug 17, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> I imagine self driving car interiors will look like carnival rides.
> All hard plastic and thick vinyl with rubber floors.


So they can run the car through an uber car wash with the doors open. Just like new. Some people will refuse driverless cars. Anytime I go to home depot there is 1 cashier with 5 People in line and 4 open non-human check out lines open. Years down the road maybe.
Quote:
" When technology surpasses our need for human interaction. We will have a generation of idiots "
Albert Einstein


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> Have you tried appraising a used car, one year old, with 100k miles on it. Normal car valuation metrics assume 15k annual miles. So I think you will find the value has depreciated more than the +-28% you suggest. Then from that "gross profit" one has to reinvest into a new replacement vehicle...Which will inevitably cost more than the first one. Numbers not so glossy now.


The numbers I used were actual retail re-sale values adjusted for age and mileage, taken from KBB.com.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> They absolutely "lost money on that rental". On that specific transaction that is. But most of their transactions do not incur that high mileage cost. And your calculation doesn't begin to consider their total overhead costs of running their business. Does that friendly customer service agent work for free?


Who cares about the 'individual profitability of a single car rental'? Since the car rental business is not exactly a new industry - and they've manged to stay in business for decades - and they continue to grow as public companies, I think it's safe to assume that they don't lose money on their overall operations.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> Right, and these will be built for free and by whom. Where will these hundreds of millions in construction costs be accounted for in your model?


Seriously? Who said anything about 'free'?
Built with financed money - like any construction/development project, based on a business plan that accounts for capital investment (expenditure) and revenues (operating income).


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Buber2005 said:


> If they make $0.10 per mile, and drive 1 billion miles, then they'll make $100 million. That is the math. I think you're point is "how could they drive that many miles"? But in a country of 300 million people, a billion miles isn't all that much. I just saw a dot stat that indicated total annual passenger miles are in the the trillions. I think you're underestimaying they potential scale of the solution.


Exactly so, we agree completely here. And they probably did about 8-10 Billion miles in 2017, extrapolating numbers from published sources. So that's maybe could be a $1B @$.10/mi...But that is the gross and not the profit.

And for Uber to capture that entire trillions of annual passenger miles, what needs to happen. How long will it take, what capital is required etc.? Does one believe that Uber will have a 100% monopoly of the global passenger miles?

So, the question is, lay out the whole biz model that generates enough economic profit to justify the valuation. Their current model looses hundreds of millions annualy. If they simply replace the X fleet with "SDC-X", and lower the rate how have they changed the model metrics?

I'm generalizing, but currently they bill the customer about a buck a mile, and keep $.25/mi - net revenue. And they're LOSING $. If all they do is substitute an SDC for an X, how does this change? Suppose they then keep $.50/mi, doubles net revenue to $1B. Maybe their losses turn to profit...But recent published sources estimate they need to quadruple net revenue to turn profitable.

Lets forget SDC efficiencies and all that gobblygook and let's all assume they have the right # of vehicles to ensure maximum revenue generation. There are only two ways for them to acquire control of said fleet. Buy 'em all or sub-lease them. They currently "lease" them from X owners and loose money. Leasing a fleet of SDCs at the current pricing structure maybe breaks them even. Buying them would take Billions. So this is the problem.

If Uber successfully fields a fleet of AV, do they then eliminate all of their current operating costs that are bleeding them red, and make that $.50/mi pure profit. Then that could be $5B in pure profits at their current scale. I think it's pure fantasy. But I guess we'll all bear witness!! Peace.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Who cares about the 'individual profitability of a single car rental'? Since the car rental business is not exactly a new industry - and they've manged to stay in business for decades - and they continue to grow as public companies, I think it's safe to assume that they don't lose money on their overall operations.


Correct. But in the "fleet owner" proposal posited in this thread, then an AV rental becomes their only revenue stream. It's the only possible transaction as AVs replace piloted vehicles. This then eliminates the short term, low mileage, lucrative "piloted" rentals from their sales.

If they rent me a car for the day and I pay them $40 and drive it r/t to work 40 miles, they charged me a buck a mile. They're banking most people don't rent it a thousand miles. Ask Enterprise about their commercial lease programs, and see what kind of rates they offer you.

They specifically exclude using a passenger rental for commercial purposes. So if you came to them and asked to "rent" a fleet of 500 AVs for commercial purposes, i.e. transporting passengers for hire, you're not going to get the retail/passenger rate. I promise you this.

Think about it...If all your fleet vehicles were rolling 100-200k annually, could you lease them for $40 day and make $ (their current model). That would only generate about $15k in revenue for you. No, you'd have to charge the "user" a true per mile rate to ensure you were covering costs. So what would that realistic rate be?

Remember, you are the fleet owner and you KNOW this AV is going to operate 100,000 miles. You're not making money off renting Granny a Lincoln while her beloved Buick is in the shop a few days.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Seriously? Who said anything about 'free'?
> Built with financed money - like any construction/development project, based on a business plan that accounts for capital investment (expenditure) and revenues (operating income).


But your AV mini P&L did not account for this capital investment. What is the cost of capital reserved to pay those notes? Or are the Taxpayers gonna pick it all up for you?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> Correct. But in the "fleet owner" proposal posited in this thread, then an AV rental becomes their only revenue stream. It's the only possible transaction as AVs replace piloted vehicles. This then eliminates the short term, low mileage, lucrative "piloted" rentals from their sales.
> 
> If they rent me a car for the day and I pay them $40 and drive it r/t to work 40 miles, they charged me a buck a mile. They're banking most people don't rent it a thousand miles. Ask Enterprise about their commercial lease programs, and see what kind of rates they offer you.
> 
> ...


You are applying today's business model of car rental to a future business model of operating a fleet of autonomous cars for a TNC. 
Apples and oranges. 
All I'm suggesting is marketing and finance gurus of the future will make a business of fleet operation of AV vehicles.
If you don't like the idea - don't invest in it.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are applying today's business model of car rental to a future business model of operating a fleet of autonomous cars for a TNC. Apples and oranges. All I'm suggesting is marketing and finance gurus of the future will make a business of fleet operation of AV vehicles.
> If you don't like the idea - don't invest in it.


Well, I think you started that apples/orange thing with your post about renting a car for SDC etc. but anywho. Good luck with your investments!!


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Pish posh.
> No one is going to let Uber "borrow" their SDC for peanuts to let drunks vomit in them.
> Fleets may exist which power wash the insides every morning at 05:00, but NO ONE is going to try and earn $3.00 for vomit and "chazz was heer" carved into the Naugahyde.


These people also miss that Uber's loss per ride is higher than average total fare. Which means even if there was no driver and no one to pay and people donated their cars, gas, and time to Uber (we almost do already) that Uber would still lose money.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are applying today's business model of car rental to a future business model of operating a fleet of autonomous cars for a TNC.
> Apples and oranges.
> All I'm suggesting is marketing and finance gurus of the future will make a business of fleet operation of AV vehicles.
> If you don't like the idea - don't invest in it.


Trust me, I won't.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are applying today's business model of car rental to a future business model of operating a fleet of autonomous cars for a TNC.
> Apples and oranges.
> All I'm suggesting is marketing and finance gurus of the future will make a business of fleet operation of AV vehicles.
> If you don't like the idea - don't invest in it.


Look, those of us in the Cleveland market know your reason for driving Uber, but for those not interested in creeping on college girls, common knowledge will tell you why automated cars will never be viable: they can't operate at a profit.

Autonomous cars to achieve Uber's goal would have to be cheaper to operate than a personal vehicle. Commercial vehicles have a higher mileage cost than personal vehicles, especially given the moral hazard of drunks and milennials who don't care or respect their own or anyone else's property.

Mitigate that as you will with cameras, windows down car washes, plastic seats, rubber floors, power wash stations, etc... the simple fact is you can not and will not make autonomous cars cheaper to operate than a personal vehicle, thus you can't charge a rate so low people will choose automous TNC rides over their own vehicles.

Now, beyond factoring that your targeted business model requires an operational loss to exist, also factor your autonomous vehicle fleet has no salvage/residual value. So it's not even possible to mitigate loss the way rental car services do.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> These people also miss that Uber's loss per ride is higher than average total fare.


lI'd like to see the documentation for that - seriously, if you can point me to it, I'd appreciate it.


> Which means even if there was no driver and no one to pay and people donated their cars, gas, and time to Uber (we almost do already) that Uber would still lose money.


You don't think there will come a time when Uber is not spending as much today as it does on marketing, lobbying, legal fees and start-up costs? (I don't know... just asking what you think)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> ... for those not interested in creeping on college girls, common knowledge will tell you why automated cars will never be viable: they can't operate at a profit.


I'm always amused when someone who thinks they're smart makes declaratory statements about things that are impossible to know.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> lI'd like to see the documentation for that - seriously, if you can point me to it, I'd appreciate it.You don't think there will come a time when Uber is not spending as much today as it does on marketing, lobbying, legal fees and start-up costs? (I don't know... just asking what you think)


From Uber's own releases to the press.

Ask Walmart, CocaCola, and others... those startup marketing budgets don't tend to go down once you own the market, they tend to go up. The only reduction is removing the word startup.

Also consider this: Uber can eliminate "driver subsidies" by eliminating drivers, but they gain the costs of operating a fleet during waiting periods with low ride requests, maintenance costs, and dead mile costs. Something people seem to forget is driverless cars are not anywhere near as efficient. All that automation equipment and redundant safety tech requires a lot of energy to run and no, your simple 12v system and factory alternator are not going to cover it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> From Uber's own releases to the press.


In other words - no citation available. ok.


> ...marketing budgets don't tend to go down once you own the market, they tend to go up.


That's exactly right in most cases (though that may or may not holed true in Uber's case). The marketing $ expense goes up but marketing as a % of sales goes down.


> Uber can eliminate "driver subsidies" by eliminating drivers, but they gain the costs of operating a fleet during waiting periods with low ride requests, maintenance costs, and dead mile costs.


 Only if you assume (without any basis for the assumption) that Uber will actually own and operate a fleet of cars and that anyone operating a fleet of cars won't be able to do so profitably.


> Something people seem to forget is driverless cars are not anywhere near as efficient. All that automation equipment and redundant safety tech requires a lot of energy to run and no, your simple 12v system and factory alternator are not going to cover it.


Those are your opinions with absolutely no foundation in facts (which don't exist yet).


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

We're talking about Guberwurld here dog. Since when do actual real world "Facts" have anything to do with it? And we're also talking about a potential "future" world, one that does not yet exist. So what "facts" support that. 

And Uber has never outlined a business model to the public. So unless you've seen and can publish a prospectus, it's all wild assed speculation. You think it's gonna pay off huge, maybe you're right. Maybe it's the next Betamax. It's all great fun here though. And that's a FACT!!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> You think it's gonna pay off huge


I've never - anywhere - said any such thing. All I've done is suggest one possible model for how SDCs may fit into the picture of TNCs in the future. As you said: a WAG.


----------



## Cocobird (Dec 9, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right now I can rent a car and drive it 1,000 miles for the cost of gas + around $35. If the professional fleet management companies (car rental companies) were losing money on that rental, they wouldn't be in the business. The profit is in the ability to efficiently utilize the vehicles and depreciate them rapidly.


The car companies buy the cars at a discount, then on top of that, cut costs of the car where they can, then they resell the cars for a profit


----------

