Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Fandom > Re: Not always ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 5 Topic 6293 of 7038
Post > Topic >>

Re: Not always joking, it seems

by David Friedman <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 17, 2008 at 02:29 PM

In article 
<6917e0fd-6a0c-40d9-9a04-55d767a32675@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Willie.Mookie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> > 2. Switching to taxi services doesn't reduce the number of miles
driven
> > per year--indeed, if they are more convenient, it increases the
number.
> 
> You've missed the point - and actually made the case - if you were
> right in your analysis.  Yet, your analysis is incomplete.  First of
> the rate at which something is consumed relative to another thing -
> assuming their both equal in every other way - depends on price.

A fact I am not only aware of, but pointed out in the sentence you are 
quoting. 

>  So,
> the number of miles driven is a function of the cost per mile assuming
> equal convenience.  Driverless cars are more convenient in many ways.
> For the sake of this point let's say they're equal.  Lets say too the
> cost per mile is the same for the consumer, so the demand for miles is
> constant in both cases.   Now, Ford or any other manufacturer is in
> the business of selling cars, not miles.  In the case of privately
> owned vehicles there is a vehicle for every two people.  In the case
> of driverless taxies, there is a vehicle for every twenty people.

If there is a vehicle for every twenty people, and mileage per person 
stays the same, then mileage per car per year is ten times as high. It's 
not the number of cars out there that matters to Ford but the number of 
cars purchased each year.


  The
> same miles are driven, but instead of there being vast parking lots
> and parking garages covering half the acreage of a city, there are
> cars shuttling back and forth picking up people and depositing them on
> demand.  So, the miles driven in both cases are the same, or even more
> for the driverless cars since they have to be re-positioned to pick
> folks up - dead head drives - but the number of vehicles sold is
> smaller in the driverless case, which was my point.

The number sold per year is larger, for the reason I already pointed out 
and you (up to this point) are ignoring. We're interested in a flow, not 
a stock.


> Furthermore, the
> buyers are fleet buyers making a business decision, not emotionally
> driven buyers making a personal statement about wealth - so, the
> margins as well as the volume decreases.

Ford seems perfectly happy to sell cars to Avis and Hertz. And insofar 
as people care about cars as status, they will presumably prefer more 
luxurious taxis in a world where most cars are taxis.

>  Finally, service will be
> done centrally by company owned shops on a regular basis, and so,
> secondary revenues will likely decrease as well.
> 
> Congestion is a function of vehicle number not vehicle miles driven -
> reduce the number of vehicles - and congestion is reduced.

Congestion on the roads is a function of vehicle miles driven--the 
private car sitting in a garage or driveway isn't causing congestion, 
the driverless taxi on the road is.
> 
> > Most cars, so far as I can see, end up wearing out.
> 
> Now now, how you maintain a car determines the ultimate mileage you
> get.  For example the power steering pump seal frequently breaks after
> 24,000 miles - because people don't practice preventive maintenance on
> it and replace the fluid regularly.  Yet, these pumps with excellent
> maintenance have been known to last over 200,000 miles.  Obviously,
> fleet buyers will maintain their cars to a higher degree than a
> private owner to maximize the value of the vehicle to the company and
> through bulk purchasing will pay lower premiums for the hardware.
> So, not only does the manufacturer get a double whammy on their
> primary sales (1/10th the number of cars and 1/3 the margins)  but
> they get a triple whammy on replacement parts (1/10th the number 1/3
> the margins and 1/5th the replacement rate)

I gather you failed to follow the initial argument about rate of cars 
wearing out rather than number of cars, since you are using your 1/10 
figure at this point, which is complete nonsense--and which you would 
realize was nonsense if you followed the argument.
> 
> > So if the average
> > car is good for a hundred thousand miles and total driving is (say)
> > 10^12 car miles/year, about ten million cars a year will be purchased.
> 
> This is the average when maintained by the average buyer.  The same
> vehicle when owned by a mechanic and pedantically maintained can last
> 30x longer - so, a car that routinely drives 100,000 miles before
> replacement when owned privately will drive 3,000,000 miles before
> replacement -

Do you observe that cars that belong to Hertz and Avis, or company 
fleets, last three million miles? I don't. I think I'm giving up on you 
at this point--you aren't really interested in figuring out whether your 
conclusions are true or not. so, expect at lease 1/10th the sales rate.

....

> > 3. One of my colleagues was involved over a period of several years
with
> > the project to try to design an intelligent highway--a modern system
> > along the lines you describe, with cars computer controlled. They
> > eventually gave up.
> 
> Often research teams that have less than capable talent funded
> meagerly and constrained artificially are used to 'prove' something is
> infeasible to board members who have a bee in their bonnet, or as a
> sop to regulators or other stakeholders who wish to upset the apple
> cart so to speak.

This wasn't research by Ford.

> > If it isn't practical now, with current computer
> > technology, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it was practical
> > fifty years ago.
> 
> It is highly practical  they had Fords running around on test tracks
> through simulated streets, ready to go.

Running down the highway by itself isn't the problem.
> 
> > Or in other words, you believe it because it is a good story.
> 
> I was there.  The reality doesn't depend on my belief or yours.  Why
> does my re****ting what happened bother you?

You are re****ting what didn't happen, and offering an explanation for 
why it didn't happen which is wildly implausible.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, in bookstores now
 




 5 Posts in Topic:
Re: Not always joking, it seems
Willie.Mookie@[EMAIL PROT  2008-02-17 12:53:01 
Re: Not always joking, it seems
David Friedman <ddfr@[  2008-02-17 14:29:13 
Re: Not always joking, it seems
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-02-18 01:10:28 
Re: Not always joking, it seems
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-02-18 01:12:54 
Re: Not always joking, it seems
sethb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-02-21 17:16:49 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Wed Jul 9 0:43:57 CDT 2008.