In article
<6917e0fd-6a0c-40d9-9a04-55d767a32675@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
<Willie.Mookie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 10:13 pm, David Friedman <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>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. 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.
So there will be more car-miles driven. Further, if they're fleets of
taxis, there will be more driving (someone going shopping now drives
the car from home to store, parks, and drives back home. With taxis,
the taxi probably isn't exactly where desired, so there are more miles
driven for it to get there).
>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.
And they measure that in cars per year.
> 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.
That's irrelevant. If someone buys one car per week and scraps it a
week later, that's 52 cars per year they sell, even though there's
only one around at any given time. If two people buy one car each and
drive them for 20 years, that's 0.1 cars per year sold, and two around
at any given time. Which situation do you think Ford would prefer?
> 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,
You have not established that the number sold *per year* is less.
> which was my point. 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. Finally, service will be
>done centrally by company owned shops on a regular basis, and so,
>secondary revenues will likely decrease as well.
Experience with the current taxi industry says otherwise.
>Congestion is a function of vehicle number not vehicle miles driven -
>reduce the number of vehicles - and congestion is reduced.
Congestion is a function of the number of vehicles on the road, which
is proportional to miles driven. Adding 1 million cars (that never
get driven) to garages does not increase congestion. One car making
two trips instead of one increases congestion.
>> 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.
Who maintains cars better: people or fleets? (Hint: what is the
resale value of a car that was used by a rental agency or taxicab
company, compared with one owned by a private owner?)
> 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
You might consider that obvious. Reality doesn't care.
>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
With more miles driven, the steady-state is that cars wear out more
often. More sales, perhaps lower margins (why do you claim 1/3? Any
evidence?)
>they get a triple whammy on replacement parts (1/10th the number 1/3
>the margins and 1/5th the replacement rate)
If there are fewer parts (per car-mile) replaced, then maintenance is
_worse_ and the cars wear out _sooner_.
>> 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
How many miles does the average taxi survive? How many fleets
"pedantically maintain" their cars?
> - so, a car that routinely drives 100,000 miles before
>replacement when owned privately will drive 3,000,000 miles before
>replacement - so, expect at lease 1/10th the sales rate.
And where can I find those magic mechanics?
>No, because you are not taking into account why cars break down at the
>mileages they do. In fact, moving toward fleet buying would cause
>cars to become far more reliable than they are today.
As if people had no incentive to buy more reliable cars.
> Specifying
>titanium chains or gear trains rather than rubber belts that wear out
>for example, or stainless steel bodies like Porsche and DeLorean
>developed, or foam filled tires developed by Volvo - are technologies
>that vastly improves reliability and miles driven.
Then why aren't they available today?
>> 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.
That's a lot easier than having them run around on real streets filled
with uncontrolled cars and children jaywalking, not to mention making
random turns.
>> Or in other words, you believe it because it is a good story.
>
>I was there.
Watching the cars on real streets? Or watching a rigged demo?
Seth
|
