Upgrading the nations roads wouldn't be a federal thing, it would be a state level thing. Not saying that makes a difference in the costs involved though.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Car's Decade of Development and 'Failure' Detailed in New Report
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And dogs could fly if they had wings. The problem isn’t the vehicle’s power unit. The problem is that a human brain is and will be for the foreseeable future, VASTLY better at driving a car than a computer.
So, states that can afford that sort of ridiculous expense would have safe roads and those that can’t wouldn’t? And the interstates? The federal government would have to pay for those.
The thing is, this country’s roads are suffering from widespread neglect and deterioration because state and federal legislatures don’t want to pay for it. The proposal to upgrade every road in America to accommodate self driving vehicles would be immeasurably more expensive than doing the maintenance that they need right now. For a “benefit” we don’t even know really exists. What state is going to fund that? None. The answer is none.
Yes we are good at managing edge cases much better. Removing said edge cases will help computers do better in the long run.
IIRC the Feds can't upgrade the roads at all. They can give incentives (said incentives is what had the US capped at 55 mph for years) but otherwise the state governments have to pay for the upkeep. Yeah poor states could get screwed, they would need to take it up with their constituents.
Unless these proposed autonomous vehicles are to operate on closed roads with nothing but other autonomous vehicles on them the idea is basically DOA.
yeah the basic issue with our federal government is getting them all the agree on such a thing
The way Tesla is doing their autonomy is kinda the way it is going to have to go until the Federal government steps in with more clear/concise rules.
I don't think FSD is DOA, I do wish is was L3 on limited access highways, but I understand Tesla is reluctant to take liability for FSD.
Tesla built their first run of production cars for the sum of $187 million
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.
what makes this even more amazing is that they managed to design, prototype, build and produce 147 Roadster cars for $187 million and Apple with all it's money and technical might cannot even got a prototype ready for road testing.
This has to go down as one of Tim Cook's major screw up's because he would have been the one to sign off on the project to give it's go ahead.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.
what makes this even more amazing is that they managed to design, prototype, build and produce 147 Roadster cars for $187 million and Apple with all it's money and technical might cannot even got a prototype ready for road testing.
This has to go down as one of Tim Cook's major screw up's because he would have been the one to sign off on the project to give it's go ahead.
In forestry, one cannot fixate on a patch of pines within of a giant forest containing many other interwoven, interdependent species and thinking to ignore all else will help them understand that patch thoroughly.
In transportation planning, one cannot fixate on (experimental) AVs without taking into context the applied interrelatedness of everything — and everyone — who uses streets and arterials (including the capital allocation for building and maintaining those routes).
Nor can one in transportation planning observe certain economic hard walls and dismiss them, blithely, as a “cultural commentary” (that was precious, by the way!) and, thus, will them into not really being there or treat them as inconsequential and irrelevant.
Just because one declines to see — or believes to decline seeing — the wall they’re about to slam into doesn’t, automagically, avoid the impact, nor the pain from hitting it. A good planner must be a knowledge generalist in order to grasp the big picture they’re trying to manage and/or solve — something an AV-evangelist in Silicon Valley demonstrates themselves as something they’re not.
Uh, from north of the 49th, even we’re aware the U.S. federal government passed means, like in the past two or so years, to apportion considerable funding for physical infrastructure — namely, repairing/replacing bridges and roads.
Every state gets funds to those capital projects, no matter how “poor” or “rich” those states happen to be. No, this doesn’t mean a direct hand in hiring construction workers by your federal government, but this does mean all states now have the financial instruments to overhaul their road infrastructure — a tool they had lacked prior to when that infrastructure act was passed and signed into law.
We have no such analogue here.
Heck, even the costs of upgrading existing roads for EVs — and the frequency for maintaining upkeep on those roads — in absence of a decline in quantity of vehicles to use that road in a day (or year), are going to climb.
That alone comes down to, in general, much higher tare (empty) weights of EVs over their ICE counterparts, when all other physical dimensions of the vehicle stay the same. Making EVs smaller, though unpopular right now with consumers, will be one way to reduce the wear and tear on paved infrastructure as the balance of motor vehicles on roads tips toward EVs as the dominant motivator.
So that’s a lit signpost for a pit stop we can now see just peeking over the horizon, even if it’s still a couple of exits away. We should check, proverbially, our fuel/energy reserves before passing it by.
This is because as a bona fide start-up (by definition, start-ups are “hungry” and strive to be scrappy), Tesla’s Roadster development years, which preceded the current skipper’s involvement, turned to off-the-shelf components to make the Roadster come to be.
Most importantly, the amount of money not spent on devising a completely new platform/frame for the Roadster was possible because another company, Lotus, already did that work for them, for their own product (not unlike how, say, Lotus save money by relying on other manufacturers like Toyota or GM to supply the ICE powering their models).
This left a fledgling Tesla to concentrate on both drivetrain and, finally, coachwork — both being far less costly to deal with in the development of a motor vehicle. This is something subsequent EV start-ups, like Rivian and Karma (or, as Fisker-Karma originally), didn’t have the means to do: they have had to create their frames/platforms from scratch, and those costs are far from insubstantial.
Revenue and additional investor funding for Tesla, arising from the Roadster, afforded Tesla the financial means to develop the platform/frame upon which all subsequent automotive models they produce are based.
I'd argue that passenger cars are not a major source of road wear like tractor trailers are. First link on search for road wear passenger cars vs trailers... https://www.trucking.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/Analysis of car and truck pavement impacts-FINAL.pdf
EDIT: this is for the US roads, can't speak on other countries
Correct, but up to a point: trends based on past data on road wear are predicated on passenger/private motor vehicles the size of a family sedan/saloon crossover-equivalent not leaping upward by an order of weight class which puts them in the camp of, say, a Ford Excursion 25 years ago.
Unless one accounts for the increased per-unit mass, extended to millions of such units moving over the same patch of road, then relying on past data only gets one partway to seeing the big picture whilst looking ahead. This is why some passageways, like bridges, have a gross weight cap on what can cross it safely: vehicular weight, more than frequency of the vehicles using it, can outstrip the weight for which it was engineered to accommodate.
Meanwhile, neither the quantity of tractor-trailer vehicles nor their weight classes have changed much during that time, so those data are, largely, unchanged (and predictable over time). They’re also regulated heavily by weight class.
Put another way: remember the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, as multiple ICE cars and a few tractor-trailers were all atop it, moving slowly, in 6pm rush-hour traffic? Now kick up the quantity of passenger vehicles whose tare weights are an order higher for the same physical dimensions (whose dimensions tend to dictate how they’re classified, marketed, and sold). Expect more bridges to buckle, even fail, from being unable to cope with that much more total weight than for what they were designed to cope — and this is key — at time of new-build construction. Now account for decades of wear, tear, and environmental degradation.
Expect more single points of failure with roads and bridges as ICE vehicles are overtaken by EVs as a dominant mode of vehicular conveyance, assuming consumers don’t downsize the class of vehicle to match or trim down from their last ICE vehicle. With Americans, at least, this is highly unlikely unless external conditions make it a fundamental necessity.
That’s unfortunate.
You ought to take some time and look into how other countries and economic zones do things to better understand why things exist in the U.S. as they do. This includes economic zones inside which the U.S. are one of the partners, such as USMCA (fka., NAFTA). Vehicular regulations around weight, signalling, emissions, crash performance, and so on, for example, are no longer as localized as they were in 1970 or even 1990. It would do one well to open one’s perspective beyond one’s borders to better understand bigger-picture questions.
I would also like to point out that not all EVs weigh (much) more than their ICE counter part. I know the Model 3 weighs about as much as the equivalent BMW 3 series (ICE). Mercedes EQ line weighs about the same as their ICE counterparts (even within Mercedes IIRC).
When it comes to trucks and SUV's is where things get fuzzy with regards to weight.
I should look into how other countries classify vehicles, thanks for the recommendation.
Given sales trends away from traditional cars (i.e., the “three-box”) toward crossovers and SUVs, at the same time tare (curb) weights for new vehicles sold have increased, relying on “the Model 3 and the BMW 3-series” as your metric is not instructive, and it’s also missing the much bigger picture.
Sticking with “same form factor, same model, different motors”, why don’t we try for a 1:1 comparison. A good example: the Ford F-150 pickup truck. It’s a common vehicle. Many are sold and used. The tare (curb) weight, on a current model year, with ICE, is 2,194kg (or, 4,838 freedom kilos). The same on the EV variant: 2,728kg (6,015 freedom kilos).
At least in Canada (whose transportation regulations virtually always follow U.S. DOT and NHTSA regulations), this moves the EV variant to a different weight class — from a “light light duty truck” to a “heavy light duty truck”.
Now, carry this over to all vehicles purchased to replace their ICE forebears, given consumer preference for bigger and heavier models.
For all practical intents, from the non-commercial consumer’s vantage, SUVs, crossovers, and “cars” are self-same in their interchangeability and open equally for consideration in their lives. The consumption preference trend toward the larger end — the SUVs and crossovers (over saloons/sedans and estates/wagons) — coupled with making more of those as all-EV, doesn’t obviate this core point: private-owner vehicles are getting heavier, and carried out to the millions in use, wears down infrastructure quicker. Most major automotive makers have entirely eliminated cars from their line-up in the North American market, reserving the handful left to curious niche specialities like “““muscle””” cars.
For those in, say, hot-climate states, think about the increase in those sunken asphalt ruts on heavily-travelled highways. Think about the quickened crumbling of limestone-based concrete-paved roads and highways. That’s what cumulative weight wear accelerates.
And that — the transportation infrastructure — cannot be omitted or elided over when discussing the quantity (and of what type) vehicles are using them. This goes for EVs. This goes for AVs. This goes for all motor vehicles.
👍
Check again.
It most certainly does. The base default for the F-150 ICE on that page — a two-door, two-wheel drive model without larger cab — displays a curb weight of 4,300fk/lbs. Selecting the same 4-door, four-wheel drive size set to default for the EV variant, displays 4,838fk/lbs.
Unlike a manufacturer, there is no reason why a consumer magazine would fib on a vehicle’s basic specifications, much as there’s no reason why Linus Tech Tips would fib on a computer’s specifications.
Interesting, I went back and yeah the numbers do change (the weight actually changes for the Lightning as well).
I looked at the EQS vs S-Class and the EQS weights 1000 pounds more than the S-Class so maybe they are farther apart than I recalled them being. Same for BMW (looks like the i-Series is within 900 pounds of the equivalent #-Series).
I mean, if you want to talk about the U.S. only, as you brought up earlier, then discussing executive-class Mercedes and BMW cars is an inconsequential exercise. Why? Most in the U.S. (or Canada, for that matter) who buy, own, and/or drive a car for daily use, aren’t buying executive-class vehicles from Germany or, for that matter, anywhere.
If you want meaningful data on infrastructure impact, focus instead on the quantity and frequency of heavier, commonly used EVs, having replaced ICE antecedents (of comparable or smaller mass). Common increases across unit-based mass (that is: weight per everyday vehicle) is what wears down roads and bridges more quickly in statistically significant numbers. Or, going back to the I-35W bridge example: 40 stuck cars in rush hour traffic, all weighing up to 25 per cent more versus (equal or smaller) ICE predecessors, put up to 25 per cent more weight stress on load-bearing components of that bridge (however old or new it is, and whichever method the bridge was engineered and built).
In the US that would be SUV's and trucks. I'm not a big fan of either, personally so I tend to gravitate towards talking Sedans. Sticking with BMW/Mercedes is because that is the price class Tesla initially targeted, probably the same price class Apple would have targeted had they come out with a vehicle.
States in the US need to start taxing vehicles by weight and miles driven, instead of relying on a never changing gas tax, or doing some weird calculations for EV's that don't quite work right for states that get a lot of "external" traffic (as in I live in NC and work in VA so most of my miles driven are in VA that gets no fuel or EV taxes from me for road maintenance). Heck I don't even charge in VA so they can't even get me on electricity costs.
States in the US need to start taxing vehicles by weight and miles driven, instead of relying on a never changing gas tax, or doing some weird calculations for EV's that don't quite work right for states that get a lot of "external" traffic (as in I live in NC and work in VA so most of my miles driven are in VA that gets no fuel or EV taxes from me for road maintenance). Heck I don't even charge in VA so they can't even get me on electricity costs.
Fortunately, states (and provinces) considering taxes on tare/curb mass (and even dimensions) is not without precedent, as several nations and regions outside the U.S. do just that. It’s not something with which Americans (or Canadians) are terribly familiar, so the transition away from, say, consumption taxes, such as a tax on each litre/gallon of petroleum products, will require some readjustment (especially as the costs will end up being lump-sum, per annum).
The most obvious example of registration fees indexed to size/mass/power is Japan, as tiered distinctions between weight/size class is most evident with the kei car models designed and sold for its domestic market: size, mass, and total output dictate the cost of registration. Age, after a threshold, also have an impact on registration costs.
Instead of endlessly discussing ins and outs of (self-driving) cars, even bickering about semantics, perhaps we should try to find common ground what an Apple Car ought to have been about. I'll kick off:
1. An Apple Car can't be "yet another car"; more experienced companies are already good at that
2. Cars can't be ignored; except for becoming less efficient (traffic etc.), they give pleasure and practicality to their users
3. However I do agree that car culture goes at the expense of public transportation (PT)
4. "Funny enough" fully autonomous cars, particularly in a robo taxi capacity, are as close as you can get to PT...
5. But then, what's the point of owning them?
6. Perhaps when/if demands can be fulfilled that so far haven't been met?
7. Remember: one specific type of vehicle needn't be to everyone's taste; convincing 1 in 900 prospective car buyers is enough to have a viable business model
Interesting in this respect is this:
I made up my mind years ago what an Apple Car can be about.
Already received recognition for this at NAIAS, on a separate occassion by Fisita, on one occasion even by NASA.
The problem is: Apple "doesn't do 3rd party IP". Maybe for next time...
1. An Apple Car can't be "yet another car"; more experienced companies are already good at that
2. Cars can't be ignored; except for becoming less efficient (traffic etc.), they give pleasure and practicality to their users
3. However I do agree that car culture goes at the expense of public transportation (PT)
4. "Funny enough" fully autonomous cars, particularly in a robo taxi capacity, are as close as you can get to PT...
5. But then, what's the point of owning them?
6. Perhaps when/if demands can be fulfilled that so far haven't been met?
7. Remember: one specific type of vehicle needn't be to everyone's taste; convincing 1 in 900 prospective car buyers is enough to have a viable business model
Interesting in this respect is this:
These two models give a glimpse into the abandoned Apple Car designs
"With Apple originally aiming for Level 5 autonomy – with no steering wheels or pedals – the main designs created within the company were less sportscar and more minivan"
I made up my mind years ago what an Apple Car can be about.
Already received recognition for this at NAIAS, on a separate occassion by Fisita, on one occasion even by NASA.
The problem is: Apple "doesn't do 3rd party IP". Maybe for next time...
OK.
Yes, because car drivers really enjoy being stuck in their cars and stuck in the middle of traffic, where other car drivers are really enjoying being stuck in their cars and stuck in the middle of traffic. And then, invariably and daily, they get testy with one another. Then some person on the internet compiles footage of these moments on YT and monetizes all of it.
This isn’t to say there’s not a place for a private vehicle. But increasingly, one can procure a private vehicle on an as-needed basis, without needing to own one, two, or four.
It goes against much more than public transit. It goes against public safety. It goes against the viability of native animals in habitats where roads cut through them. It goes against sociability between people within public realms.
No, it really isn’t, not even in a Canoo — unless, that is, you’re advocating for an expansion of inadequate, poor land-use at a time when that’s the last thing cities need for continued survival. Try, instead, for bus rapid transit, or BRT. It’s a low-cost and effective means for moving people quickly from and to distal locations without the paradox of widening roads, only for those roads to get congested once again, until the roads end up being greater than 20 lanes wide.
You’re getting closer. Keep exploring this path specifically!
Moving people efficiently is where strong public transit planning comes into play, knowing the people-per-hour rates of a particular corridor, as there are thresholds beyond which a means of conveyance must be upgraded to accommodate the demand.
Personal ownership of a private vehicle will, over time, return to being an optional for many, not a necessity, as more people recognize the futility of shoving everyone into personal vehicles for most movements between points A and B.
I’ve disclosed my background of qualification as an urbanist.
What, may I ask, is your background of qualification in this discussion?
Interesting in this respect is this:
These two models give a glimpse into the abandoned Apple Car designs
"With Apple originally aiming for Level 5 autonomy – with no steering wheels or pedals – the main designs created within the company were less sportscar and more minivan"
Oh. Look. A Canoo. 🤦♀️
Last edited: