Author Topic: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?  (Read 45485 times)

okonumiyaki

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2015, 09:27:40 PM »
I refer the OP to George Best's quote

"I spent alot of money on booze, birds and fast cars.  The rest I just squandered"


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #51 on: August 12, 2015, 06:18:04 AM »
I wonder if the OP put any thought into this thread before assuming that because he has no need for a truck, no one has need for a truck.

What will farmers use to tow equipment and hay? What will construction workers use to transport equipment and materials? What about people who own boats? 5th wheels and travel trailers?

I am 27 and drive a $60k truck. A truck I use to tow my 5th wheel I live full time in. How else would I do it?

Oh yeah.. And my $1000 truck payment constitutes less than 7% of my take home pay each month right now. Most my coworkers are the same with their nice trucks.

Great assumptions though.

If most of your coworkers live in a trailer attached to their truck, then kudos to them.  If most of them are blowing 7% of their take home pay each month on a truck, they're being pretty shockingly wasteful.

My experience has been that the bulk of new truck sales to men are not made to hard working farmers, construction workers who use the truck on the job, or to tow their full time homes.  Rather they're made by insecure guys to broadcast to the world a particularly unfortunate penis size and confidence level.  These men are absolutely making a dumb purchase.


AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1992
  • Age: 41
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #53 on: August 12, 2015, 09:18:53 AM »
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/google-will-no-longer-build-driverless-cars/

Head line is a bit (read-massively) misleading, Google is splitting things up not liquidating the side projects.

frompa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Location: Pennsylvania
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2015, 11:21:25 AM »
I'm finding the subtextual "discussion" about the purported negative impact of cyclists on the streets to be both sad and annoying as shit.  Having returned from a few weeks in Denmark, where the cyclists are ordinary, respected commuters, where car drivers (most of whom are also cyclists) are taught to  and do interact calmly and safely with cyclists and pedestrians, and where I seldom heard even a car honk although I was in the three biggest cities, now that I am returned home I am sick and tired of having to feel embattled about cycling to get around.  We cyclists are sane and good for any community, in a host of ways.  If vehicle drivers were carrying the full cost of their vehicle driving, including road maintenance, parking spaces, the death, dismemberment, and disability that we in this country are trained to accept as a cost of getting around, as well as the immense impact on the environment, few people could afford to drive.  I suspect we have the system we have because there's much more money to be made on everyone by forcing us to drive vehicles than by creating conditions that favor cycling.  Read the history of the transportation system in this country.  Even though the mega corporations of the time (ie. conglomerates and United Cities Motor Transit and National City Lines in the 30's - 50s) were found to have acted as illegal monopolies in their systematic dismantling of the local transit systems all over the country, they still made tons of money by paying their fines and continuing to replace transit with individual car driving, putting in place this crazy system we have now. Any body who thinks cars as primary is the natural default setting of modern transportation hasn't considered the whole picture. 

Wow, quite a rant.  I promise that on my bike ride home today, if a single car driver gets aggressive or honks at me, I will give him the middle finger greeting he richly deserves, in further honor of this rant, and continue to cycle off into the sunset.   

DeltaBond

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Location: U.S.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2015, 11:28:58 AM »
I'm finding the subtextual "discussion" about the purported negative impact of cyclists on the streets to be both sad and annoying as shit.  Having returned from a few weeks in Denmark, where the cyclists are ordinary, respected commuters, where car drivers (most of whom are also cyclists) are taught to  and do interact calmly and safely with cyclists and pedestrians, and where I seldom heard even a car honk although I was in the three biggest cities, now that I am returned home I am sick and tired of having to feel embattled about cycling to get around.  We cyclists are sane and good for any community, in a host of ways.  If vehicle drivers were carrying the full cost of their vehicle driving, including road maintenance, parking spaces, the death, dismemberment, and disability that we in this country are trained to accept as a cost of getting around, as well as the immense impact on the environment, few people could afford to drive.  I suspect we have the system we have because there's much more money to be made on everyone by forcing us to drive vehicles than by creating conditions that favor cycling.  Read the history of the transportation system in this country.  Even though the mega corporations of the time (ie. conglomerates and United Cities Motor Transit and National City Lines in the 30's - 50s) were found to have acted as illegal monopolies in their systematic dismantling of the local transit systems all over the country, they still made tons of money by paying their fines and continuing to replace transit with individual car driving, putting in place this crazy system we have now. Any body who thinks cars as primary is the natural default setting of modern transportation hasn't considered the whole picture. 

Wow, quite a rant.  I promise that on my bike ride home today, if a single car driver gets aggressive or honks at me, I will give him the middle finger greeting he richly deserves, in further honor of this rant, and continue to cycle off into the sunset.   

I honked at a cyclist once to try and draw his attention to a car coming at him, in which the driver was distracted.  He turned and flipped me off and missed getting hit by about an inch.  Don't assume all honks are hostile.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2015, 11:42:43 AM »
While it may have been well intentioned, please in the future do not distract and draw the attention of a cyclist away from a dangerous situation by honking at him.  As you saw, it makes the situation more dangerous, not less.

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2015, 11:45:32 AM »
My personal truck sees a lot of use on the highway and on construction sites. Almost all of its use on sites is something that I doubt a computer would be able to do. I would need a function that allowed me to turn off the auto-drive while at work. How would you see that reconciling with your assumption?

To answer your question, just because cars become self driving doesn't mean people won't shell out tens of thousands for a ridiculous self-driving truck.

My assumption is that trucks will be used for things that you actually need trucks for, like construction, as you mention, or farming or even off-road recreation. I believe that the requirements to obtain a license to do these things will be much higher than our current systems: requiring one to be not blind, have a pulse/pass a very easy test, and be over 16.

However, commuting, which is what the vast, vast majority of trucks are used for in 2015 (and consequently the vast amount of deaths and cost and pollution) will not be allowed in my assumption.

uspsfanalan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #58 on: August 12, 2015, 11:48:46 AM »
Wow, quite a rant.  I promise that on my bike ride home today, if a single car driver gets aggressive or honks at me, I will give him the middle finger greeting he richly deserves, in further honor of this rant, and continue to cycle off into the sunset.   

Ha! Good rant, very true. But don't give the single finger solute to a potentially homicidal maniac. I'd hate for someone to act out on their road rage and give you a little bump or pull out a gun and shoot you. Something is seriously f'd up in American society when both of those things are entirely plausible outcomes just because someone wanted to ride a bike.

I don't see human driven cars being banned by the government. I see them being pushed out by the cost of insurance. If self driving cars almost never crash, but human drivers account for 95% of the collisions, insurance companies are going to appropriately charge sky high prices for non-self driving cars. Besides, while some people like to drive, most would gladly let the car do the work, so they have the time to relax or check facebook. I know I'd never drive if the car would do it for me.

DeltaBond

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Location: U.S.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #59 on: August 12, 2015, 11:53:41 AM »
While it may have been well intentioned, please in the future do not distract and draw the attention of a cyclist away from a dangerous situation by honking at him.  As you saw, it makes the situation more dangerous, not less.

Could have also drawn attention to the car he wasn't seeing... I won't hold back in the future.  Also, when you hire someone to do repairs to your home, or deliver something you can't haul yourself, notice what they're driving.

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2015, 12:00:10 PM »
I'm finding the subtextual "discussion" about the purported negative impact of cyclists on the streets to be both sad and annoying as shit.  Having returned from a few weeks in Denmark, where the cyclists are ordinary, respected commuters, where car drivers (most of whom are also cyclists) are taught to  and do interact calmly and safely with cyclists and pedestrians, and where I seldom heard even a car honk although I was in the three biggest cities, now that I am returned home I am sick and tired of having to feel embattled about cycling to get around.  We cyclists are sane and good for any community, in a host of ways.  If vehicle drivers were carrying the full cost of their vehicle driving, including road maintenance, parking spaces, the death, dismemberment, and disability that we in this country are trained to accept as a cost of getting around, as well as the immense impact on the environment, few people could afford to drive.  I suspect we have the system we have because there's much more money to be made on everyone by forcing us to drive vehicles than by creating conditions that favor cycling.  Read the history of the transportation system in this country.  Even though the mega corporations of the time (ie. conglomerates and United Cities Motor Transit and National City Lines in the 30's - 50s) were found to have acted as illegal monopolies in their systematic dismantling of the local transit systems all over the country, they still made tons of money by paying their fines and continuing to replace transit with individual car driving, putting in place this crazy system we have now. Any body who thinks cars as primary is the natural default setting of modern transportation hasn't considered the whole picture. 

Wow, quite a rant.  I promise that on my bike ride home today, if a single car driver gets aggressive or honks at me, I will give him the middle finger greeting he richly deserves, in further honor of this rant, and continue to cycle off into the sunset.   

Good rant. I would like to learn more about transportation history. Do you know of any good books/online resources where I could learn more.

uspsfanalan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2015, 12:12:06 PM »
While it may have been well intentioned, please in the future do not distract and draw the attention of a cyclist away from a dangerous situation by honking at him.  As you saw, it makes the situation more dangerous, not less.

Could have also drawn attention to the car he wasn't seeing... I won't hold back in the future.  Also, when you hire someone to do repairs to your home, or deliver something you can't haul yourself, notice what they're driving.

People look where the honk is coming from. The only person that should have honked might have been the other driver. Better yet, the driver should have just slowed down and it wouldn't be an issue. Courtesy goes a long way.

95% of honks cyclists get are angry, get the fuck out of my way, honks. They're meant to intimidate. The best thing a cyclist can do is ignore honking and focus on being alert, take the full lane and try to choose a route with as little congestion as possible.

"I won't hold back in the future" - Good for you, I hope you feel like a man now. Pretty wimpy to use a 3000 lb vehicle to try to intimidate someone on a 30 lb bike. Cowardice in the utmost. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2015, 12:27:58 PM »
While it may have been well intentioned, please in the future do not distract and draw the attention of a cyclist away from a dangerous situation by honking at him.  As you saw, it makes the situation more dangerous, not less.

Could have also drawn attention to the car he wasn't seeing... I won't hold back in the future.  Also, when you hire someone to do repairs to your home, or deliver something you can't haul yourself, notice what they're driving.

Do you cycle on the road much?  I ask because I do, and I also drive regularly.  This has given me perhaps a better perspective on the scenario you described.

The honking you did made the situation more dangerous by distracting the cyclist.  Upon hearing a loud and unexpected noise it's natural to look towards the source of the sound.  Unless the distracted driver you're talking about was directly between you and the cyclist, there's little chance that what you did would help the situation.

It's an understandable mistake to make once, but purposely choosing to do this after it has been explained why it's a bad idea seems to indicate that your true purpose in honking is to intimidate, not help.

frompa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Location: Pennsylvania
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2015, 02:06:58 PM »


Good rant. I would like to learn more about transportation history. Do you know of any good books/online resources where I could learn more.

I recall reading the anti-trust cases years ago when I studied law, and I've read various versions of the systematic dismantling of the train/trolley system in a number of books about urban planning.  One book that I came across years ago, and is obviously biased, but in the same way as I trend, was DIVORCE YOUR CAR, by Katie Alvord. This was an enjoyable read, most especially when the author explained early on that in real life she was divorced and remained on very friendly terms with her former husband, and that described her ongoing relationship with private car use, as well -- she did not go for all or nothing.  I'm sure there are plenty of on-line sources for this same info.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #64 on: August 12, 2015, 02:19:04 PM »
While it may have been well intentioned, please in the future do not distract and draw the attention of a cyclist away from a dangerous situation by honking at him.  As you saw, it makes the situation more dangerous, not less.

Could have also drawn attention to the car he wasn't seeing... I won't hold back in the future. 

As a cyclist (and motorist), I can confirm that getting honked at is distracting and is generally taken as a hostile act, no matter what the motivation of the honker is (because I can't know their intentions). I appreciate that you wanted to alert the cyclist to a danger, but unfortunately, honking is not an effective way to convey, "Hey, watch out for that other guy."

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1992
  • Age: 41
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2015, 02:58:36 PM »
While it may have been well intentioned, please in the future do not distract and draw the attention of a cyclist away from a dangerous situation by honking at him.  As you saw, it makes the situation more dangerous, not less.

Could have also drawn attention to the car he wasn't seeing... I won't hold back in the future. 

As a cyclist (and motorist), I can confirm that getting honked at is distracting and is generally taken as a hostile act, no matter what the motivation of the honker is (because I can't know their intentions). I appreciate that you wanted to alert the cyclist to a danger, but unfortunately, honking is not an effective way to convey, "Hey, watch out for that other guy."

I had a guy tell me that he honked at me to alert me that he was there and about to pass me.  They were holding at 20ft behind me when they honked and it scared the shit out of me.  Internal combustion is not that quite, I totally heard them before and how I was to divine "Caution my friend, I am about to pass you on your left" from "HONK!!!!!!"

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2015, 05:08:41 PM »
My assumption is that trucks will be used for things that you actually need trucks for, like construction, as you mention, or farming or even off-road recreation. I believe that the requirements to obtain a license to do these things will be much higher than our current systems: requiring one to be not blind, have a pulse/pass a very easy test, and be over 16.

However, commuting, which is what the vast, vast majority of trucks are used for in 2015 (and consequently the vast amount of deaths and cost and pollution) will not be allowed in my assumption.

You do make a lot of assumptions. I used to own a truck I commuted with...and then on the weekends I built decks and fences, and renovated my house. I only needed one vehicle, but I also needed a truck.

I have friends who commute to work in large trucks...and they also need their trucks to haul their camper or utility trailers.

lbmustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 930
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #67 on: August 12, 2015, 05:31:02 PM »
My assumption is that trucks will be used for things that you actually need trucks for, like construction, as you mention, or farming or even off-road recreation. I believe that the requirements to obtain a license to do these things will be much higher than our current systems: requiring one to be not blind, have a pulse/pass a very easy test, and be over 16.

However, commuting, which is what the vast, vast majority of trucks are used for in 2015 (and consequently the vast amount of deaths and cost and pollution) will not be allowed in my assumption.

You do make a lot of assumptions. I used to own a truck I commuted with...and then on the weekends I built decks and fences, and renovated my house. I only needed one vehicle, but I also needed a truck.

I have friends who commute to work in large trucks...and they also need their trucks to haul their camper or utility trailers.

Well I think the poster is going back to MMM's post. If you need one vehicle, and use a truck often, then it makes sense. But then you have the people who tow something once a year and use a truck to commute every day. That doesn't make sense. Rent a truck if you need to tow something 2-3x a year.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2099
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #68 on: August 12, 2015, 05:33:04 PM »
My personal truck sees a lot of use on the highway and on construction sites. Almost all of its use on sites is something that I doubt a computer would be able to do. I would need a function that allowed me to turn off the auto-drive while at work. How would you see that reconciling with your assumption?

To answer your question, just because cars become self driving doesn't mean people won't shell out tens of thousands for a ridiculous self-driving truck.

My assumption is that trucks will be used for things that you actually need trucks for, like construction, as you mention, or farming or even off-road recreation. I believe that the requirements to obtain a license to do these things will be much higher than our current systems: requiring one to be not blind, have a pulse/pass a very easy test, and be over 16.

However, commuting, which is what the vast, vast majority of trucks are used for in 2015 (and consequently the vast amount of deaths and cost and pollution) will not be allowed in my assumption.

So what your saying is that people who need trucks occasionally, should have more mustachian cars when they aren't towing?

So a truck AND a car is more economic than just a truck?

Hmm..

Either way, the point of the forum isn't for everyone to be on the same level of "mustachianism" as everyone else, but simply improve their financial situations and meet their goals. If someone wants to drive a truck, let them drive a truck. No different than people going to concerts, or traveling, or anything else that others may not hold a high priority on.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't drive my truck if I didn't NEED it to tow my trailer, but it is what it is. Where do we draw the line?

I live in a 40'x8' 5th wheel full time, but you won't see me coming on here bashing people with houses and "extra" room about being wasteful and having more room than they "need." Then again, i can look outside my own box.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 06:18:25 PM by Trixr606 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #69 on: August 12, 2015, 05:49:18 PM »
As has been stated, if you have a legitimate reason to use a truck regularly . . . cool.  For the person who maybe helps a buddy move every other year, and hauls a boat somewhere once a summer owning a truck for regular use is silly.  For those people, trucks are dumb purchases.  There are a lot of those people.

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #70 on: August 12, 2015, 07:45:17 PM »
My personal truck sees a lot of use on the highway and on construction sites. Almost all of its use on sites is something that I doubt a computer would be able to do. I would need a function that allowed me to turn off the auto-drive while at work. How would you see that reconciling with your assumption?

To answer your question, just because cars become self driving doesn't mean people won't shell out tens of thousands for a ridiculous self-driving truck.

My assumption is that trucks will be used for things that you actually need trucks for, like construction, as you mention, or farming or even off-road recreation. I believe that the requirements to obtain a license to do these things will be much higher than our current systems: requiring one to be not blind, have a pulse/pass a very easy test, and be over 16.

However, commuting, which is what the vast, vast majority of trucks are used for in 2015 (and consequently the vast amount of deaths and cost and pollution) will not be allowed in my assumption.

So what your saying is that people who need trucks occasionally, should have more mustachian cars when they aren't towing?

So a truck AND a car is more economic than just a truck?

Hmm..

Either way, the point of the forum isn't for everyone to be on the same level of "mustachianism" as everyone else, but simply improve their financial situations and meet their goals. If someone wants to drive a truck, let them drive a truck. No different than people going to concerts, or traveling, or anything else that others may not hold a high priority on.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't drive my truck if I didn't NEED it to tow my trailer, but it is what it is. Where do we draw the line?

I live in a 40'x8' 5th wheel full time, but you won't see me coming on here bashing people with houses and "extra" room about being wasteful and having more room than they "need." Then again, i can look outside my own box.

I get my viewpoint from all (and I mean hundreds) of big worthless jacked up trucks that are solely purchased because the driver think it makes them big and cool (I actually don't know exactly what they are thinking). Aside from construction company trucks, I see no trucks pulling trailers or carrying a load justifying a truck.  I also notice that these trucks are often parked outside of homes in poor areas and outside of cheap apartment complexes, residences of the working poor. It is not only mildly amusing to me but also somewhat sad that these folks could probably find a better, safer living situation for their families (or even send their kids to college) if they were not blowing their entire paycheck on maintaining an ego-support vehicle.

I recognize that trucks sometimes (albeit rarely) can be justified based on productive (and even recreational) use. However, this is rarely the case where I live.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #71 on: August 12, 2015, 07:59:54 PM »
Of course there will be Uber Basic, Uber Prime and Uber Ultra.   

It's actually called Uber Black.

firewalker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #72 on: August 12, 2015, 08:50:33 PM »
A self driving truck. I want one! That way, when someone borrows it, I can get it back whenever I want. Even if their stuff is still in the bed!

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2015, 09:07:46 PM »
Lots of people with trucks aren't spending 10's of thousands of $$s either. Many people (like me) have older trucks (2001 Ford Ranger)that were bought used long ago very cheaply and are used for work or, in my case, recreation (camping, hauling the mountain bikes, the kayaks, the dogs, etc..).  I doubt a self-driving EV car will be able to do that for me on a long cross country trip for months at a time.  While I don't drive it too much except for longer trips, I ride my bike around town, I find that doing without one would seriously cramp my lifestyle. Of course I really don't see a need to go out and buy a 2016 behemoth truck with a big V-8 to haul around most anything that needs to be hauled even in most work situations, but I do see a need for some people to drive trucks. Especially small trucks.

I bought a 6-year old Dodge Dakota and kept it 5 years. It wasn't great on gas, but when you only spend $800 a year on fuel, who cares? I have friends with cabins so I always had a comfortable bed if bedrooms were scarce....I would put a "real" mattress in back instead of an air mattress. The cap could be removed or put on by one person in 5 minutes depending on the need. I was renovating my house and always running to the home centre. I could have saved on fuel, but at great inconvenience.

It was also my daily commuter. Many people only saw me driving it to work and may have assumed I just "hauled air" in the back, but they never saw the Home Depot trips, or the nights that I slept in the back in comfort, or when I saved on a delivery charge, etc.

For those who drive low miles, a truck only has to be used as a "truck" 8 or 10 times a year to pay for itself...assuming of course, that the equivalent amount is spent on a different vehicle.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #74 on: August 13, 2015, 03:06:24 AM »
"Uber" ain't going to replace personal cars (or trucks) anytime soon.

Unless your "self driving Uber" car is available to me within 30 seconds of the time I'm ready to go, and CHEAP, I ain't interested.  Nor am I interested in having to find/hail another "Uber" car on the way back.

Uber is fine for tourists and inner city dwellers who don't want/need a car.  A great alternative to regular cabs.  But for day to day use, it's a non starter for most Americans.

I'll keep driving my truck.  Maybe in the future, I'll have my own self driving truck. 

You can screw around with your "Uber."  At this point, I'm not interested.

I'll just keep driving my "dumb purchase" (a big 'ol truck) even if you don't approve.

I'm a well educated, successful, free adult citizen and a multi-millionaire, and I really don't think I need your approval for what I drive.

I already have a mother, I don't need you to replace her
« Last Edit: August 13, 2015, 03:11:25 AM by libertarian4321 »

birdman2003

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Location: Iowa
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #75 on: August 13, 2015, 04:47:07 AM »
Tomorrow I'm buying 800lbs of chicken feed.

Last week I purchased several tons of hay, and I still need to get at minimum, 150 more bales of hay for my livestock (they run about 120lbs per bale).

I'll be moving that hay on a 21ft flatbed trailer...the same one I use to haul my tractor around...and I assure you: I will not be pulling it with a bicycle. When Costco comes out with their firewood in pallets next month, I will move 2.5 cords of hardwood on that flatbed. (five of those full pallets)

I will not be acquiring a self driving car. Ever. For a multitude of reasons, but the primary one is that turning every single thing over to technology is a wonderful thing: until it breaks down.

Example: elevators have had sensors on them for decades, by law, that prevent them from slamming someone with a closing door. Awesome.

Except for the woman who got in one at JC Penny's (I think, can't recall the article exactly) in Anchorage, Alaska years ago and was literally torn apart when the doors slammed onto her leg, locked, and dragged her (inside the elevator) up a few floors: while her leg stayed down on the ground floor.

Because she 'depended' on that technology, she didn't take the common sense precaution of boarding safely.

Current big thing in cars is "side collision alert" and other buzzing crap to warn you that there are people in the other lanes.

Or....you could just turn your head, and look out the window. Because that window system? It's not ever going to fail. Or have a sensor go bad. Or require a part.


To answer your question: people will buy more bling. More crap that they don't need. A walk in humidifier for your imported cigars that speaks French so you can store and electronically sort your wine in part of it: in filigree silver with inset rubies? Who can resist?

A brain implant for your cell phone so you only have to wink once to call home to Grandma? Perfect.

Don't sign me up.

+1

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2015, 07:03:40 AM »
"Uber" ain't going to replace personal cars (or trucks) anytime soon.

Unless your "self driving Uber" car is available to me within 30 seconds of the time I'm ready to go, and CHEAP, I ain't interested.  Nor am I interested in having to find/hail another "Uber" car on the way back.

Uber is fine for tourists and inner city dwellers who don't want/need a car.  A great alternative to regular cabs.  But for day to day use, it's a non starter for most Americans.

That is the point. Self-driving Uber cars have the potential to be extremely convenient (pick up in 30 seconds or less) in urban (including smallish cities) and suburban environments. It would be difficult to pull this off in rural-dom. 

Also, this idea could be super, super cheap compared to personal car ownership, probably even cheaper than city buses are now.  If they are small, which they should be, and electric (they will be), including capital expenditures and maintenance, I would bet that companies could charge 10-15 cents per mile with a decent margin.  These are some back of the envelope estimates so who knows exactly. 

All I know is that as soon as I identify a company that can scale a project like this, I am going to buy massive quantities of this company precisely because it would be so much more economical for people than the current state of personal car ownership. It would be an unbelievable value proposition for basically everyone, factoring cost and convenience.

I'll keep driving my truck.  Maybe in the future, I'll have my own self driving truck. 

You can screw around with your "Uber."  At this point, I'm not interested.

I'll just keep driving my "dumb purchase" (a big 'ol truck) even if you don't approve.

I'm a well educated, successful, free adult citizen and a multi-millionaire, and I really don't think I need your approval for what I drive.

I already have a mother, I don't need you to replace her

I really like speculating about the future.  I bet there will be an option for millionaires like yourself to purchase your very own self driving truck with 30 inches of clearance and even speakers that make the muffler noises despite it being an electric vehicle.   

Sorry, I had to go there because it is funny to me: in my world of no car driving and seeing these trucks rev their engines for no apparent reason other than that makes them feel more manly? I'm not saying this is you, just a common observation.

I believe in freedom, just like you do Mr. Libertarian,  I just believe that people's freedom to swing their arms has to be limited as soon as it smacks others in the face. Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.   Of course, self-driving uber cars won't solve all of these problems. I just see the idea as a major opportunity to increase people's freedom, not limit it.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #77 on: August 13, 2015, 12:54:21 PM »
Also, this idea could be super, super cheap compared to personal car ownership, probably even cheaper than city buses are now.  If they are small, which they should be, and electric (they will be), including capital expenditures and maintenance, I would bet that companies could charge 10-15 cents per mile with a decent margin.  These are some back of the envelope estimates so who knows exactly. 


A self-driving version of a Tango would fit that bill easily...

http://www.commutercars.com/

Quote
I believe in freedom, just like you do Mr. Libertarian,  I just believe that people's freedom to swing their arms has to be limited as soon as it smacks others in the face.

Yeah, so do libertarians.  In fact, that pretty much sums up the libertarian position on just about everything.

Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #78 on: August 13, 2015, 01:36:22 PM »
Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

No, that's a myth.  You actually are smacking other people in the face with your truck.

Quote
*EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lower global warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with a fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon)—even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the “dirtiest” electricity grids.

*EVs charged entirely from renewable sources like wind and solar power produce virtually no global warming emissions.

*Nearly half of Americans (45%) live in the “best” regions where EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient gasoline hybrids on the market today (greater than 50 mpg).

*Another third (38%) live in “better” areas where EVs produce emissions comparable to the best gasoline hybrid vehicles (41 – 50 mpg).

*A minority (17%) reside in “good” regions where emissions from EVs are comparable to the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid gasoline vehicles (31 – 40 mpg)

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html


Quote
How far can you drive on the Kilowatt-hours used to refine a gallon of gasoline

It costs power to refine gasoline. I’ve seen figures claiming 3 kilowatt-hours, 4 kilowatt-hours, or even 6 kilowatt-hours to refine each gallon of gasoline (see [How much electricity is used refine a gallon of Gasoline?](/life-cycle/electricity-to-refine-gallon-gasoline.html)). How far will an electric car drive on the electricity required to refine a gallon of gasoline? How far will a gasoline car drive on that gasoline?

A gallon of gasoline could take a gas-powered car 30 miles or so depending on the car’s efficiency.

An electric car uses 340 watt-hours per mile (or so). Meaning:

3 kwh = 8.8 mi, 4 kwh = 11.76 mi, 6 kwh = 17.65 mi

In other words, if the electricity used to refine the gasoline were instead used to power a car, the car would go nearly as far.

http://longtailpipe.com/ebooks/green-transportation-guide-buying-owning-charging-plug-in-vehicles-of-all-kinds/gasoline-electricity-and-the-energy-to-move-transportation-systems/the-coal-powered-ev-myth-electricity-is-only-as-clean-as-the-method-to-generate-it/
« Last Edit: August 13, 2015, 01:38:03 PM by GuitarStv »

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #79 on: August 13, 2015, 02:46:01 PM »
I'm finding the subtextual "discussion" about the purported negative impact of cyclists on the streets to be both sad and annoying as shit.  Having returned from a few weeks in Denmark, where the cyclists are ordinary, respected commuters, where car drivers (most of whom are also cyclists) are taught to  and do interact calmly and safely with cyclists and pedestrians, and where I seldom heard even a car honk although I was in the three biggest cities, now that I am returned home I am sick and tired of having to feel embattled about cycling to get around.  We cyclists are sane and good for any community, in a host of ways.  If vehicle drivers were carrying the full cost of their vehicle driving, including road maintenance, parking spaces, the death, dismemberment, and disability that we in this country are trained to accept as a cost of getting around, as well as the immense impact on the environment, few people could afford to drive.  I suspect we have the system we have because there's much more money to be made on everyone by forcing us to drive vehicles than by creating conditions that favor cycling.  Read the history of the transportation system in this country.  Even though the mega corporations of the time (ie. conglomerates and United Cities Motor Transit and National City Lines in the 30's - 50s) were found to have acted as illegal monopolies in their systematic dismantling of the local transit systems all over the country, they still made tons of money by paying their fines and continuing to replace transit with individual car driving, putting in place this crazy system we have now. Any body who thinks cars as primary is the natural default setting of modern transportation hasn't considered the whole picture. 

Wow, quite a rant.  I promise that on my bike ride home today, if a single car driver gets aggressive or honks at me, I will give him the middle finger greeting he richly deserves, in further honor of this rant, and continue to cycle off into the sunset.   

Exactly what I was thinking...

I'm lucky to live in a very bike-friendly city by North American standards, but I've also spent time travelling by bike in the Netherlands and they put us to shame in regards to biking infrastructure as well as cooperation/respect between cyclists and drivers.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #80 on: August 13, 2015, 03:49:18 PM »
Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

No, that's a myth.


Well, I don't give the Union of Concerned Scientists the level of faith that article implies, but it is good to know it's not as bad as it seems.  Particularly since I've seen coal plants in operation, and that is some truly destructive stuff.

Quote

 You actually are smacking other people in the face with your truck.


I don't own a truck, but I still think this is hyperbole.  Trucks do have a place in our economy, MMM's complaint with them is that they are often chosen for reasons other than work.  Your argument might have more validity when there is an electric alternative for real working trucks and vans in the market.

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #81 on: August 13, 2015, 04:02:50 PM »

Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

Are you denying that that motor vehicle fatalities exist? Is that non-sense?

Of course I am making a bit of a leap of faith that car fatalities will go to zero with self-driving cars but I have a strong feeling they will.  This is mainly based on my daily observation of incredibly careless driving (burrito in one hand, texting on cell phone in the other hand, while running red lights). There is no doubt in my mind that Google cars or other tech can do better.

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #82 on: August 13, 2015, 04:14:13 PM »
Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

No, that's a myth.


Well, I don't give the Union of Concerned Scientists the level of faith that article implies, but it is good to know it's not as bad as it seems.  Particularly since I've seen coal plants in operation, and that is some truly destructive stuff.

Quote

 You actually are smacking other people in the face with your truck.


I don't own a truck, but I still think this is hyperbole.  Trucks do have a place in our economy, MMM's complaint with them is that they are often chosen for reasons other than work.  Your argument might have more validity when there is an electric alternative for real working trucks and vans in the market.

I definitely think that most peoples qualms with trucks are limited to the people who drive them for the purposes of trying to demonstrate their masculinity (the larger the truck, the larger the qualm), not people who legitimately use them for work (on more than an occasion).  Most people use work as an excuse to own a truck but they could easily use as small car to make it to their job site where it is parked all day.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #83 on: August 13, 2015, 04:40:06 PM »

Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

Are you denying that that motor vehicle fatalities exist? Is that non-sense?

Of course I am making a bit of a leap of faith that car fatalities will go to zero with self-driving cars but I have a strong feeling they will.  This is mainly based on my daily observation of incredibly careless driving (burrito in one hand, texting on cell phone in the other hand, while running red lights). There is no doubt in my mind that Google cars or other tech can do better.

Impact fatalities are not what we are arguing here.  His claim is that trucks pollute so much more than electric cars, (at least, maybe even regular ICE cars) that 10's of thosands of people have died as a result.  I presume he means due to air quality related illnesses.

I completely agree that self driving vehicles will reduce impact fatalities significantly, but they will never drop to zero.  Even the engineers for Google's cars admit this, and have included code that actually makes a practical decision to reduce the human cost in a scenario that the computer cannot actually avoid an impact.  So if the machine has to swerve to avoid a biker on a wet street, but the other lane is occupied, the computer may decide to hit the biker to avoid a head on impact with another vehicle.  Basicly choosing a high degree of harm to one human to avoid harm to potentially more than one person (because the computer doesn't know how many people are in the oncoming car).

This also means that auto insurance would drop considerablely for self-driving cars as compared to human driven cars, which may or may not drive humans out of the driving business, but would be a huge economic incentive towards that end.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #84 on: August 13, 2015, 04:49:40 PM »
That is the point. Self-driving Uber cars have the potential to be extremely convenient (pick up in 30 seconds or less) in urban (including smallish cities) and suburban environments. It would be difficult to pull this off in rural-dom. 

Also, this idea could be super, super cheap compared to personal car ownership, probably even cheaper than city buses are now.  If they are small, which they should be, and electric (they will be), including capital expenditures and maintenance, I would bet that companies could charge 10-15 cents per mile with a decent margin.  These are some back of the envelope estimates so who knows exactly. 

All I know is that as soon as I identify a company that can scale a project like this, I am going to buy massive quantities of this company precisely because it would be so much more economical for people than the current state of personal car ownership. It would be an unbelievable value proposition for basically everyone, factoring cost and convenience.

I wouldn't even call those back of the envelope estimates as they are not based in any form of reality. Please share with us your numbers on how someone can run a car on 10 cents a mile as a business and still make a profit. Please don't forget to include maintenance, depreciation, salaries (after all, a business doesn't run itself), insurance, fuel, etc.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #85 on: August 13, 2015, 05:13:58 PM »
That is the point. Self-driving Uber cars have the potential to be extremely convenient (pick up in 30 seconds or less) in urban (including smallish cities) and suburban environments. It would be difficult to pull this off in rural-dom. 

Also, this idea could be super, super cheap compared to personal car ownership, probably even cheaper than city buses are now.  If they are small, which they should be, and electric (they will be), including capital expenditures and maintenance, I would bet that companies could charge 10-15 cents per mile with a decent margin.  These are some back of the envelope estimates so who knows exactly. 

All I know is that as soon as I identify a company that can scale a project like this, I am going to buy massive quantities of this company precisely because it would be so much more economical for people than the current state of personal car ownership. It would be an unbelievable value proposition for basically everyone, factoring cost and convenience.

I wouldn't even call those back of the envelope estimates as they are not based in any form of reality. Please share with us your numbers on how someone can run a car on 10 cents a mile as a business and still make a profit. Please don't forget to include maintenance, depreciation, salaries (after all, a business doesn't run itself), insurance, fuel, etc.

The maintenance of an all electric car would be lower than any internal combustion engine, in part, because they are honestly more simple machines with much fewer moving parts.  Depreciation is largely a function of the useful service life of the car, which is largely a factor of it's maintenance costs.  Insurance costs would be a comparative advantage towards automated vehicles anyway, and the costs of fuel/power could be much lower if the vehicle were designed smaller & lighter, which may be possible if the safety record of such machines makes air bags and crash frames redundant technology.  I can't see seat belts ever becoming redundant, simply because the automatic vehicle would depend upon them to keep the occupant in their seat during a maximum breaking event.  A vehicle designed for single occupant communting could be smaller still, to the point of basicly being an enclosed motorcycle.  The per mile cost of a small commuter motorcycle is already below 10 cents per mile in many situations, before any of these other optimizations were applied.  As for salaries, odds are high that such a company would have very low labor costs, consisting mostly of techs & mechanics who work on the vehicles when they are due for service.  Think about how Uber works now, the vast majority of the company's actual role is simply maintaining the software and network servers.  Once vehicles can reliablely drive themselves to a fare, even that much might not be necessary.  An auto-cab could be a self-contained business model, using Bitcoin's smart contracts, the machine itself could accept fares, pay for it's own gas/charging fees and pay the mechanic for regular service, or even repair, from it's own gross income.  All before any theoretical owner takes a cut, or even has to hear about it.

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #86 on: August 13, 2015, 07:36:25 PM »
That is the point. Self-driving Uber cars have the potential to be extremely convenient (pick up in 30 seconds or less) in urban (including smallish cities) and suburban environments. It would be difficult to pull this off in rural-dom. 

Also, this idea could be super, super cheap compared to personal car ownership, probably even cheaper than city buses are now.  If they are small, which they should be, and electric (they will be), including capital expenditures and maintenance, I would bet that companies could charge 10-15 cents per mile with a decent margin.  These are some back of the envelope estimates so who knows exactly. 

All I know is that as soon as I identify a company that can scale a project like this, I am going to buy massive quantities of this company precisely because it would be so much more economical for people than the current state of personal car ownership. It would be an unbelievable value proposition for basically everyone, factoring cost and convenience.

I wouldn't even call those back of the envelope estimates as they are not based in any form of reality. Please share with us your numbers on how someone can run a car on 10 cents a mile as a business and still make a profit. Please don't forget to include maintenance, depreciation, salaries (after all, a business doesn't run itself), insurance, fuel, etc.

The maintenance of an all electric car would be lower than any internal combustion engine, in part, because they are honestly more simple machines with much fewer moving parts.  Depreciation is largely a function of the useful service life of the car, which is largely a factor of it's maintenance costs.  Insurance costs would be a comparative advantage towards automated vehicles anyway, and the costs of fuel/power could be much lower if the vehicle were designed smaller & lighter, which may be possible if the safety record of such machines makes air bags and crash frames redundant technology.  I can't see seat belts ever becoming redundant, simply because the automatic vehicle would depend upon them to keep the occupant in their seat during a maximum breaking event.  A vehicle designed for single occupant communting could be smaller still, to the point of basicly being an enclosed motorcycle.  The per mile cost of a small commuter motorcycle is already below 10 cents per mile in many situations, before any of these other optimizations were applied.  As for salaries, odds are high that such a company would have very low labor costs, consisting mostly of techs & mechanics who work on the vehicles when they are due for service.  Think about how Uber works now, the vast majority of the company's actual role is simply maintaining the software and network servers.  Once vehicles can reliablely drive themselves to a fare, even that much might not be necessary.  An auto-cab could be a self-contained business model, using Bitcoin's smart contracts, the machine itself could accept fares, pay for it's own gas/charging fees and pay the mechanic for regular service, or even repair, from it's own gross income.  All before any theoretical owner takes a cut, or even has to hear about it.
Thanks for the preface Moonshadow

10 cents per mile estimate

10 cents per mile * average speed 30mph = $3 per hour

Imagine that the car is in service 60% of the day

$3 per hour * 24 hours per day * 60% service = $43 per day

Not sound like much?

That is $15768 per year

As mentioned, these would be optimized small electric cars so energy costs would be exceptionally low, .250 kw-hr per mile at $0.12 per kw-hr.  That is 3 cents per mile in energy costs or ~$5000 per year.

Because these vehicles will be workhorse commodities with very low depreciation. Consider a 7 year lifespan with wholesale purchase price of $15k. This is a small no frills vehicle.  So depreciation assuming no residual value at retirement is $15000/7 = $2142 per year. Insurance would be almost nothing (due to essentially no risk of injury or fatality) , probably a self insure situation, lets say $1000 per year. Maintenance excluding depreciation would be minor things like occasional blown electric motor  and cleaning (probably done by robots)- $2000 per year.  Licensure/regulatory $2500.

This leaves $3126 profit per car.

Now imagine a city with a population of 3M and a ratio of people to cars at 10:1. That is 300000 cars.  300000 cars $3126 per car per year = $930M per year profit! That would be just for one city. 

Let's look at on a national level. Assume a 60% US urban population that could utilize this technology. 320M US citizens * 1:10 ratio of cars to citizens * 60% * urban population * $3126 = $60 billion

This is profits of a trillion dollar company BTW.

Make it 15 cents per mile and profits go to >$90-110 billion per year.

Add international business and that number could grow 10-50 fold.

Of course this is back of the napkin calculations so there are many areas to critique. Nonetheless, I hope this illustrates the scalability/profitability of this business model once technically feasible. This would be a massive project of course and there would be lots of losers: GM, Big oil, insurance companies, organ transplant doctors, etc. Thus there would be pushback. I however see this as inevitable. Let's see how the next 20-50 years go!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2015, 09:21:25 PM by BCBiker »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6143
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2015, 08:26:06 AM »
Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

No, that's a myth.  You actually are smacking other people in the face with your truck.

In a forum where you happily hand out facepunches, maybe you should learn to deal with a slap in the face every so often.

:P

BCBiker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Location: Colorado
    • Business Casual Biker - Health, Wealth, and Mental Stealth BTYB Bicycle Commuting
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #88 on: August 19, 2015, 07:31:26 AM »

10 cents per mile estimate

10 cents per mile * average speed 30mph = $3 per hour

Imagine that the car is in service 60% of the day

$3 per hour * 24 hours per day * 60% service = $43 per day

Not sound like much?

That is $15768 per year

As mentioned, these would be optimized small electric cars so energy costs would be exceptionally low, .250 kw-hr per mile at $0.12 per kw-hr.  That is 3 cents per mile in energy costs or ~$5000 per year.

Because these vehicles will be workhorse commodities with very low depreciation. Consider a 7 year lifespan with wholesale purchase price of $15k. This is a small no frills vehicle.  So depreciation assuming no residual value at retirement is $15000/7 = $2142 per year. Insurance would be almost nothing (due to essentially no risk of injury or fatality) , probably a self insure situation, lets say $1000 per year. Maintenance excluding depreciation would be minor things like occasional blown electric motor  and cleaning (probably done by robots)- $2000 per year.  Licensure/regulatory $2500.

This leaves $3126 profit per car.

Now imagine a city with a population of 3M and a ratio of people to cars at 10:1. That is 300000 cars.  300000 cars $3126 per car per year = $930M per year profit! That would be just for one city. 

Let's look at on a national level. Assume a 60% US urban population that could utilize this technology. 320M US citizens * 1:10 ratio of cars to citizens * 60% * urban population * $3126 = $60 billion

This is profits of a trillion dollar company BTW.

Make it 15 cents per mile and profits go to >$90-110 billion per year.

Add international business and that number could grow 10-50 fold.

Of course this is back of the napkin calculations so there are many areas to critique. Nonetheless, I hope this illustrates the scalability/profitability of this business model once technically feasible. This would be a massive project of course and there would be lots of losers: GM, Big oil, insurance companies, organ transplant doctors, etc. Thus there would be pushback. I however see this as inevitable. Let's see how the next 20-50 years go!


It turns out I am already heavily invested in a company that is allegedly positioned to do this.

http://news.investors.com/081715-766859-tesla-motors-mobileye-stock-up-on-self-driving-cars-uber.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo

Tesla is a crazy stock though and there tends to be crap like this almost every week and then the shares push back down. It has been a fun experience in owning an individual stock though.  I am definitely buy and hold on TSLA. I hope it pays off and if it doesn't at least I am invested in a company that is doing what I believe to be very admirable things...

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #89 on: August 22, 2015, 05:42:26 AM »
I believe in freedom, just like you do Mr. Libertarian,  I just believe that people's freedom to swing their arms has to be limited as soon as it smacks others in the face. Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants,

Really?  Hmm, sounds pretty alarming.  I wonder if it's really true?

Did I mention that I've been an environmental engineer for 30+ years (BS Chemical Engineering (RPI), MEng Environmental Engineering (MIT)).

I gotta tell you, I haven't seen anything in the scientific/professional literature that claims "trucks kill tens of thousands of people every year...fill our precious air with noxious pollutants." 

Maybe I just missed that email?

What, exactly, is the source of this factoid?

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #90 on: August 22, 2015, 06:16:24 AM »
Quote
Trucks (and actually all personal cars) smack everyone in the face because they kill 10s of thousand of people every year, they fill our shared precious air with obnoxious pollutants, and they contribute to many people's lack of opportunity by being self-imposed financial shackles.

But this is just nonsense.  They do not, and nor do their owners.  The worst truck in the world is a much cleaner per KW of a machine than a standard coal fired power plant, and that is likely what charges up the average Nissan Leaf.

No, that's a myth.


Well, I don't give the Union of Concerned Scientists the level of faith that article implies, but it is good to know it's not as bad as it seems.  Particularly since I've seen coal plants in operation, and that is some truly destructive stuff.

Quote

 You actually are smacking other people in the face with your truck.


I don't own a truck, but I still think this is hyperbole.  Trucks do have a place in our economy, MMM's complaint with them is that they are often chosen for reasons other than work.  Your argument might have more validity when there is an electric alternative for real working trucks and vans in the market.

I definitely think that most peoples qualms with trucks are limited to the people who drive them for the purposes of trying to demonstrate their masculinity (the larger the truck, the larger the qualm), not people who legitimately use them for work (on more than an occasion).  Most people use work as an excuse to own a truck but they could easily use as small car to make it to their job site where it is parked all day.

People own trucks for a lot of reasons. 

In a free country, each person gets to make his own choice, regardless of whether someone else approves of that choice.

I drive a truck largely because I'm a big guy.  I like the way it sits and drives.  I'd rather have the shoulder room and be sitting up than slumped down, squeezed into the tiny cockpit of my wife's Beemer.

I have also found that it's a Hell of a lot easier to haul around 5-10 dog crates in the back of my pickup than trying to shove them into my wife's Beemer (maximum capacity:  2-3 crates, and a PITA to even fit those in, to say nothing of the mess).  I do a lot of volunteer work for animal rescue agencies, and trust me, son, your Prius ain't going to get the job done. 

I'm an engineer/MBA, not a math major, but I'm quite sure I can do enough math to realize that one trip in my truck is more economical (to say nothing of the time saved), than 5 trips in a 2 seater Beemer/Prius/whatever.

Plus, my wife get's pissed off every time I have to knock out the back window of her Beemer when I'm hauling a load of lumber from Home Depot.

And it's really a bitch to help someone move all their stuff to a new house/apartment if I'm driving a Prius.

Ever tried to haul around a couple of hundred campaign signs/stands in a Prius?  Neither have I, my truck works a lot better.

In other words, what I'm telling y'all is that I'm more qualified to decide what is best for me than than some self appointed know-it-all decider of all things good and grand.

See, that's what freedom is all about.  We all get to decide for ourselves.  Even if others are smug and consider themselves superior (and they rarely are), they don't get to make that call.

I don't need my mother to tell me what to do.  I don't need government to tell me what to do. 

And I sure as Hell don't need any self appointed enviro weenie know-it-all to tell me what to do.

FWIW, I'll bet my environmental footprint is VASTLY smaller than that of most of the smug enviro weenie Prius driving know-it-alls, despite my driving a truck. 

Just a side note:  Driving a 20 mpg truck 2000 miles per year does LESS environmental damage than driving a 50 mpg Prius 12000 miles per year.  Seriously- do the math.  It's not about what vehicle you choose, it's far more about what lifestyle you choose.

And btw, buying a lot of CRAP (filling your house with clothes, furniture, toys, shoes, whatever) does far more damage to the environment than driving a truck.  I'm always amazed at enviro weenies who drive a Prius (so they can feel superior), but spend, spend, spend on piles of consumer crap packaged in plastic, without giving it a thought.  To say nothing of jaunting around the world on expensive vacations.

What morons, that "lifestyle choice" is far more damaging to the environment than driving a truck will ever be...

End of rant.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #91 on: August 22, 2015, 05:14:16 PM »
So, to reiterate for yet another time, because the truck loving folks keep bringing up a bit of a straw man to argue against.  Nobody is saying that driving a truck when you have a valid reason to use it is bad.  There are some folks who do this.  Nobody is saying that radically curtailing your life in other ways and driving a truck is worse than being a ridiculous consumer and not driving a truck.

Driving a truck as a daily commuter, or owning one purely as an image thing rather than a need is largely what people think of as unconsionable in this thread.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2946
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #92 on: August 23, 2015, 07:56:19 PM »
If I trade my 4000 pound gas guzzling SUV for a Prius,  will that make my dick bigger?

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3963
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #93 on: August 23, 2015, 08:42:30 PM »
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/google-will-no-longer-build-driverless-cars/

That article title is about as wrong as possible while being technically correct.  No, "Google" is not going to build self driving cars.  Yes, a subsidiary company of "Alphabet," which is a holding company created by Google, will continue R&D on such things.

At least it'll stop people bitching about how anything Google does must somehow tie into advertising.

We cyclists are sane and good for any community, in a host of ways.

Good for a community?  Perhaps.  Sane?  Probably not.  It requires a large dose of utter insanity to bike in most US cities.  I do it every day, and on a good week, I only have to take evasive action to avoid being hit maybe twice.  I'm not really sane in that regard.  It still is better for my mental health than sitting in traffic, but, damn, I've yelled at a lot of cars and told them they're #1.  Mostly Priuses and Ford Escapes, oddly enough - the trucks & such rarely cause any issues.  I've had a Leaf try to run me into a fucking garbage truck by not paying attention as well - that gets your attention, having to do a full on panic stop on a steep downhill in the rain, because the Leaf won't let you get over, and there's a garbage truck on the shoulder.

Quote
I suspect we have the system we have because there's much more money to be made on everyone by forcing us to drive vehicles than by creating conditions that favor cycling.

I don't think there's that much thought going into it.  It's just inertia.  Fortunately, as the economy and western industrial civilization continues it's long, slow collapse, it'll be harder for people to buy cars, so we might get more bikes/ebikes out of the deal.

If I trade my 4000 pound gas guzzling SUV for a Prius,  will that make my dick bigger?

No.  I mean, really, a Prius is just as bad as a light truck (4k lbs.  *snerk*).  They both burn gasoline.  Or diesel.  Whatever.  Just like a Prius.  The new green symbol to show you Care(TM) is an EV.  If you're poor and Care(TM), get a Leaf.  If you're rich and Care(TM), get a basic Tesla Model S.  And if you're rich and just like fast cars, get a Model S P85D.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #94 on: August 24, 2015, 06:15:02 AM »
If I trade my 4000 pound gas guzzling SUV for a Prius,  will that make my dick bigger?

No, but at least you won't be advertising your small penis any more.

Basenji

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: D.C.-ish
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #95 on: August 24, 2015, 09:41:45 AM »
If I trade my 4000 pound gas guzzling SUV for a Prius,  will that make my dick bigger?

No, but at least you won't be advertising your small penis any more.
Gents, it's not the size, it's the mileage you can get out of it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16585
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #96 on: August 24, 2015, 09:47:43 AM »
If I trade my 4000 pound gas guzzling SUV for a Prius,  will that make my dick bigger?

No, but at least you won't be advertising your small penis any more.
Gents, it's not the size, it's the mileage you can get out of it.

Penile hypermiling.  Finally, a conservation method we can all agree is worth it!

Leanthree

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #97 on: August 24, 2015, 10:02:42 AM »
So I just rented a Ford F150 (don't own a car, occasionally need one) from Budget that cost $40 less than the economy option. After a bit of gas math I decided it was worth it.

On the road it is such a pain to drive. It has to be a foot or more wider than a Civic (my preferred car), difficult to park, even in oversized american big box store spaces, unstable at high highway speeds, and with so many buttons that are more than an arms-length away from the driver because of how large the center console is. I had to lean over just to use the radio tuner.

 I really have no understanding of why anyone would want one and yet they are one of the best selling models in America. Clearly no one wants to rent them which is why it was the cheapest rental car option.

Basenji

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: D.C.-ish
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #98 on: August 24, 2015, 10:15:52 AM »
If I trade my 4000 pound gas guzzling SUV for a Prius,  will that make my dick bigger?

No, but at least you won't be advertising your small penis any more.
Gents, it's not the size, it's the mileage you can get out of it.

Penile hypermiling.  Finally, a conservation method we can all agree is worth it!
No one is objecting to a big vehicle if there's a legit need for one, we're just saying it isn't needed for basic commuting.

Wink
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 04:25:27 PM by Basenji »

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #99 on: August 24, 2015, 04:23:09 PM »

In a free country, each person gets to make his own choice, regardless of whether someone else approves of that choice.


I won't touch the rest of your rant because others have dealt with it - good reasons to own a truck exist, etc. etc.

But, as for the free country comment I have to expand...
Yes, we should all be free to pay whatever we want to do/drive the things we want - the problem is that those who choose the low mpg options are typically not bearing the full cost of that decision/desire for themselves.  Government subsidies on gas (from extraction all the way through to the pump) are huge - the more gas your choice of transportation uses, the more you are being subsidized.  (Insert the caveat that EV's have some subsidies too - this is common in startup industries and often disappears later, or temporarily ignore the EV's to compare low mpg vehicles with high mpg vehicles or biking or walking and the point still holds true - low mpg = more subsidy).  And this is only the direct financial subsidy, there are more:

Bigger heavier vehicle = more wear and tear on roads at no extra cost.  Therefore paying less of fair share of infrastructure maintenance.
More gas burned = higher contribution to global warming at no extra cost.  Therefore paying less of fair share towards environmental issues.
More gas burned = higher contribution to public health deterioration at no extra cost.  Therefore paying less of fair share of healthcare costs (particularly true in Canada with public healthcare).

And there are more. 

See http://movingforward.discoursemedia.org/costofcommute/ - a study done in Vancouver that breaks out the costs borne by the individual commuter vs the costs borne by society.  Obviously variables will change from place to place but the trend is interesting and telling anyway.

Maybe you personally do plenty of other great things with your life to offset the 'evils your truck casts on the world' (purposeful exaggeration for effect - please don't take literally...) but no can claim, when choosing a big gas guzzler, that they aren't impacting other people in this world, and that they are free to pay extra for such a privilege if they want - not until our systems have changed and the extra they are paying is truly proportional to all the hidden costs.