100 Tesla Model S Cars For Downtown Las Vegas?

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Let's see, Project 100 wants you to ditch your car so you can pay them $400 a month for a taxi service made up of 100 Tesla Model S cars, some bicycles and a couple party buses? In Las Vegas? Ugh, who comes up with this stuff?

The experience is simple: open an app so we know where you are and tell us what zone you want to travel to. With that information we'll give you a set of options, for example, 1 - Be picked up by a driver in a Tesla in 3 minutes, 2 - Drive yourself in a low range electric vehicle that's 0.2 miles away, 3 - Grab a bike that's 0.1 miles away or 4 - Hop on the party bus that will be near you in 4 minutes.
 
I still cannot believe we keep investing money in this turd of a company. It must be good to be rich and not care what you spend your money on.
 
I still cannot believe we keep investing money in this turd of a company. It must be good to be rich and not care what you spend your money on.

yeah!!!!!! down with innovation!!!! we need to stick with petroleum, man!!!!!!
 
yeah!!!!!! down with innovation!!!! we need to stick with petroleum, man!!!!!!

100% Li"anything" doesn't make sense as an alternative. Fire, cold weather decemating efficiency, cost per joule stored, the list goes on. I wish it did, but it doesn't.
 
Why do you love the oil companies, man???

I want to know what my options are to get to the grocery at 10:30PM to buy my wife a pint of pistachio ice cream.
 
lol for 400 a month ill buy my own damn Model S its not far off what the pricing on it is
 
100% Li"anything" doesn't make sense as an alternative. Fire, cold weather decemating efficiency, cost per joule stored, the list goes on. I wish it did, but it doesn't.
Like the petroleum/diesel engine is perfect it's a different beast.
 
yeah!!!!!! down with innovation!!!! we need to stick with petroleum, man!!!!!!
There are other alternatives to fossil fuels than electric vehicles. Many are much easier and less costly to transition to as well since they can use existing infrastructure and vehicles with minor modifications. But no, the push is always in the least bang for buck fuel methods, such as electric or hydrogen, and methods such as methanol that turn food into fuel, take over huge amounts of land, have low power per unit, and are dependent on the weather (bad crop, short fuel AND short food supply). I can't say that I can exactly call that enviro-friendly. Meanwhile renewable biodiesel is cheap and easy to make and distribute, can use existing vehicles and infrastructure, has high yield, requires little land, isn't dependent on the weather, can be made from non food sources such as pond scum (algae), that actually feed on the CO2 that they so readily label public enemy #1.

But there's ALWAYS something that prevents it from happening, now isn't there?

Let's see, we can change to cleaner, more enviro-friendly fuels while perfecting electric, or we can continue using the same old fuels we demonize for being so non enviro-friendly/finite, etc., and keep pushing out failed attempts at a power system that's not ready for prime time in functionality or infrastructure...and of course gov't chooses the latter. Why is that? My guess is there's not enough political payoff/don't drive their agenda as well in these alternatives.

Every energy source has its pros & cons, and hurdles, but there are more painless routes than what keep getting shoved down our throats.

I'm no tree hugger, and even I know that there are better ways to get us to the desired result. I personally think it's more scam than truth, but also understand that we should do something nonetheless. My question is, if it's SO imperative, why is what's being done geared towards "big change" later rather than making more of a difference than we are in the meantime until that "big change" time arrives?
 
I'd like to know more about this business model to be honest; specifically how much of the subscriber fees go towards paying the wages of the '300 taxi drivers' operating (presumably 24/7 with each having 8 hour shifts) the 100 model-s taxis. Really, my curiousity is based of wonderings about the 'cars that drive themselves' of the future ala Google car of 2018? 2020? 2025?

Would this business model be able to be provided much 'cheaper' if these cars were able to be self-driven via Google car style so you didn't have to play any employee wages. If say, they price the 400 a month based of 2,000 clients, then $800,000.00 is their monthly operating budget. Assuming 300 taxi drivers/workers minimum, each receiving minimum wage of say $8.00/hr * 40 hours a week * 300 people (not including HR costs, office staff, healthcare mandates or whatever else), then up to $96,000 or 12% of the cost might be labour. So self-driving cars might bring the cost of the service from $400 a month to $350 a month? Still far to expensive imo but I live in a relatively small town were most to/from destinations are approximately 20 minutes at most and average 5-8 minutes.

I could see people in my city subscribing to this if they got the cost down to the cost of a traditional bus-pass of $40-60/month b/c by the time you pay for gas($40 per month), parking costs($40+/month), car insurance payments ($600-1200 per year?) and maintenance costs (depends on luck? :p) you could easily end up head/saving money. Even at $100-$150/month, you'd probably break-even but breaking-even wouldn't give much of an incentive.
 
thing is you can get your own damn Model S for about 600 to 700 a month ...
 
Hydrogen cars are the future, but only when the oil companies allow it to be the case.
 
100% Li"anything" doesn't make sense as an alternative. Fire, cold weather decemating efficiency, cost per joule stored, the list goes on. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

I'm not saying batteries are the solution. I just think an electric vehicle is a step in the right direction. With the recent advances in LENR maybe something real will come from that? Look here - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...nuclear-reactor-to-replace-your-water-heater/

I'm not a tree hugging hippie, I just don't think better product or technology should be suppressed because a company did not like the cost/benefit analysis...
 
Yeah cause batteries don't cause any problems when they are dumped in a landfill:rolleyes:

honestly I hate batteries ( but not as much as I hate petroleum ). I just think an electric vehicle is a step in the right direction away from petroleum. I think within 5-10 years we'll have cars that generate their own electricity so there won't be any need for batteries or petroleum
 
Now the stuff Audi is doing with their r18 hybrid is kind of cool, it's diesel and the innovative way they supplied a boost for acceleration, was using the exhaust gasses, for some reason the ACO didn't like it and initially banned it from being used...so back to the flywheel charging the battery idea.
 
I think within 5-10 years we'll have cars that generate their own electricity...

I don't know if you've ever had this happen to you, but it did to me recently so maybe I can help. There's this thing inside the car that makes electricity and it can break and is expensive to replace (I should know >.<). There's also a battery to store that electricity and if that part isn't working, the car doesn't run. I guess, from what I heard, cars have had those inside them for many years already so they can produce electrical power.
 
Back
Top