What'd you say, GM? Recalibrate what "personal mobility & car travel" will be about?
Look, we can forever discuss propulsion techniques, company strategies, car design, the potential impact of newcomers like Tesla, Google and perhaps Apple, etc. on fora like this one, to me the fundamental question is in which direction 'personal mobility' and car travel are heading, literally... Let's do some extrapolating, shall we?
1. As long as we cannot "beam me up, Scotty" from A to B, personal mobility (as opposed to public transport) will require a 'tangible transportation device'. Most people prefer a car of some sort. Weighing 15-30 times more than the driver, the car requires a lot of 'building material'. Basically all energy goes into moving around the 'device' that is transporting who's driving. No wonder that the car represents the biggest consumer purchase and expense most people do.
2. There is more to personal mobility than having cars roll off the assembly line and sell them to the public (the car industry's business model). I am referring to the bigger picture: going from A to B should not be only about the transportation mode itself. Other road users are involved too. And there are a lot of them these days. For instance, with a width that usually equals the driver's length, the car squeezes itself through traffic. No wonder that single occupancy of a car, seen most frequent during rush hour, contributes to gridlock.
3. Any alternatives? Yes. Autonomous drive holds the promise of cars utilizing the present infrastructure better than it's being done right now. Car or ride sharing holds the promise of utilizing the car better (90-95% of the time the car is not being used). Combine robo-drive and car/ride sharing, and you get an idea what Google is aiming for: anywhere from breaking down car ownership, and have it replaced by other ways of using transportation devices, to competing with public transportation. Apple we don't know yet.
4. Noticed how unassuming, bland-looking and small the Google robo car turned out to be? I am sure nobody would mind sharing one with other people. It would free up a lot of resources, leaving more money in people's pockets. Google (/Uber) is big when it comes to the utilitarian factor, the sharing, bringing down the waste and the excess. But where is the fun factor? That Google car leaves a lot to be desired. There are more exciting, new ways of combining utilitarian and recreational into a 'next-generation personal transportation device'. But it looks to me that this sort of "recalibrated", fresh approach is not being covered by GM... Or am I mistaking? Am I talking too much like a "foreigner looking in"?
Let me know.
Look, we can forever discuss propulsion techniques, company strategies, car design, the potential impact of newcomers like Tesla, Google and perhaps Apple, etc. on fora like this one, to me the fundamental question is in which direction 'personal mobility' and car travel are heading, literally... Let's do some extrapolating, shall we?
1. As long as we cannot "beam me up, Scotty" from A to B, personal mobility (as opposed to public transport) will require a 'tangible transportation device'. Most people prefer a car of some sort. Weighing 15-30 times more than the driver, the car requires a lot of 'building material'. Basically all energy goes into moving around the 'device' that is transporting who's driving. No wonder that the car represents the biggest consumer purchase and expense most people do.
2. There is more to personal mobility than having cars roll off the assembly line and sell them to the public (the car industry's business model). I am referring to the bigger picture: going from A to B should not be only about the transportation mode itself. Other road users are involved too. And there are a lot of them these days. For instance, with a width that usually equals the driver's length, the car squeezes itself through traffic. No wonder that single occupancy of a car, seen most frequent during rush hour, contributes to gridlock.
3. Any alternatives? Yes. Autonomous drive holds the promise of cars utilizing the present infrastructure better than it's being done right now. Car or ride sharing holds the promise of utilizing the car better (90-95% of the time the car is not being used). Combine robo-drive and car/ride sharing, and you get an idea what Google is aiming for: anywhere from breaking down car ownership, and have it replaced by other ways of using transportation devices, to competing with public transportation. Apple we don't know yet.
4. Noticed how unassuming, bland-looking and small the Google robo car turned out to be? I am sure nobody would mind sharing one with other people. It would free up a lot of resources, leaving more money in people's pockets. Google (/Uber) is big when it comes to the utilitarian factor, the sharing, bringing down the waste and the excess. But where is the fun factor? That Google car leaves a lot to be desired. There are more exciting, new ways of combining utilitarian and recreational into a 'next-generation personal transportation device'. But it looks to me that this sort of "recalibrated", fresh approach is not being covered by GM... Or am I mistaking? Am I talking too much like a "foreigner looking in"?
Let me know.