Okay, Robotaxi looks cool. But how is this better than Model 2?
Tesla’s Robotaxi event came and went last night, and we finally learned (very few) new details about the much-hyped car that CEO Elon Musk thinks will add $5 trillion to Tesla’s market capitalization.
But the main thing it left me (still) thinking is: why does this car even exist?
Tesla has been talking about robotaxis for a long time, so of course it makes sense that it would unveil a robotaxi… right?
But here’s the rub: when Tesla first started talking about robotaxis, it was in the context of the Model 3 and other vehicles that the company already makes.
As far back as 2016, Tesla was talking about “Tesla Network,” a proposed system that would allow Tesla owners to send out their cars to work as taxis once the company had solved full self-driving.
I mentioned all of this in my Tesla Model 3 review back in 2018, showing some of the details that indicated that Tesla was getting ready for this robotaxi future – such as the use of a phone as a key and an interior camera to keep tabs on occupants.
And this wouldn’t just be applicable to certain vehicles, but to all cars that Tesla makes. Because Tesla also said that all its cars come with the hardware for full self-driving as early as late 2016.
Musk even went so far as to say that Tesla will stop selling cars once it solves autonomy. The idea is that those cars would be more profitable to keep around as robotaxis, that each would be worth $100k-$200k due to this function and that they should be considered “appreciating assets” as a result. (Though Musk did say last night that Tesla will sell Robotaxis for $30k, which runs counter to this past assertion of his).
So there is a long history of Tesla referring to its vehicles as potential future robotaxis, rather than talking about an individual robotaxi product. And it even said the same last night, as there were 20 Robotaxis and 30 other Tesla vehicles shuttling people around at the event. Musk reiterated last night that all cars Tesla makes would be capable of full autonomy, and even said that existing cars would be driving all by themselves prior to when he said the Robotaxi will hit the road in 2026-2027 (though he stumbled and said “let’s not get nuanced here” when the crowd asked whether this would apply to HW3 cars, which Tesla previously promised full autonomy for).
But hey, maybe it makes sense to release an individual Robotaxi product that would be fully focused on this function and no other, in order to save cost and reduce complexity.
That’s certainly an argument, and Tesla’s announced $30k starting price for the Robotaxi/Cybercab product (even Musk seemed unsure which name to call it) is a lower price than any vehicle the company has sold yet, and among the cheapest price we’ve ever seen for an EV (shout out to the all-time value winner, the now-defunct Chevy Bolt).
Also, I have to say, it looked great out there. Compared to the previous renderings/models/spy shot we’ve seen, I thought the final product looked fantastic. If it were just a normal EV, with that design, a small sporty low 2-seater for about that price, I’m sold.
A smaller car, without many of the creature comforts that might be desired by a driver, with more simplicity for less maintenance and easier cleaning, can certainly help to get costs down. And that’s great and needed. A $30k vehicle will be available to more people than a $42k Model 3, the next-cheapest car Tesla currently sells.
But…. why not a $25k Model 2 then?
Tesla already had the answer to this question: the cancelled Model 2
So if Tesla wants to have a cheaper, simpler car that is capable of robo-driving tasks, and if it’s still clear that all of its vehicles will gain this capability, why doesn’t it just make the cheaper, simpler car that it’s been talking about for years: the Model 2.
Not much was known about the Model 2, except that it would be a cheaper, smaller EV, starting at $25,000 – long thought to be the appropriate entry-level for consumer vehicles (the cheapest gas cars in America are around $17k – and a $25k EV would cost about the same after the $7,500 federal tax credit).
But earlier this year, it was reported that Tesla was shutting down Model 2 development. Musk denied that report, but like many of Musk’s denials, it turned out to be true.
Instead, Musk directed the company to pivot to Robotaxi, and rhetorically, he has been talking a lot more about robotaxis, artificial general intelligence robots, and various other pie-in-the-sky promises, in keeping with the tech buzzword du jour..
But while there’s a lot of demand in the stock market for CEOs who incessantly talk about AI, there’s also a lot of demand in the car market for a cheap electric vehicle. And Tesla is a car company, after all, not a stock company (isn’t it?).
And what we do know from the event is that Tesla thinks they can make a self-driving electric vehicle for under $30k, and that that vehicle would be “over-specced” for what it is, using a more powerful AI computer than necessary. And they think they can do this within the next 2 years or so.
If these two things are possible, I believe that those efforts would be better channeled towards the Model 2, rather than the Robotaxi.
While Musk stated in the event that existing vehicles would be capable of full autonomy before the Robotaxi starts shipping, I don’t think anyone believes this. After a decade of FSD coming “at the end of next year,” the boy has thoroughly cried wolf and this timeline does not seem realistic.
Further, Musk said that it would come to California and Texas first, pending regulatory approval. Even if Tesla does swiftly get regulatory approval in those states, that still limits the addressable market while it works to scale up and get approved in other regions. The process of homologating a Model 2 would go much more smoothly than that, and could be sold globally much faster.
And while Tesla’s car timelines also tend to slip by several years, with how long we’ve been talking about a “cheaper Tesla car” and its relative similarity to existing vehicles (as opposed to the vast differences involved in making a Cybertruck or Roadster), I also think the Model 2 could have been manufactured before Robotaxi could (especially when taking into account regulatory timelines).
If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it be better for Tesla to make this car that I believe would be ready before Robotaxi will, that will fulfill a need for a lot of buyers right now (especially in a circumstance where affordable Chinese EVs are popular enough to force protectionist trade measures), that would have global appeal, and that will have all the capabilities of a Robotaxi once (or if) FSD finally ever gets solved?
Maybe it’s about cost-cutting… or maybe it’s about the stock
Now, perhaps part of the reason for Model 2’s cancellation is because Tesla did not see enough cost-cutting possible to build an EV for $25k, or thought the level of cutting would be too severe to sell desirable consumer vehicles at that price. With a Robotaxi, perhaps customers would accept a more bare bones experience than in a Model 2 that they own as a personal vehicle, and maybe that’s the only way that Tesla can get the price down.
And there’s something to be said for a vehicle that’s fully autonomous-focused, with things like inductive charging and being designed for robo-vacuums to clean the car without human intervention (both were briefly glossed over in last night’s presentation).
But there’s definitely demand for a cheaper, human-driven EV, and I think Tesla got the order wrong on this one – it would be better to sell a bunch of Model 2s earlier than a bunch of Robotaxis later, since I don’t think full level 5 FSD, along with regulatory approval, is coming within the next year or two. And if you have to choose whether to have hardware or software ready first, you definitely want to choose software – because hardware costs a heck of a lot to build.
Or… maybe all this AI talk is more about the stock than it is about actual products, as alluded to above. This has been a common theory among Tesla haters for some time, but was never all that realistic because Tesla did and does sell a lot of cars, and a whole ecosystem around them of energy products like Powerwall and Superchargers, which work well and make a lot of revenue, with pretty good margins.
But when Musk suggests that Robotaxi will be worth $5 trillion in market cap, when he goes on a months-long rampage at the company to sell his own stock grant package to shareholders, and when he goes on about long-term dreams and how Tesla is going to change the world in 6 huge ways next year alone (really next year this time, I promise), that feels less like a mature and achievable product timeilne and more like a set of actions that are driven by a desire to, let’s say, make up for a really bad personal business decision that he funded on the back of TSLA’s formerly-high share price.
But if it is about that, it seems that Elon has run out of rope. The market, this time, doesn’t seem too convinced. Maybe instead of sky-high promises that nobody thinks will be met, and that you are burning public trust with each time you make them (or uh, maybe that’s happening for another reason)… people really do just want a cheaper car that everyone can buy.
Make it.
Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
MAN Trucks are always good for a headline, but despite the company’s pro-battery bluster they’ve barely managed to get 200 battery electric semi trucks on the road … until now that is: the company announced that series production of its heavy-duty eTruck prime mover is officially underway!
We’ve been huge fans of MAN Trucks’ CEO Alexander Vlaskamp since last year, when he had the courage to explain a simple truth: that it’s impossible for hydrogen to effectively compete with battery electric when it comes to a viable fuel for transportation.
Since then, we’ve talked a bit about MAN’s early BEV customers — but with just 200 trucks on the road, they’ve been few and far between. That’s all set to change now that MAN Executive Board Member for Production Michael Kobriger, together with Manfred Weber, Member of the European Parliament and Chairman of the EPP, gave the go-ahead to start the eTruck production line at the company’s Munich plant.
From now on, both electric and diesel trucks will be produced in a fully integrated mixed production process on the same line, with enough capacity to produce up to 100 eTrucks per day. (!)
“The start of series production of our electric trucks is historic. It marks a turning point in our history,” explains Vlaskamp, enthusiastically. “The future of MAN begins now, at this very moment. The entire MAN team is proud to be actively shaping the transformation from diesel to electric drive. Our highly efficient electric trucks will make locally emission-free freight transport a reality. This is an enormously important step towards achieving our goal of becoming CO2-neutral by 2050. The fact that we can manufacture the electric trucks on the same production line as our state-of-the-art diesel trucks also gives us enormous flexibility and increases production efficiency.”
MAN says the plant’s maximum capacity is 100 trucks per day, citing about 8 hours to produce one of its heavy-duty semis. The interesting thing, though, is that it doesn’t seem to matter whether those 100 trucks are diesel- or battery-powered.
Flexible assembly
“The production of electric or diesel trucks on a single line can be flexibly adapted to market developments, and the vehicles can be built exactly in the order in which they are ordered by customers. This innovative concept is accompanied by extensive changes along the assembly line as well as in the supply chain and logistics,” says Kobriger, citing that while ICE trucks are initially fitted with axles, tanks and exhaust systems, the electric models are instead fitted with two batteries under the cab together with a “power pack” of electrical components.
All 5,000+ Munich-plant MAN employees have been trained in high-voltage technology in preparation for this “transformation” of the facility. The company says it has 700 of its 740 km (about 450 mile) battery electric trucks already sold, with more sales sure to come as availability ramps up to meet demand.
Electrek’s Take
Betting against Tesla has been bad business for well over a decade now, but with MAN now capable of putting out about as many electric semi trucks in a single day as Tesla has in the last ::checks notes:: eight years since the official launch of the Tesla Semi concept, it’s hard to imagine them catching up — and harder still to see them catching up with Volvo or Renault, each of who have logged tens of millions of electric semi miles in recent years.
That said, Tesla has beaten legacy brands with massive, seemingly insurmountable leads before – but the good news is that, when it comes to EVs, whoever wins, we kind of all win, you know? Even Elon! That’s my take, anyway. Head down to the comments and let me know yours.
SOURCE | IMAGES: MAN Trucks.
BLUETTI portable power stations offer enough capacity to run power tools, appliances, or even serve as a full-home backup during outages. For extended outages, BLUETTI offers modular systems can keep your fridge, lights, or Wi-Fi going for days. And, if you’re traveling light, the new Handsfree line of backpack power stations offer plug-and-play energy on the go — perfect for remote work, camping, or emergencies.
Explore BLUETTI products and use AFF5OFF for an additional 5% off (US).
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
New York City is creating a new department aimed at cracking down on e-bike delivery workers, and critics say it’s the latest move in a growing pattern of targeting micromobility riders instead of the real threats on the road.
Buried inside NYC’s new $116 billion city budget is a plan to hire 45 new unarmed peace officers tasked with enforcing laws against delivery cyclists, particularly those riding e-bikes and mopeds. The new officers will work under the just-announced Department of Sustainable Delivery, a division of the Department of Transportation set to deploy in 2028.
Mayor Eric Adams says the department will help improve street safety and hold delivery app companies accountable for the pressure they put on gig workers. “The newly created Department of Sustainable Delivery is yet another step that we’re taking to support delivery workers, keep pedestrians safe, and hold delivery app companies accountable for placing unrealistic expectations on their workers that put New Yorkers in harm’s way,” Adams explained in a published statement.
But the move is already raising red flags among advocates for delivery workers and cycling safety, who warn that these efforts could lead to increased surveillance and policing of low-income, often immigrant workers, many of whom already operate under grueling conditions just to make ends meet.
The officers will be trained to issue moving violations and enforce commercial cycling laws, though city officials haven’t clarified exactly how they’ll distinguish between a reckless rider and one simply hustling to meet the often unrealistic delivery windows imposed by apps like Uber Eats, DoorDash, and Grubhub.
While Adams frames the effort as a safety initiative, critics argue it’s another example of micromobility scapegoating. Just last month, he imposed a 15 mph speed limit on e-bikes across the city, in a move that advocates say ignores the realities of urban riding and fails to address the vastly greater danger posed by cars and trucks. The administration also moved to undo a redesign of Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn, rolling back a protected bike lane project that city data showed had improved safety.
Delivery riders in NYC, many of whom are immigrants working long shifts in all weather conditions, overwhelmingly use e-bikes to cover more ground, more quickly. These workers have been essential to the city’s economy, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet they continue to face increasing scrutiny from law enforcement, often for minor infractions, even as drivers of multi-ton vehicles are rarely held to the same standard.
City Council spokesperson Mara Davis acknowledged the concerns, stating, “There are always concerns about any new policy that could give way to discriminatory policing of delivery workers and immigrants. We remain in discussions with advocates and constructive members of the mayoral administration to advance solutions on e-bike safety, sustainable delivery, and street safety.”
Despite the rhetoric about safety, the data paints a different picture. City statistics show that e-bikes account for less than 4% of traffic-related injuries, and Gothamist pointed out that only six pedestrian fatalities involving e-bike riders were reported between 2021 and 2024. Meanwhile, cars and trucks continue to kill hundreds of New Yorkers every year. But rather than increasing enforcement on reckless drivers or investing more in safe bike infrastructure, the city is spending taxpayer money to police bicycles.
Electrek’s Take
In a city desperately trying to transition to more sustainable forms of transportation, I just don’t think that increasing pressure on the people doing the most riding is the answer. Delivery workers are part of the solution to car dependence, not the problem.
If NYC wants cleaner, safer streets, the focus should be on supporting these riders with safe infrastructure, affordable bikes, and better labor protections – not treating them like traffic scofflaws. Yes, enforcement is important. And yes, dangerous riders should be penalized to the full extent of the law, especially when they pose a real threat to pedestrians. But let’s not pretend like that’s what this about. If we cared about pedestrian safety, we’d be increasing enforcement to prevent the hundreds killed every year by cars in NYC – not the two pedestrians killed by e-bikes.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
China’s EV leader, BYD, just reached another major breakthrough: its smart parking feature now offers L4 autonomy. To sweeten the deal, BYD says it will fully cover any losses associated with the new feature.
BYD becomes the first to achieve L4 smart parking
BYD said it was coming soon. Earlier this week, BYD posted on Weibo that it’s about to launch “the largest-scale smart driving OTA in history.”
On Wednesday, BYD confirmed that its smart parking system now offers L4 autonomy, becoming the first to achieve the feat. In a statement, the company said, “BYD is the first to achieve L4-level smart parking, and the official promise is to provide a safety guarantee.”
The company is also pledging to cover any losses tied to the feature. Instead of going through their insurance company, drivers can contact BYD’s after-sales team to handle the incident.
All BYD vehicles equipped with its God’s Eye smart driving system can get the upgrade. Earlier this year, the EV maker upgraded 21 of its best-selling vehicles with its God’s Eye system, at no additional cost.
The breakthrough comes after BYD announced earlier this week that there are now over 1 million vehicles on the road with its God’s Eye smart driving system. With L4 smart parking, the vehicle can operate without human interaction under certain conditions.
And that’s not all. BYD also said it’s pushing new OTA updates for its God’s Eye B and C systems. God’s Eye B will gain new functions, including multiple U-turns, detours, and a three-speed parking feature. Meanwhile, God’s Eye C is set to receive front parking and lane change reminders.
BYD’s smart driving system has three levels: A, B, and C. The A system is primarily reserved for the ultra-luxury Yangwang brand, while B is used for Denza and some premium BYD brand models. The God’s Eye C system is used for lower-cost BYD vehicles, such as the Seagull EV, its top seller in China.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike