ImaginativePRO Blog

TESLA UNVEILS ITS MODEL X ELECTRIC SUV, IT'S AWESOME, FUTURISTIC, HAS FALCON WING DOORS AND BIOWEAPON DEFENSE MODE

THE WORLD’S FIRST luxury electric SUV is gorgeous. It’s futuristic. And once again, Tesla Motors is redefining the electric vehicle.

The Silicon Valley automaker has teased us for years with the Model X, and tonight it finally gave the world its first look at the production model, then handed six customers the keys.

Click Image To Enlarge

Those people now own a $130,000 electric vehicle that will go 250 miles on a charge, carry seven people and haul more stuff than anyone but a hoarder might want with him. And although the X shares much of its DNA with the impressive Model S P90D sedan, in many ways it eclipses that phenomenal car. It’s not just the design, which is futuristic without being weird. It’s not just the performance, which isholy shit fast. And it’s not even the dramatic “falcon” doors that lift like the wings of a bird.

Click Image To Enlarge

It’s how all of those features come together in a vehicle that somehow makes an SUV not just cool, but desirable.

But then, that’s what Tesla does.

Click Image To Enlarge

CEO Elon Musk said at the car’s reveal, held at the company’s factory in Fremont, California. 

“The mission of Tesla is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport.  It’s important to know that any kind of car can go electric.”

Watch this on The Scene.

 

Complications

Reaching this point has been a longer journey than Elon Musk hoped. This is the car that’s supposed to prove his company is more than a one hit wonder, and an interlude before the long-awaited Model III brings a $35,000 EV to the masses in 2017.

 

Musk unveiled a prototype X in 2012, saying production would begin the following year. He later pushed that to 2014, which came and went with a promise that we’d see the X this year. But then that’s Musk—he often makes big promises with short timelines, which might explain why he told us tonight that if he had it to do over again, he’d have made the X less complicated and therefore easier to engineer and build.

Finally the car is here, and first impressions suggest it was worth the wait. If you order one today, though, you’ll have to wait a while longer: Tesla estimates it’ll take 8 to 12 months to deliver cars ordered now.

Complexities

The X is, in a word, stunning. Its most amazing features are its mind-bending acceleration, gorgeous design, and amazing rear passenger doors. Tesla calls them “falcon” doors, because they lift like the wings of a bird. And because it sounds cool.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

The big drawback of doors that open like wings—the Mercedes-Benz AMG SLS has them, as did the DeLorean—is they require a lot of room to open, so you’re always worried about hitting something. Tesla got around this by double-hinging the doors, and fitting each with an ultrasonic sensor and putting a third on the roof. They scan the area around the vehicle to determine how much space there is, then adjust the “span” and open accordingly.

Click Image To Enlarge

It sounds complicated as hell, and it is, but it works beautifully. Tesla engineers say the doors can open with as little as 12 inches on each side of the vehicle—then proved it by having us park between two cars. The mirrors on the X were mere inches from those of the car on either side, yet the doors opened flawlessly. Capacitive sensors in the edges of each door sense obstacles within 2 to 4 inches, so you don’t have to worry about a descending door whacking your head or crushing your fingers.

All of this may sound like a frivolous extravagance, and in some ways it is—and you know part of the reason Musk wanted these doors was to prove he could make them—but it’s remarkably clever, even practical.

Yes, practical. The doors make it easy to get in and out of the vehicle. No gymnastic contortions to get into the (standard) third row seating. No more cantilevering yourself to get your kids into their child seats. No more playing Tetris trying to get your stuff in. Just throw open those doors—actually, push a button and let the doors lift automatically, in 6 to 7 seconds—throw in your groceries and bags and whatnot, and climb in after it.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Speaking of stuff, the X is cavernous. No one could tell us the internal volume—you’d think someone at Tesla would have had that figure—but one engineer said you could carry a sheet of plywood. Another said the X would easily swallow a surfboard. And yet another said you could carry a load of two-by-fours. Suffice it to say, this thing will swallow as much cargo as any normal person would carry. Tesla offers an accessory hitch that holds four bikes or six pairs of skis, and can be attached to the back of the car in just a few seconds.

Should you somehow manage to run out of room, the Model X has Class 3 towing capacity, which in lay terms means it’ll haul 5,000 pounds.

In other words, unless you regularly haul enough cattle to supply all the leather in this thing, space is not a problem.

Cavernous

Another clever trick is the “monopost” design of the second-row seats, which is fancy way of saying that each seat (two if you get the six-passenger model, three if you get the seven), sits on its own chrome-plated post. That makes each seat almost infinitely adjustable fore and aft and provides ample room for everyone’s feet. The designers drew inspiration from high-end office chairs and admit they were, like the doors, a bitch to engineer.

Along with the doors and the seats, Musk is especially proud of the “panoramic” windshield, which extends back over the front seat seats to provide an exceptional view. Tesla claims it is the largest windshield ever installed in a production vehicle—yet, oddly, no one had actually measured the damn thing and so couldn’t say exactly how big it is.

Click Image To Enlarge

Whatever the number, we can tell you that if you look at the X head-on, it appears to have a glass roof, and riding up front almost like being in a convertible.

Equally impressive is the sound system which is, in a word, glorious. But then, with 560 watts and 17 speakers, how could it not be? Tesla designed the system in-house specifically for the X because it wanted to ensure the system delivered the best sound with the smallest power requirements—essential in an electric vehicle. (General Motors took a similar tack with the Chevrolet Volt, tapping Bose to design a system specifically for the car.) The sound is crisp, clear, and loud—even when standing 15 feet away from the car.

Click Image To Enlarge

The styling is perhaps best described as a Model S on steroids. It’s a taller, obviously, and, at 5,441 pounds, about 740 pounds heavier than the S. That said, it also looks more than a little like the BMW X6 from the rear three-quarter view—but when it glides by you silently on the freeway, you’ll know it’s a Tesla.

Click Image To Enlarge

Inside, the X is futuristic without being funky, with acres of white leather, plenty of cubbies and cupholders, and that enormous 17-inch touchscreen in the middle of the dash.

Click Image To Enlarge

Competition

Although the X is the first electric luxury SUV, it won’t be alone for long. Bentley promises a plug-in hybrid version of its new, ultra-luxe Bentayga SUV in about a year. Rolls-Royce and Lamborghini have hinted at similar plans. Last month, Audi showed off an all-electric crossover concept that’s probably a preview of the 2019 Q6. Aston Martin wants to have one ready in two years.

No one at Tesla would say just what performance, handling, and comfort benchmarks they aimed at with the X, but they’re well aware of everyone’s plans and not terribly worried. And the fact they had a Porsche Cayenne and a BMW X5 in the parking lot for comparison suggests they’re quite confident of the Model X’s sporting capabilities.

They have every reason to be.

Let’s start with the acceleration. It’s crazy. Every Model X comes with a 90 kilowatt-hour battery and dual motors, a model known as 90D. Drop another 10 grand and you get the P90D, which is the performance model with its “ludicrous mode.” Yes, Tesla actually calls it that, and it’s fitting. If you decide to stomp on the accelerator, make damn sure you’ve got plenty of open road ahead of you, because things happenvery quickly. Sixty mph comes in 3.2 seconds, which is on par with the some of the best sports cars from anyone in Italy, Germany, or Britain. We tried it. That number’s legit.

We didn’t have the room to do a quarter-mile run, but Tesla says the Model X P90D will do it in 11.7 seconds. That put its alongside cars like the BMW M5, Corvette Z06, and Porsche Panamera Turbo. Top speed is limited to 155 mph.

If you find ludicrous mode just a bit too, well, ludicrous, or you don’t want to spend that extra dough, the base model adds about half a second to the acceleration and quarter-mile times. Which is to say, it’s still bloody fast. The Model X 90D starts for $132,000 and goes 257 miles on a charge, the more acceleration-friendly P90D will cost you $142,000 and cover 250 miles.

Under the skin, the Model X is identical to the Model S. Same 90 kilowatt-hour lithium ion battery. Same drive motors (259 horsepower at the front, 503 at the rear). Same software controlling it all. And the vehicles share the same (semi) autonomous capabilities.

The two vehicles both “quick charge” at one of Tesla’s stations in 30 minutes. They are designed to be updated in tandem, so any software updates or performance upgrades will apply to both the S and the X. And they will roll down the same assembly line at Tesla’s sprawling factory in Fremont. The company plans to ramp up production, immediately, but wouldn’t say how many might be built by the end of the year.

Of all the things that, at first glance, make the X so remarkable, the most impressive thing about it is the overall impression it imparts. It’s a practical car—Musk has five young children, and clearly considers the demands of hauling them all when designing vehicles—but it’s not a minivan or station wagon that embarrasses parents and kids alike.

Tesla has made the family car cool.

COMMENTARY:  

Technical Specifications

If you go to the Model X page on the Tesla website, you will find detailed technical specifications for the car.  Apparently a lot of the technology writers missed this, but I didn't.  Here are the technical specifications.

Click Image To Enlarge

Two Different Models

The Model X comes in two different models the faster, sportier all-wheel drive P90D which can burn rubber at 3.8 seconds in 0-60 and comes equipped with a 259 hp front motor and a 503 hp rear motor.   The 90D can do 4.8 seconds in 0-60 and comes equipped with a 259 hp front motor and a 259 hp real motor.  

Price

The Model X has a price tag as shocking (to your wallet) as those doors: The Signature Model X (probably the P90D model) that Elon Musk introduced, is loaded with extra features, required a $40,000 deposit and comes with a $132,000 price tag, plus delivery and other fees.  It is assumed that the 90D model will be priced slightly less.  Tesla has yet to announce what financing options will come along with its new ride.

That’s a lot of money—nearly twice the cost of the base Model S sedan—and considerably more expensive than the comparable-in-size Porsche Cayenne S E-Hybrid, which costs $77,200.

According to the Tesla website, you can reserve your own Model X for a $5,000 deposit.   

Courtesy of an article dated September 29, 2015 appearing in Wired 

 

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555 

Subscribe To My Blog Newfeed

UBER'S BUSINESS MODEL IN PERIL AFTER CALIF JUDGE RULES DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES, AND THE POTENTIAL COSTS OF THAT DECISION

When a California judge ruled earlier this month that a lawsuit brought by Uber drivers could go forward as class-action, it re-opened the biggest question about the hottest company in Unicornland: Is its business model legal? And if not, can Uber survive?

The ruling has also reignited questions about whether the sharing economy, of which Uber is by far the largest participant and its poster boy, is fair to workers. Last week, workers’ advocacy group the National Employment Law Project released a report that equated Uber and other sharing economy companies to “turn of the century sweatshops” because of a lack of employee benefits and protections.

Investors think that Uber will not just survive, but thrive. They have driven Uber’s valuation up to $51 billion, much higher than what Facebook was worth when it was a six-year-old private company. But the recent lawsuits against Uber raise questions about what seemed like its inevitable success.

By now, many people know the debate. Uber currently classifies its drivers as independent contractors, or “1099” workers, rather than (W-2) employees. Uber says its drivers prefer the flexibility of being independent contractors. But that classification also allows Uber to avoid the taxes and insurance and other administrative expenses that companies usually have to pay to have a workforce.

How much would it cost Uber if it was forced to reclassify its drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors? By my calculations, with help from some experts, I crunched the numbers and got an answer, and it’s a huge amount: $4.1 billion.

Click Image To Enlarge

Uber declined to comment on Fortune's calculations. A spokesperson for the company said it’s difficult to know what additional costs Uber would have to pay if it were required to turn all of its drivers into employees because doing so would force the company to completely change its business model, which is exactly the point.

The California lawsuit was brought by four former drivers who think they deserve the status of employees and reimbursement of their driving expenses. But by certifying it as a class action, the judge said the eventual ruling in the case will apply to all of Uber’s California drivers, excluding only those who had specifically waved their right to participate in the current suit. Uber is fighting the lawsuit, as it has other efforts to force the company to put its drivers on its books. On Tuesday, Uber filed an appeal in the California case, asking the court to reverse the class action status.

Uber critics say the real reason Uber has opposed the shift is that it can’t afford it. Miriam Cherry, a St. Louis University law professor who has long followed the sharing economy, says Uber’s current business model is one part technology company and one part labor law workaround. The question is which part is bigger.

To figure that out, Fortune spent the past two weeks digging into Uber’s finances, employment law, and payroll realities. It enlisted the help of experts from two companies that specialize in payroll costs, Paychex and StaffOne. It also talked to SherpaShare, a third party application that helps ride-share drivers track their work, for data on the size and composition of Uber’s workforce, which SherpaShare estimates at around 200,000 drivers. (Uber says it has 160,000 drivers, but those numbers were from the beginning of this year.)

To get the $4.1 billion figure, Fortune started at the top. Uber’s recently leaked numbers—the company is private, so it doesn’t disclose its financials, but some have emerged—put the company’s expected sales this year at about $10 billion. Uber splits what passengers pay 80-20. Uber takes a 20% cut for allowing drivers to use its platform. The rest, $8 billion, is what the drivers get, which would be their salaries if they were employees, though Uber currently does not include that figure in its finances.

Two caveats: Uber has licensing deals for its technology with other companies, and those deals may be contributing to its $2 billion in revenue. So Fortune may be overstating driver salaries by a bit—but not by much. And, just to clarify, Fortune's calculations are based on what it would hypothetically cost Uber if it had to hire all of its drivers as employees. But even a legal loss in California won’t automatically mean it will have to change the status of all of its drivers, though it will add to the pressure on the company to do so.

Let’s move on. As 1099 workers, Uber drivers are responsible for paying all of their payroll taxes. If they were employees, Uber would have to split those taxes with its employees. Uber’s share: 6.2% of what it pays its drivers for Social Security and another 1.45% for Medicare taxes. And it has to pay those taxes for both its part-time and full-time workers.   Uber's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, one of its largest new costs, would total $612 million a year. 

The next biggest cost: workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ comp is regulated by each state, and not all states require it, though most states where Uber is active do. The one exception is Texas—but even there, a worker can demand that his or her employer pay for any work-related injuries, so Uber would be smart to have insurance. Rates vary by state and occupation. Those tend to be relatively high for taxi drivers, and particularly high in California, where about 20% of Uber’s drivers are based, according to estimates by SherpaShare. Total workers' compensation insurance bill: $512 million a year.

Next up, medical insurance. Under Obamacare, employers don’t have to provide medical insurance, but starting next year that decision comes with a $2,000 penalty per employee per year. Paychex says that on average employers spend $5,000 for single employees and $12,000 for family coverage medical insurance. But employers can provide basic medical insurance (and not pay a penalty) for about $3,000 per employee. According to a filing with the federal government, Uber spent $1,275,066 on its healthcare plan, which included prescription drug benefits, for the workers (non-drivers) that it does classify as employees from July 2013 through June 2014. The filing said the plan covered 442 employees, which means it cost $2,885 per employee.

The good news for Uber is that companies only have to provide healthcare to full-time employees. Uber says that many of its drivers log less than 10 hours a week, though it’s not clear if Uber is counting just the hours when the drivers have passengers, or total drive time. SherpaShare estimates only about 20% of Uber’s drivers work more than 40 hours a week. (Some might even qualify for overtime, but Fortune hasn't factored that cost in.) Nonetheless, providing medical insurance for its full-time drivers at the same rate that it paid in 2014 for other employees would cost Uber $115 million a year.

NerdWallet, which published an earlier story looking at what Uber drivers stand to gain from becoming employees, said that the company would likely have to provide drivers with nine vacation days, based on what it currently offers its employees. Paychex says providing vacation days and sick leave typically costs employers 6.9% of a workers salary. For Uber, again only for its full-time drivers, providing vacation days and sick leave would be another $110 million a year.

Unemployment insurance varies by state. The average of what employers pay in the four states with the most Uber drivers, according to SherpaShare, was $363 per employee.  Unemployment insurance would cost Uber an additional $72 million for Uber a year, plus just over $8 million a year for federal unemployment.

Let's recap Uber's exposure to additional costs as a result of the California ruling classifying drivers as employees:

• Additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes per year:  $612 million 
• Additional workers' compensation insurance per year: $512 million
• Additional medical insurance for full-time drivers per year:  $115 million
• Additional vacation days and paid sick leave for full-time drivers per year: $110 million
• Additional unemployment insurance (California) per year:  $72 million
• Additional federal unemployment insurance (Federal) per year: $8 million

If you tally all of the above, the total so far comes to:  $1.429 billion.   

OK, we’re nearly there.

Companies don’t have to provide a retirement plan. But if they do, they have to provide it for all of their full-time employees. According to Glassdoor, Uber has a 401(k) plan for its current employees, and offers a 3% match, meaning it will match its employees’ 401(k) contributions up to 3% of their salary. If all of Uber’s full-time drivers-turned-employees contributed at least that much, that would be another $72 million in 401(k) plan costs for Uber.

The last one is a big one: millage reimbursement. Not all states require companies to reimburse their employees for using their personal car for business. But California does. And since that is where Uber is based, there is a good chance that it will have to reimburse all of its employees, not just the ones based in California. Calculating this figure is tricky. Based on survey data from SherpaShare, the average Uber driver, full-time and part-time, puts in nearly 24 hours a week for the ride hailing company. The average speed in cities around the country where Uber is most used appears to be around 20 miles per hour. That means the average Uber driver covers about 475 miles a week. The IRS’s mileage reimbursement rate is 57.5 cents per mile. If Uber were to reimburse its workers at that rate, which it has been ordered to do in some cases, that would be an average of $273.13 a week, or just over $13,000 a year per driver. The total mileage reimbursement bill for Uber: $2.6 billion a year.

Add all of those costs up and you get to just over $4.1 billion. Sound too high?  Fortune thought so, too. So it had StaffOne’s Donna Meek, a payroll and HR expert, run her own independent calculation. Meek estimated the costs from the bottom up, looking at what it would cost Uber per worker, rather getting the total figures for each cost as Fortune did. Meek’s conclusion: nearly $1.5 billion before the cost of reimbursing drivers for their miles. So pretty close to what Fortune estimated.   Fortune also calculated how much more Uber's operating costs would increase if all its drivers were classified as employees.

Click Image To Enlarge

Could Uber afford an additional $4.1 billion in costs a year? Depends on how you measure that. Based on profits, no. Uber, by its own admission, is not profitable. So it really can’t afford its current expenses, let alone another $4 billion. But as Uber has told others, startups aren’t run on profits—they’re run on investors’ money. And they can afford their losses as along as those people are willing to keep funding them.

How long will investors be willing to fund Uber? According to leaked financial statements obtained by Gawker, Uber was on track to lose about $300 million a year, though those losses appeared to be growing. It had about $1.2 billion of cash at the end of June 2014. And it just raised an additional $1 billion this summer. That means Uber will likely have about $1.75 billion in cash in the bank at the end of this year.

Sounds like a lot. But if Uber had to swallow an additional $4 billion in costs, they would need to raise more money by the middle of next year, possibly sooner, or face extinction. And that doesn’t include any money it might have to pay out in damages, or past compensation. Uber could force its workers to take a pay cut. Many of them will be getting new benefits. And Uber would be covering some expenses, like gas and payroll taxes, that its workers are covering now.

But James Kimbrough, who drives about 20 hours a week in Austin as a second job, says that Uber has already cut what its drivers make by nearly a half in the past year in order to attract more customers. Any further reduction in rates—”even just a few more cents,” says Kimbrough—and driving for Uber is probably no longer worth it for him. He believes other drivers would feel the same way. So Uber doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room with the drivers.

At a $51 billion valuation, investors obviously believe that, given enough time, Uber is going to make money, and likely a lot of it. The question is how much longer will that take if the company faces an additional $4 billion in expenses—and are investors prepared to stick around for that long. Uber’s cash meter is running, and it’s running fast.

COMMENTARY:  If you missed it, the California Labor Commission ruled on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 that an Uber driver who brought suit was an employee, not an independent contractor. The decision was made after a San Francisco driver, Barbara Ann Berwick, filed a claim against Uber. The commission sided with her largely because it deemed Uber was "involved in every aspect of the operation."

Four more drivers subsequently sued Uber citing the case of Uber driver Barbara Ann Berwick, that won her case with the CLC.  A judge finally ruled that Uber drivers could file a class action suit, paving the way for all Uber drivers to file suit as a group.  Uber is appealing the ruling.  This case is so important to Uber, that losing at the appellate courts, and if necessary, in the US Supreme Court (if necessary), could become very costly for Uber.    

I have actually been involved in a case similar to Uber where the State of California ruled against a former employer mine.  California applies the economic realities test or amount of control the employer exerts over employees in the performance of their work.  In applying the economic realities test, the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the issue involved are:

1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal.
2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;
3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
4. The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;
5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
7. The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and
11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.

Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker’s duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary.(Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288).

In conclusion, if you utilize the services of independent contractors in your workplace, are providing workspace facilities (offices, desks, equipment, supplies, etc.), set specific work hours and work schedules, set specific guidelines and instructions for the performance of the work to be completed, provide regular supervision and guidance, and control as to where, when and how the work is to be performed, your indepndent contractors are probably employees.  Wow, this describes most of Silicon Valley employers, particularly startups, who as a general rule, employ many independent contractors, in order to avoid paying payroll taxes and providing employee benefits.

The panic at Uber HQ after the latest California decision ruling their drivers as employees is probably something like this:

 

Courtesy of an article dated September 17, 2015 appearing in Fortune and an article dated June 17, 2015 appearing in Business Insider and the California Department of Industrial Relations article titled, "Independent Contractor versus Employee" 

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555 

Subscribe To My Blog Newfeed

UBER'S PLUSH NEW SAN FRANCISCO HQ, PROJECTED REVENUES FOR 2015 AND WHAT THEIR DRIVERS MAKE

It's a rite of passage for so many tech companies: building their first wildly ambitious, kind of ridiculous, and generally stunning headquarters to accommodate a ballooning headcount as growth explodes. Uber is the latest to start working on a new HQ, and design mockups for the building were released this week.

Click Image To Enlarge

The ride-hailing company, which launched in 2009 and now operates in more than 200 cities across 55 countries, revealed plans for the plush new office space this week. The two-building complex, which’ll be linked by three glass walkways, should be open for business by early 2018.

Uber is planning a towering, two-building campus in San Francisco's Mission Bay neighborhood with 423,000 square feet of office space — enough to fit over 3,000 people,reports SFGate. From the outside, the buildings look like glass warehouses: they're almost entirely transparent aside from a series of steel beams outlining their edges. The two buildings, one rising up 11 stories and the other six stories, are connected by three slanted bridges, also almost entirely covered in glass.

Click Image To Enlarge

Though it's transparent from the outside, Uber plans to have a bit more going on inside. Rather than having an open office, it's decided to set up a series of small groups of workstations and shared spaces, according to Dezeen. The architects also plan to integrate shops in the ground level of both buildings, which is important for keeping the area vibrant.

Click Image To Enlarge

Uber hopes to open the offices in late 2017 or early 2018, according to SFGate. Construction reportedly begins this fall.  

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

All images credit Shop Architects.

COMMENTARY:    For those of you not familiar with Uber, here are a few facts.  

Revenues

In November 2014, unnamed sources told Business Insider's Henry Bodget that mobile ride hailing startup Uber is expected to hit an annual revenue run rate of $10 billion by the end of 2015.

Uber keeps 20% of every transaction, which means Uber will be netting about $2 billion on $10 billion gross revenue.

What's more, most of Uber's revenue comes from 10 of its earliest cities, including San Francisco and New York. When its other 140+ cities mature, you can imagine that $10 billion revenue figure multiplying quickly. San Francisco alone generates hundreds of millions of dollars for Uber. Uber is operating in more than 45 countries without having made a single acquisition.

That's not to say the company is profitable. It spends tons of money on marketing tactics to recruit new users and drivers. Still, those figures for a five-year-old startup are staggering.

To put that in perspective, Facebook is expected to generate $10 billion for the first time this year, after 10 years of operation. Granted, Uber and Facebook are entirely different businesses (advertising versus transactional) but yah, $10 billion is a lot.

Blodget also learned that Uber's revenue will grow about 300% this year and it's expected to grow another 300% next year. A snapshot of Uber's financials obtained by Valleywag in late 2013 showed Uber generating about $20 million per week.

Further, Blodget's sources believe Uber will go public in a few years at a $50-100 billion valuation. Uber's last valuation exceeded $18 billion.

In conclusion, Uber management obviously believes that it has a very viable business model that is disrupting the taxi industry, creating jobs for thousands, and prospects for growth are very rosey. Hence, the need for a new corpoate headquarters.  However, there is considerable controversey on whether Uber drivers are really earning a good living, or are they merely pawns for Uber to make money off their efforts.

What Uber Drives Earn

Ridesharing companies promise easy money, but how often do you have to drive to pay for car ownership costs, such as insurance? For the more ambitious, how can you make $50,000, $75,000 or even $100,000?

To find out, NerdWallet crunched the numbers to see how many rides drivers for Uber, Lyft and Sidecar would have to provide to pay for their car ownership costs such as insurance, gas and repairs. We also calculated how many rides are required for drivers to make $50,000, $75,000 and $100,000 in gross income. Using data from SherpaShare, a service that helps drivers track ridesharing income and expenses, NerdWallet analyzed 14 of the country’s largest markets for Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.

Key findings

• On average, drivers make more per trip driving for Uber than they do with Lyft or Sidecar. The average fare for Uber is $15.97; average fares for Lyft and Sidecar are $11.48 and $13.35, respectively.
• To make an annual income of $50,000, the average Uber driver needs to provide 60.21 rides each week, while those working for Lyft need to give 83.76 rides a week and Sidecar drivers would have to provide 72.03 rides in a week.
• Lyft drivers in Dallas make the least, $9.73, per trip. Based on the city’s average annual insurance premium of $1,042.30, a driver would have to provide 97.65 rides before paying for a car insurance premium.

How much will you make?

Based on the data, Uber drivers make more with each fare than with Lyft or Sidecar. Uber drivers earned eight of the 10 highest average trip fares in the markets we surveyed.

On average, Lyft drivers make less than Uber drivers, $11.48 compared with $15.97; and average trip lengths are relatively similar, 10.2 minutes per trip for Uber compared with 13.6 minutes for a Lyft trip.

But Sidecar seems to cater to a different market. The average Sidecar ride is 22.9 minutes, which is more than twice as long as the average Uber ride. According to SherpaShare, the longer fares can be attributed to Sidecar’s marketplace feature that lets drivers set their own prices. When drivers do their own commutes, they often lower the fare below market rates to pick up passengers going their way.

How can you make $50,000?

In short, it depends on where and when you drive. For example, “driver utilization” for New York City’s yellow cabs is about 50%, which means that for each hour drivers work, they are ferrying passengers 50% of the time. SherpaShare’s per trip fare data for Uber shows that the average driver would have to drive 20.47 hours each week to make $50,000 a year. However, from anecdotal evidence and investigative reports, it is likely that the average driver utilization for ridesharing is much less than 50%.

Number of trips needed to make $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000

Market	Average annual insurance premium	Annual car ownership costs for a 2014 Toyota Camry	Ridesharing platform	Average trip fare	Number of trips needed each week to pay for car insurance	Number of trips needed each week to pay for car ownership costs	Number of trips needed each week to make $50,000	Number of trips needed each week to make $75,000	Number of trips needed each week to make $100,000
Boston	$1,174.50	$11,421.48	Uber	$16.07	1.41	5.93	59.83	89.75	119.67
			Lyft	$11.22	2.01	8.49	85.70	128.55	171.40
			Sidecar	$12.39	1.82	7.69	77.61	116.41	155.21
Charlotte	$815.00	$11,166.87	Uber	$11.85	1.32	7.59	81.14	121.71	162.28
			Lyft	$11.49	1.36	7.83	83.68	125.53	167.37
			Sidecar	$19.66	0.80	4.57	48.91	73.36	97.82
Chicago	$1,243.52	$11,981.90	Uber	$12.73	1.88	8.23	75.53	113.30	151.07
			Lyft	$10.50	2.28	9.97	91.58	137.36	183.15
			Sidecar	$15.36	1.56	6.82	62.60	93.90	125.20
Dallas	$1,157.10	$11,653.66	Uber	$12.66	1.76	7.99	75.95	113.93	151.90
			Lyft	$9.73	2.29	10.40	98.82	148.23	197.64
Denver	$1,042.30	$11,545.78	Uber	$12.94	1.55	7.41	74.31	111.46	148.61
			Lyft	$10.36	1.93	9.25	92.81	139.22	185.63
Detroit	$4,924.99	$15,608.04	Uber	$16.13	5.87	10.64	59.61	89.42	119.22
			Lyft	$13.03	7.27	13.17	73.79	110.69	147.59
Los Angeles	$1,175.61	$11,890.59	Uber	$14.25	1.59	7.40	67.48	101.21	134.95
			Lyft	$11.59	1.95	9.09	82.96	124.44	165.93
			Sidecar	$14.14	1.60	7.45	68.00	102.00	136.00
Orange County	$988.94	$12,092.12	Uber	$16.07	1.18	6.86	59.83	89.75	119.67
			Lyft	$12.03	1.58	9.16	79.93	119.89	159.86
			Sidecar	$15.60	1.22	7.06	61.64	92.46	123.27
Phoenix	$1,029.49	$11,854.45	Uber	$16.31	1.21	6.24	58.95	88.43	117.91
			Lyft	$12.33	1.61	8.25	77.98	116.98	155.97
Salt Lake City	$772.23	$11,372.23	Uber	$15.07	0.99	5.96	63.80	95.71	127.61
			Lyft	$9.92	1.50	9.05	96.93	145.39	193.86
San Diego	$818.08	$11,696.58	Uber	$15.51	1.01	6.48	61.99	92.99	123.99
			Lyft	$11.40	1.38	8.82	84.35	126.52	168.69
			Sidecar	$15.58	1.01	6.45	61.72	92.57	123.43
San Francisco	$1,013.90	$11,838.03	Uber	$19.84	0.98	5.16	48.46	72.70	96.93
			Lyft	$11.92	1.64	8.58	80.67	121.00	161.33
			Sidecar	$12.63	1.54	8.10	76.13	114.20	152.26
Seattle	$1,016.86	$11,822.71	Uber	$16.59	1.18	6.15	57.96	86.94	115.92
			Lyft	$10.64	1.84	9.58	90.37	135.56	180.74
			Sidecar	$14.91	1.31	6.84	64.49	96.73	128.98
Washington, D.C.	$1,390.88	$11,490.15	Uber	$14.23	1.88	6.72	67.57	101.36	135.14
			Lyft	$12.31	2.17	7.77	78.11	117.17	156.22
			Sidecar	$12.69	2.11	7.54	75.77	113.66	151.54
National average	$1,099.71	$11,772.68	Uber	$15.97	1.32	6.11	60.21	90.31	120.42
			Lyft	$11.48	1.84	8.51	83.76	125.64	167.52
			Sidecar	$13.35	1.58	7.31	72.03	108.04	144.05

 

 

Courtesy of an article dated May 29, 2015 appearing in The Verge, an article dated November 15, 2014 appearing in Business Insider, and an article dated December 11, 2014 appearing in NerdWallet

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555 

Subscribe To My Blog Newfeed

THE "ELIO," A THREE-WHEELED CAR FOR THE MASSES THAT COSTS JUST $6,800, GETS 84 MPG AND GOES 672 MILES ON A TANK OF GAS

The Elio is technically a motorcycle, but is a whole lot easier and safer to drive.

Most Americans--about 93%--drive to work alone. So why use a car that’s big enough for four? A new vehicle that’s half-motorcycle and half-car is designed to replace sedans and SUVs on morning commutes and help save money and emissions in the process: The Elio costs $6,800 and gets 84 miles to the gallon. It’s possible to drive 672 miles on a single tank of gas. That's the distance from New York City to Detroit.

Paul Elio, the founder and CEO of Elio Motors and inventor of the Elio three-wheeled car. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Paul Elio, founder of Elio Motors says.

“The premise behind the concept is that most households have at least one vehicle that’s single occupant.  Even if you have kids, you probably have an SUV or minivan, and then a small sedan with dust on the backseat. We can be that car.”

The Elio actually has two seats, set front to back for ideal aerodynamics, in case the driver needs to give someone a ride. Inside, it looks and acts pretty much like a car; it’s fully enclosed and has car seats and seatbelts, air bags, and options for manual or automatic transmission. It's more like a car than this somewhat similar vehicle from Lit Motors. But because it has three wheels, it’s classified under law as a motorcycle.

 

The motorcycle classification leads to some strange consequences--in a few states, under current law, you’d have to wear a helmet even though the vehicle is enclosed. But it also has benefits. Elio says. 

“As a motorcycle, you can go in the HOV lane by yourself.”

It also meant the vehicle can come to market more quickly, since there’s less red tape involved in manufacturing a motorcycle.

The Elio three-wheeled car (rear view) (Click Image To Enlarge)

Even though regulations don’t require it, the company plans to comply with all standards for cars that apply. Elio says.

“We’re engineering to achieve a 5-star crash rating in all directions.  We’re going way beyond the minimum.”

Still, there are a few idiosyncrasies--the headlights, for example, can’t comply with car standards because motorcycle lights are required to be brighter by law.

 

Because the vehicle is so lightweight--about half the weight of a typical small car--the company can save on materials costs. Elio has also tried to optimize other steps in manufacturing to keep costs down.  He says.  

“We get all 34 of our suppliers together once every four to six weeks and we work on the vehicle as a group. That’s never been done before. All of these things add up to a lower price.”

There are no guarantees of success. Aptera Motors developed a three-wheeled electric vehicle with much fanfare, but the company shut down in 2011.

When the vehicle comes to market next year, the Elio plans to have innovative financing to make the vehicle even easier to buy.   Elio says.  

“It’s actually cheaper to drive a brand new Elio than a clunker.”

The company will offer the option to buy the car with nothing but a special credit card for gas; every time someone buys gas, they’ll pay extra to make a car payment.

Elio explains.

“If you buy $10 of gas, it will show up as a $30 charge on your statement--that $20 extra is your vehicle payment.  As long as you drove into the dealership with something that gets 27 miles per gallon or less--and we know there are 100 million of those cars out there--you’ll be paying less, and you’ll have a brand new vehicle under warranty.”

You'll also be helping reduce pollution.  Elio says.  

"If you drive it 20,000 miles per year, an Elio produces less emissions than one cow’s flatulence during the same time.  We’re cleaner than a cow. After 10 years of sales, we expect to save 8 billion gallons of gas."

COMMENTARY:    Because it has three wheels — two in front and one in the rear — the Elio is actually classified as a motorcycle by the U.S. government. But Elio Motors founder Paul Elio says the vehicle has all the safety features of a car, like anti-lock brakes, front and side air bags and a steel cage that surrounds the occupants.  According to Paul Elio, the company hopes to ultimately achieve a five-star safety rating.  Drivers won’t be required to wear helmets or have motorcycle licenses.

 

The Elio’s two seats sit front and back instead of side by side, so the driver is positioned in the center with the passenger directly behind. That arrangement, plus the low seating position — the Elio is just 54 inches tall — and the lack of power steering take a little getting used to.

But after a couple of spins around the block in this Detroit suburb, it felt like any other small car. That’s partly because its two front wheels stick out by a foot on both sides, aiding balance and preventing the vehicle from tipping. The Elio has a three-cylinder, 0.9-liter engine and a top speed of more than 100 miles per hour. It gets an estimated 84 mpg on the highway and 49 mpg in city driving.

Keeping Costs Low

Elio keeps the costs down in several ways. The car only has one door, on the left side, which shaves a few hundred dollars off the manufacturing costs. Having three wheels also makes it cheaper. It will be offered in just two configurations — with a manual or automatic transmission — and it has standard air conditioning, power windows and door locks and an AM/FM radio. More features, such as navigation or blind-spot detection, can be ordered through Elio’s long list of suppliers.

Germany’s Daimler also promised to revolutionize American commutes with the Smart car, but that hasn’t panned out, says Karl Brauer, a senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book. Smart sold just 9,264 cars in the U.S. last year.

The Smart has a starting price of $13,270 for a gas-powered car and gets 38 mpg on the highway — not enough savings or fuel economy to justify sacrificing comfort in the tiny car. But, Brauer said, the equation might work in the Elio.

He said.  

“If it really gets 84 mpg and doesn’t drive terribly, it would justify the compromises you’re making in size and comfort.”

Elio will also save money by selling the cars directly through its own stores and not through franchised dealers, similar to electric car maker Tesla Motors. Elio plans stores in 60 major metropolitan areas. They’ll be serviced by car repair chain Pep Boys.

The Entrepreneur Behind The Elio

Paul Elio, a one-time stockbroker and New York City cab driver, dreamed as a kid that he would one day own a car company called Elio Motors.

Elio told The Associated Press. 

“As I matured I decided that was as likely as playing in the NFL.”

But he did earn an engineering degree at General Motors Institute — now Kettering University — and started his own company engineering products like children’s car seats.

In 2008, tired of high gas prices and the country’s dependence on foreign oil, he started working on a fuel-efficient car. Equally important to him was creating U.S. manufacturing jobs and making the car inexpensive enough to appeal to buyers who might otherwise be stuck in old, unreliable clunkers.

He said.  

“Whatever matters to you, this can move the needle on it.”

The recession killed his engineering company, but it also provided the opportunity to buy the Shreveport plant when GM filed for bankruptcy protection. Elio Motors plans to employ 1,500 people at the plant.

The company has also applied for a $185 million advanced vehicle development loan from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Paul Elio said so far, reservation holders are older, more affluent buyers who will use the Elio as a second or third car for commuting.

He said.

“It’s an ‘and’ purchase for a lot of folks.  So keep your SUV or your minivan or your large sedan, and when you’re driving back and forth to work all by yourself, take the Elio. At this price point and this mileage, that works financially for folks.”

Eventually, though, he believes the car will appeal to high school and college students as well as used-car drivers who want something newer and more reliable. He also hopes to eventually export it to other countries.

Elio Motors Makes Progress in Helmet Exemption Legislation

Louisiana is the most recent state to declare helmet exemption exemption for the Elio, which is federally classified as an enclosed motorcycle. House Bill 218 was unanimously approved in Louisiana, where the Elio will be manufactured, in late June. New York also has an exemption on the books, allowing the Elio to be driven around the progressive state without a helmet.

Another legislative success is quickly emerging. Michigan Senate Bill 390 was recently passed, and is expected to pass through the House unanimously, following Louisiana’s lead. This is good news for the company, which will base their corporate headquarters out of the state. Louisiana, New York, and Michigan join 42 other states which allow the Elio to be driven sans helmet.

There are only 4 or 5 states left that technically require a helmet with this vehicle, since its licensed as a motorcycle. They've managed to get exemptions in numerous states already. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Among the 5 states that technically require helmets to be worn while driving the Elio, are Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Nebraska.

Elio Motors’ Vice President of Government Affairs, Joel Sheltrown says,

“We are actively working with the five helmet states’ legislators to work through any issues they may have. Given our success in the other 45 states, we are optimistic about solving any issues we may face.”

Sheltrown adds that Missouri, a helmet-state, has already identified bill sponsors and drafted legislation to exempt the Elio from their helmet laws.

Big Plans To Expand

Phoenix-based Elio plans to start making the cars next fall at a former General Motors plant in Shreveport, Louisiana. Already, more than 27,000 people have reserved one. Elio hopes to make 250,000 cars a year by 2016. That’s close to the number Mazda sells in the U.S.

Elio Motors executives placed a temporary sign outside the former General Motors plant in Shreveport, La. (Click Image To Enlarge)

The Caddo Parrish's Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response (RACER) Trust is responsible for selling and cleaning up former General Motors properties and has agreed to sell the shuttered General Motors plant near Shreveport, La., to Elio Motors.  The start-up carmaker plans to hire 1,500 new workers.

Elio Motors will rent approximately 1.5 million square feet of the 4.1 million square foot building from Industrial Realty Group, who leases the GM plant.

The deal was heralded by Louisiana politicians as an economic victory for a community devastated by GM's contraction. The state was expected to provide incentives for the project, but details were not immediately available.

Closing Statements

I remain skeptical that Elio Motors can raise sufficient startup capital to modernize and equip their plant in Shreveport, Lousiana in time to begin production of the Elio car by fall 2015.   According to Paul Elio, Elio Motors CEO, the company is trying to raise $165 million.   

By comparison, Tesla Motors had to raise over $500 million, which included a $465 million direct loan from the Department of Energy, just to have sufficient capital to hire plant workers, modernize and equip their plant in Fremont, California in order to build the Roadster, their first all-electric car. 

Tesla Motors required much more startup capital because the Roadster, a four-wheeled and all-electric sports car was a far more complex automobile to build, requiring parts from hundreds of vendors.  The Roadster is a two-seater sportscar that weighed over 2,700 lbs, could travel about 245 miles on an electrical charge, has a top speed of 187 mph and could do 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds. The price tag: $109,000.  

By comparison, the Elio is a three-wheeled car/motorcycle that uses a three-cylinder motor and weighs only 1,600 lbs, with a top speed over just over 100 mph, and a range of 672 miles (highway) on a tank of gas.  The price tag:  $6,800.   According to Paul Elio, Elio Motors CEO, the majority of key parts and components are sourced from about 30 vendors.

If Elio Motors can raise the startup capital they need (see above), they could conceivably begin limited production in late 2015, but I doubt they can deliver 27,000 vehicles (their current pre-orders, but I wonder how many of those pre-orders are solid)  in 2015.   It takes time to hire plant workers, especially skilled factory workers when the U.S. auto industry doing so well, and workers will be reluctant to leave a well established, well-financed employer for a startup like Elio Motors.    

Courtesy of an article dated March 31, 2014 appearing in Fast Company Exist, an article dated January 18, 2014 appearing in the Shreveport Times, an article dated September 30, 2013 appearing in Technology Tell, and an article dated January 8, 2014 appearing in USA Today 

 

HARLEY-DAVIDSON UNVEILS THE 'LIVEWIRE', ITS FIRST ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLE, AND SURPRISINGLY IT DOESN'T SUCK

The LiveWire, Harley-Davidson's first electric motorcycle (Click Image To Enlarge)

Harley-Davidson is more than a motorcycle, or even a brand. It is an icon, one that brings to mind big, loud bikes ridden by burly men with tattoos and beards.

The company has long been known for rumbling V-twin engines and the open road. All of which makes the idea of an electric Harley seem downright absurd.

It’s actually pretty cool.

The LiveWire is the first electric two-wheeler out of Milwaukee. We spent an afternoon riding one amongst the weeds and broken glass of an abandoned Marine Corps runway outside Los Angeles last week and came away impressed. The Hell’s Angels aren’t going to be riding them anytime soon, but the bike offers an entertaining blend of power and comfort. It doesn’t sound anything at all like a proper Harley—or a “fighter jet landing on an aircraft carrier” as Harley brass say—but it’s got a futuristic sound that brings to mind an airliner taking to the air.

The LiveWire may not rumble like the Harleys everyone knows, and it doesn’t perform like them. But it’ll hit 60 mph in under four seconds and it’s got more style than other electrics we’ve ridden. Now Harley has to find out if anyone actually wants the thing.

Cutting weight and potatoes

If Harley-Davidson isn’t the world’s most famous motorcycle, it’s close. The company has been building motorcycles since 1903, and typically subscribes to the bigger-is-better school of engineering. But even Harley-Davidson knows the times are changing, and it recognizes the need to diversify a customer base dominated by middle-aged white guys.

The Los Angeles Police Department has bought a Zero MMX electric motorcycle, that offers the advantages of a regular motorcyle with the addition of stealth. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Upstarts like Zero Motorcycles, BRD RedShift and Brammo have proven one way to attract younger, urban riders is selling small, compact bikes powered by batteries.

BRD RedShift all-electric motorcycle. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Even major players like Yamaha are giving electrics a go. So Harley is trying it out, too.

Mark-Hans Richer, Harley’s top marketing guy, says. 

“Any business has always got to look ahead to see where customers are interested in going, and see where society might be going,” 

 

That said, this isn’t a production model. Not yet, anyway. Harley is taking a few dozen LiveWires on a tour, dubbed Project LiveWire, of the United States and Europe. It will invite people in each city to check out the bike and provide feedback. The tour starts Monday in New York.

The key challenge in building the LiveWire was the shift from building a bike around an engine to building one around a battery.  A battery is heavy—Harley wouldn’t say what the pack weighs, but one EV expert told us something with the range and recharge time Harley claims would be around 250 pounds—so engineers had to cut weight elsewhere. The cast aluminum perimeter frame wrapped around the battery box weighs just 14 pounds, which makes it a full eight pounds lighter than the Zero’s frame. The wheels have hollow spokes, and Harley claims they’re among the lightest aluminum wheels it’s ever produced. There’s no need for an exhaust system, which not only saves weight but gives the bike a sleeker look. The result is a clean, tightly packaged bike without frivolous details.

 

Harley did most of the chassis work—it’s been building bikes since the dawn of internal combustion, so it’s got that down pat—but brought in experts like Mission Motors for help with things like the motor controller.

Speaking of the motor, the LiveWire marks quite a departure from Harley’s signature sound. You don’t get the syncopated “potato, potato, potato” that is synonymous with a 60-degree V-twin engine. But even though it’s electric, and therefore has no engine, the LiveWire had to live up to Harley’s “look, sound, and feel” mantra. That took a lot of work, but company president and COO Matt Levatich insists the result is “not contrived.”

The high-pitched whir of the longitudinally-mounted, three-phase AC induction motor reverberates through the chassis, amplifying the sound. It starts off quietly, then builds in pitch and volume as the bike gains speed. It’s louder than you’d think, and though it’s not going to set off any car alarms, it’ll definitely make you smile.

Click Image To Enlarge

What customers want

The LiveWire offers 74 horsepower, 52 foot-pounds of torque and a (governed) top speed of 92 mph. It’s more powerful and quicker off the line than the $13,000 Zero DS, but it’s got less torque and range. That said, it’s got more torque and power than Harley’s Iron 883.

Still, Harley execs and engineers don’t like talking about specs. They don’t want potential customers making judgments based on what the LiveWire offers right now. The LiveWire is a work in progress, based on “what we think our customers are looking for,” Richer says. The company hopes to glean more info during the LiveWire tour, and iterate accordingly to suit consumer tastes. Think of this as LiveWire v1.0.

Harley isn’t saying much about the drivetrain beyond saying the bike uses a lithium-ion battery with a range of 53 miles. It charges in 3.5 hours at 220 volts. Assuming the bike has a 3.3 kw charging system like other electric motorcycles, some back-of-the-envelope math suggests the LiveWire uses a 10 kilowatt-hour pack. Twist the throttle and the bike leaps forward with authority. Roll off the throttle and the regenerative braking kicks in, bringing the bike down from speed with due efficiency.

Click Image To Enlarge

Harley emphasizes its excitement over the LiveWire, but downplays its importance. An electric bike is just an idea, something that could draw younger, urban buyers to the brand. Companies like Zero have had some success with that strategy, and even convinced a few police departments to add electrics to their fleets.

Richer says.

“This is just part of us understanding where the world might want to go.”  

The upside of so cautious an approach, of course, is there’s less fallout if the bike is a flop.

New direction

That’s not out of the question. Harley’s past forays into the potentially lucrative market for smaller, city-focused bikes have ended poorly.  That hasn’t kept it from trying again this year with the launch of the Street, a simpler, cheaper, bike made for city riding.  The LiveWire is another step in that direction.

Levatich says.

“Why can’t Harley do some of these other cool things, too, and see where it takes us?” 

COMMENTARY:   Now that's what I call a cool looking all-electric motorcycle.  What I don't like about Harley-Davidson's new all-electric motorcycle is the 53-mile range on a battery charge. That's just not going to cut it if you start using it for commuting long distances like here in the San Francisco Bay Area.  You might be able to make it from Walnut Creek to San Francisco on a charge, but you would have to recharge it there, in order to get back home.  

Harley-Davidson did not provide any prices, but I would like to know what the LiveWire is going to cost owners initially.  I don't think it is going to attract hardcore Harley riders, who prefer the loud roar and rumble of their choppers, a principal reason why they bought one in the first place. The LiveWire does not live up to the Harley image, so it makes sense to introduce the bike to younger, more environmentally conscious, urban riders who travel short distances close to where they live.  

From a strictly marketing standpoint, I would not produce the LiveWire under the Harley-Davidson brand, because the brand is too closely identified with loud rumbling motorcycles, not electrics.  So marketing the LiveWire under the LiveWire brand name makes more sense to me, because it distances itself from Harley-Davidson's image.  

Courtesy of an article dated June 19, 2014 appearing in Wired 

GOOGLE UNVEILS ITS NEW PROTOTYPE SELF-DRIVING CAR TO THE PUBLIC, AND IT LOOKS LIKE A TINY BUBBLE CAR

AW, LOOK, IT'S SMILING A MONA LISA SMILE AT US. NICE AUTONOMOUS CAR!

We've known Google has been working on self-driving cars for awhile now, but all of a sudden, the project is real: last night, Google revealed a working prototype of its self-driving car. It's a two-seater that looks something like a mashup of a Fiat 500, Steve Urkel's car, and a cartoon smiley face.

Chris Urmson, Director Google Car program is interviewed on the Charlie Rose TV show. (Click Image To Enlarge)

This isn't a production model; Google is making perhaps 100 of these little buggers mostly as an experiment. They have no steering wheel, no gas or brake pedals, and only two seats. They're powered by an electric engine and are artificially limited to a top speed of 25 mph (good news for the testers). The cars are resolutely simple. Says Chris Urmson, the director of the project, in a Google blog post:

"On the inside, we’ve designed for learning, not luxury, so we’re light on creature comforts, but we’ll have two seats (with seatbelts), a space for passengers’ belongings, buttons to start and stop, and a screen that shows the route--and that’s about it."

The new prototype of the Google Self-Driving Car is finally unveiled to the public. (Click Image To Enlarge)

The car isn't designed like other cars; it lacks things most cars have, and not just the steering wheel. It has no mirrors, no stereo, no glove compartment. Though it can only go 25 mph and, according to Re/Code, it was constructed to minimize damage from any collision it might have:

Ron Medford, director of safety for the project and former U.S. Department of Transportation administrator in charge of vehicle safety research and regulations said.

“We imagine at some point there will be an accident with one of these vehicles, so we’ve designed the front end to be soft.  The front of the car is built with foam, and the windshield is flexible to reduce the injury the car might inflict if it collided with pedestrians, bikers or anything else.”

Passengers hitched themselves in for a ride on Google's new prototype self-driving car. (Click Image To Enlarge)

If you look closely, you can also spy a sort of Mona Lisa smiley face on its front. Google says it's aware that the idea of a robotic self-driving car might be a bit threatening to folks used to cars that can't, you know, move themselves around, so the company very intentionally created the friendliest-looking car it could. The car has details that almost make it look like it has a nose and mouth, and the tiny size and gentle bubbly curves of the body make it a very nonthreatening-looking vehicle.

A look inside a new prototype of the Google self-driving car. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Google and other auto makers have previously experimented with retrofitting existing conventional cars to drive themselves. But this is the first car really designed from the ground up to drive itself. It seems like a curious thing, to sit in the front seat of a car with no controls--almost like riding in a gondola. Check out this video:

 

Google's reasoning for the self-driving car project isn't hard to grasp, given there are 33,000 auto-related deaths per year here in the States, and an estimated 1.2 million worldwide. Google believes self-driving cars can reduce that danger by up to 90%. For drivers of these cars, that means no more drunk driving, no more falling asleep at the wheel, no more falling victim to blind spots or road rage from other drivers.

Google's new self-driving car prototype being built at its production facility by Google automotive engineers (Click Images To Enlarge) 

Urmson wrote on his blog,  

"If all goes well, we’d like to run a small pilot program here in California in the next couple of years."

California is one of the only states, along with Florida, Nevada, and Michigan, where self-driving cars are legal.

Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY:   I have covered Google's self-driving car before, but this is the first actual prototype that will serve as a test bed on the roads of California.  If it passes this test, which will probably last several years, Google will know if it has a safe, practical and eco-friendly automobile that can have public appeal.  I remain skeptical that the Google self-driving car will ever become a viable transportation vehicle.  Too many things that can go wrong.  You can't possibly build enough safety features into the car's computer brain to cope with today's stressful and often unsafe driving conditions, but only time will tell.

Courtesy of an article dated May 28, 2014 appearing in Fast Company Design

CHEVROLET UNVEILS THE 2015 CORVETTE Z06 AND Z07 PERFORMANCE PACKAGE

The 2015 Corvette Z06 will deliver unprecedented levels of aerodynamic downforce, at least 625 horsepower from an all-new supercharged engine, and an all-new, high-performance eight-speed automatic transmission, and the suite of advanced driver technologies introduced on the Corvette Stingray.  (Click Image To Enlarge) 

 

WITH THE TRACK-FOCUSED Z07 PERFORMANCE PACKAGE, THE 2015 CORVETTE Z06 BECOMES A TRUE ALL-AMERICAN MADE SUPERCAR THAT CAN COMPETE ON ANY TRACK. 

 

 

The 2015 Corvette Z06 will deliver unprecedented levels of aerodynamic downforce, at least 625 horsepower from an all-new supercharged engine, and an all-new, high-performance eight-speed automatic transmission, and the suite of advanced driver technologies introduced on the Corvette Stingray.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

 

The 2015 Corvette Z06 is distinguished from the Corvette Stingray by unique color schemes that emphasize the driver-focused cockpit, and a unique, flat-bottomed steering wheel.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

 

With track-focused Z07 performance package, 2015 Corvette Z06 delivers faster lap times than 2013 Corvette ZR1.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

 

The heart of the 2015 Corvette Z06 is the all-new LT4 6.2L supercharged V-8 engine, expected to deliver an estimated 625 horsepower (466 kW) and 635 lb-ft of torque (861 Nm). To balance performance and efficiency, the LT4 leverages the same trio of advanced technologies introduced on the Corvette Stingray: Direct injection, Active Fuel Management, or cylinder deactivation, and continuously variable valve timing.

Click Image To Enlarge

 

The new 1.7L Eaton R1740 TVS supercharger spins at up to 20,000 rpm – 5,000 rpm more than the supercharger on the Corvette ZR1’s LS9. The rotors are shorter in length, too, which contributes to their higher-rpm capability – and enables them to get up to speed quicker, producing power-enhancing boost earlier in the rpm band. That boost is achieved more efficiently, thanks to a new, more direct discharge port that creates less turbulence, reducing heat and speeding airflow into the engine.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

The 2015 model is the first Corvette Z06 to offer a supercharged engine, an automatic transmission and, thanks to a stronger aluminum frame, a removable roof panel. The new, supercharged 6.2L engine is expected to deliver at least 625 horsepower (466 kW), and can be matched with either a seven-speed manual or an all-new, high-performance eight-speed automatic transmission with paddle shifters for manual control. The aluminum frame carries over from the Corvette Stingray and will be used essentially unchanged for the Corvette Racing C7.R.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

  

The 2015 Corvette Z06 will deliver unprecedented levels of aerodynamic downforce, at least 625 horsepower from an all-new supercharged engine, and an all-new, high-performance eight-speed automatic transmission, and the suite of advanced driver technologies introduced on the Corvette Stingray.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

 

The 2015 Corvette Z06 (bottom) and the upgraded version equipped with the Z07 performance package (top) for the serious racer.

 

 
Click Image To Enlarge

More images of the 2015 Corvette Z06:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Click Images To Enlarge

 

COMMENTARY:   No that's what I call an out-of-the-box, true all-American sports car that can compete on the race course without any problems.  A true American made super car that can compete on any course.   Sorry, don't have all the performance specs yet, but they will be incredible for sure.

 

Courtesy of an article dated January 18, 2013 appearing in Luxurious Magazine

CHECK OUT GOOGLE'S NEW $82 MILLION CORPORATE JET FACILITY

THE NEW GOOGLE COMPLEX WILL REPORTEDLY BE THE ONE OF THE LARGEST SINGLE-CLIENT CORPORATE AIR FACILITIES IN THE WORLD.

Google executives love to fly, and they fly a lot. A recent NASA report by the space agency's inspector general found chartered jets shuttling GOOG higher-ups received discounted fuel from the federal government that they weren't entitled to; there's now talk of Google paying some of that money back. But Google may get to experience every Fortune 500 company's wildest travel dream next month: A $82 million jet center dedicated to executives' private planes.

Exterior view of the new Google private jet facility. (Click Image To Enlarge)

In January, groundbreaking is expected to take place on a 29-acre facility featuring approximately 270,000 square feet of hangar space. The huge swath of space will effectively become a separate airport for Google executives and other tech muckety-mucks; private aviation support firm Signature Flight Support has a 50-year lease on the facility and will operate it with a partner named Blue City Holdings. In a statement, airport executives described San Jose-based Blue City as a "corporation representing the personal aircraft of the principals at Google" and explicitly said they would grant private airport section access to "other figures in the Silicon Valley business community as well."

The pickup and drop-off area for fliers on Google-affiliated jets and other tech industry high roller. (Click Image To Enlarge)

So why is a significant chunk of San Jose's airport being given over to a private corporation? The answer, as always, is capital. Mineta San Jose will make approximately $3 million annually by leasing the space to Signature and Blue City/Google; this means a cool $150 million for the airport over the coming decades. Mineta officials say the space will be home to the personal aircrafts of Google's principals; the area on the airport's west side has reportedly been underutilized for years. Documents published in February 2013 reveal that the new facility will create 36 permanent jobs, generate 370 "direct and indirect jobs," and eventually generate more than $300,000 in taxes annually, over and above the $3 million annual lease cost.

 
Runway view for the new Google private jet facility. (Click Image To Enlarge)

However, Google won't be the first corporate client moving into the Mineta site. The west side area slated for Blue Sky contains Hewlett Packard's corporate hangers, among other facilities. The new Google complex will reportedly be the one of the largest single-client corporate air facilities in the world. Much of the site slated to be developed by Signature is currently leased by aircraft giant Atlantic Aviation; Atlantic filed legal challenges against the city of San Jose in May 2013. The company, which runs charter and small plane facilities around the country, alleges San Jose didn't fulfill California environmental requirements when approving the Blue Sky/Google facility.

The complex will comply with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design guidelines. (Click Image To Enlarge)

So San Jose's getting money and Google is getting, in effect, its own private airport. Right now, Google principals like Larry Page and Eric Schmidt stash their aircraft at Moffett Field in Mountain View. Moffett, a landmark for travelers on California's Route 101, is operated by NASA and has been home to Google's informal aircraft fleet since 2007.

A rendering of the new terminal for Google-affiliated travelers.  (Click Image To Enlarge)

Earlier in this article, I mentioned a NASA report alleging that aircraft flying Google executives received steeply discounted fuel. The planes, operated by another Google-associated firm named H211, are alleged to have paid between $3.3 million and $5.3 million less than market rate for jet fuel. While NASA's report does not accuse H211 and Google of "intentional misconduct," it noted the prices "result(ed) in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners." As of press time, it's unknown what the proposed Blue City-Google arrangement at Mineta San Jose will mean for the long-term future of H211's presence at Moffett Field.

[Images courtesy of Signature Flight Support]

COMMENTARY:     On December 11, 2011, The Mercury News reported the three top executives at Google, Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, are offering to pay $33 million to finish the restoration of the historic airship hangar at Moffett Field. The giant structure, built in the 1930s and called Hangar One, sits a few miles from the Googleplex and it’s well known the Google executives have special permission from NASA to park their jets at Moffett.

Google co-founders Sergey Brin (left), Larry Page (right) and Eric Schwartz. (Click Image To Enlarge)

The jets are not owned or operated by Google.  Instead, the 3 Google leaders operate the fleet through an LLC called H211. Google has no official relation with H211. Ken Ambrose, the Director of Operations for H211, announced the funding offer at a public meeting this week. He also complained that NASA, which owns Hangar One, has taken too long to respond to the offer.

On first glance, it sounds like a purely noble gesture by the Google trio. The building is in the middle of a project to strip toxic materials in its siding. Lack of taxpayer funding to complete the project has raised fears that could lead to the demolition of one of the world’s largest freestanding structures.

But, as the Mercury News reported, “There’s a catch: They want to use up to two-thirds of the floor space of the hangar to house their fleet of eight private jets.” Most of the members on the Hangar One committee, along with the local congresswoman, support the idea, although there is some concern about the public-private partnership.

But whoa. Wait a minute. The Google execs own eight jets? 2.6 jets per person, for the 2 co-founders and the executive chairman?

Google's private 767 jet. (Click Image To Enlarge)

In 2007, TechCrunch reported on the Google execs first jet, a modified Boeing 767 and the controversy it created. (See Search Engine Land’s Guide To The Google Jet for more info.) In addition to the Boeing 767-200, they own two Gulfstream Vs.

Later, in 2007, the team picked up another Boeing, a 757 this time. A NASA lease document with tenant H211 lists those four planes. (PDF: see Exhibit C) Images of the Google jets can be seen here. Despite some fake images appearing around the web, there’s no Google logo on the planes.

Google CEO Larry Page with his new wife onboard the Google private jet.  (Click Image To Enlarge)

In 2008, the New York Times reported they appear to have added a Dornier Alpha fighter jet to their fleet.

But, counting the fighter jet, that’s only 5 jets. What about the other 3? Perhaps, the Merc got the number wrong?

Thanks to a “Google Search,” two more articles came up confirming Ken Ambrose said “8″ planes at the meeting. One in the Mountain View Voice, and another with detailed notes of the Moffett Field Restoration Advisory Board subcommittee meeting on a Moffett Users website. At the meeting, a member of “Save Hangar One” said they don’t want to see “Google” in 200-foot letters on the hangar as part of the deal. Ambrose said the Google team didn’t want that either.

TechCrunch is trying to contact Mr. Ambrose for more information about the additional three jets.

The Google leaders and their friends are not the only ones using the jets. NASA conducts flights on the planes with its own researchers and equipment to gain scientific data. That deal was part of the unusual agreement with NASA allowing the Google team the use of Moffett Field, an airport closed to private aircraft. When that deal was announced, it raised concerns from the local community leaders opposed to expansion at Moffett. Other Silicon Valley private jet owners and users, who are not allowed to use the airport, couldn’t have been pleased either.

The Google jet fleet has been a source of fighting and controversy over the years. The Wall Street Journal reported on the lawsuits with its contractors and the famous dispute, settled by Schmidt, over what size beds the co-founders would have on the plane.

Of course, lots of CEOs and executives own or lease private jets. On one hand, the Google leaders can spend their money any way they please. Their time is valuable, and using the jets makes them more efficient. On the other hand, using private jets is not very environmentally friendly for leaders of a company that prides itself on being green. See Google Green.

Courtesy of an article dated December 16, 2013 appearing in Fast Company and an article dated December 11, 2011 appearing in TechCrunch

AMAZON CEO JEFF BEZO'S UNVEILS AMAZON PRIME AIR, A PACKAGE DELIVERY SERVICE, THAT USES ROBOTIC AIR DRONES

Amazon Prime Air drones will deliver packages weighing up to 5-lbs using robotic drones like this one. (Click Image To Enlarge)

On a 60 Minutes segment last night, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos revealed a plan that would put all other rapid shipping options to shame: a fleet of little drones that could carry items from a warehouse conveyor belt to a buyer’s doorstep, all within half an hour.  

Hardware limits, safety questions, and FAA rules are all keeping Jeff Bezos' dream from becoming a reality

Like Google’s driverless cars or, on a grander scale, Elon Musk’s Hyperloop, the project — dubbed Amazon Prime Air — seeks to revolutionize how things and people move, offering speed, convenience, and the futuristic experience of a flying octocopter postman.  Suggesting it could be possible in four to five years, Bezos said.  

"I know this looks like science fiction.  It’s not."

Close-up view of Amazon's Prime Air robotic air drones. (Click Image To Enlarge)

But in order to turn its ambitious concept into a reality, Amazon has a lot of work to do. 

Amazon has said that its unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] should be able to carry a 5-pound package up to 10 miles within 30 minutes. To do that, it’s going to need a lot of battery power. Octocopters on the market today are often built to carry cameras heavier than 5 pounds, but they fly only a fraction of the distance; the SteadiDrone EIHG8, for example, is meant to carry between 2 and 13 pounds, but only for a maximum of 15 minutes and less than 1 mile — the heavier the package, the worse the performance. Aerial robotics company Skycatch, which has been working on a similar drone delivery project, sees the solution as swapping batteries automatically throughout the flight while traveling in an airspace corridor dedicated to unmanned vehicles.

Missy Cummings of MIT’s Aeronautics and Astronautics program thinks an Amazon drone would require a big leap in technology.  She says.  

"Unless Jeff [Bezos] has made some kind of amazing breakthrough in battery life, which I kind of doubt, the flight time is going to continue to be a problem."  

Some have speculated that Amazon is building off hardware and software from Chris Anderson’s UAV company 3D Robotics, pointing to a GPS and compass module in the concept video; 3D Robotics declined to comment on this possibility.  If Amazon is able to build a strong enough battery and account for variables like wind, the octocopters could fly semi-autonomously with a human supervisor, who Cummings suggests could manage up to 20 or 30 of them at a time, though the FCC’s rules are still largely unknown.

 

Once you build an octocopter that can make a 10-mile trip in half an hour and create a system to manage it, you start getting to the really interesting questions. How, for example, would you stop people from taking down Prime aircraft and stealing their cargo?  Ryan Calo of the University of Washington’s tech policy lab. There’s also a more low-tech option: shooting the drones. Cummings says.

"Instead of shoplifting, we may begin to see delivery hacking.  If you saw a drone flying fairly close overhead, maybe you could whip out a gun. Maybe you could whip out a slingshot.  They would have to stay high long enough to basically either be out of sight or not in range of a weapon."

While protecting its drones from hijacking, Amazon has some major safety concerns to work out. Any plane can crash, and the octocopters wouldn’t have the same possibility of pilot error, but they'd also do something risky and virtually unprecedented: drop from a potential height of a few hundred feet, possibly with almost no human direction, right onto your driveway. Or your herb garden. Or, if you’re particularly unlucky, your dog.  The sensors that keep planes from hitting each other in midair aren’t built to avoid tiny obstacles on the ground, though Amazon could use semi-experimental lidar systems like the ones on Google’s driverless cars to avoid obstacles. An Australian company could provide a test case — called Zookal, it plans to let urban buyers order textbooks and then wait outside for a drone to drop its package while hovering above the ground.   Since its pilot program won’t start until next year, though, it’s hard to say how well this plan will actually work.

One potential answer is to combine this program with something like the Amazon Lockers deployed at 7-Elevens and drugstores in a few test cities. In a blog post, Skycatch describes what Amazon needs to make Prime Air a reality, including safety and anti-theft measures. After making most of its journey high in the air, it says, an ideal UAV would drop inside "authorized pick-up and drop-off stations" that would prevent theft and reduce the chances of a bad landing. It’s not as charmingly futuristic as a machine delivering something right to your door, though it’s still a lot more convenient than traditional shipping, and it’s probably what we’ll get in the foreseeable future.  Skycatch’s Christian Sanz says.

"No one is going to fly a drone like the [Amazon] video suggests; too many things can go wrong. Props can take someone's eye out, batteries don't last long so you need an automated way to swap them, power issues are the main cause of UAVs falling off the skies, so you need a way to manage that. If the UAV falls from the skies you need a way to soften the landing."

All of this, of course, is making the vital assumption that the FAA will allow the program in the first place. Amazon has been vague about when exactly we’ll see Amazon Prime Air deployed; an FAQ says that it "will be ready" when the FAA’s deadline for commercial UAV guidelines comes up in 2015. But although the FAA is making slow progress towards figuring out how to certify UAVs and their operators, it hasn’t even completed a basic, early step: officially approving a set of six flight ranges to test its rules. From there, it’s going to slowly ramp up a pilot program, and by 2015, it’s not required to do much more than tell companies how to responsibly fly a commercial UAV and help them start testing. Amazon might well be ready at that point, but "ready" won’t mean one-click drone shopping.

Amazon is also taking aim at one of the most sensitive regulatory issues: letting drones fly above our cities and suburbs. Despite all those great cityscapes that filmmakers capture with UAVs, even hobbyists aren’t supposed to fly in populated areas; if you want justification, look no further than the quadrotor that dropped a few dozen stories and barely missed hitting a Manhattan businessman this fall.   While this raises problems for Amazon, though, having a huge company take on the issue is probably good news for other UAV proponents. The company is a lobbying heavyweight in the tech sector beloved by American politicians, and it’s all but certain to push the FAA for faster rulemaking and more permissive policies, as long as it can demonstrate that looser rules won’t pose a significant safety problem. Whether this will actually speed the FAA’s decision is a matter of debate.

For the rest of the commercial drone world, Amazon Prime Air is a huge publicity coup. At best, small UAVs have been seen as potentially helpful novelties in the past; at worst, they’re associated with ubiquitous surveillance or the much larger military craft responsible for bloody airstrikes in places like Yemen and Pakistan. Now, though, Amazon is promoting its octocopters as a convenient and futuristic shipping option for its massive user base. For anybody with serious privacy or safety concerns, meanwhile, the plan is an incentive to speed up work on meaningful regulations. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), for instance, has used the Amazon announcement to promote his UAV privacy bill.  He said in a statement,  

"Before our skies teem with commercial drones, clear rules must be set that protect the privacy and safety of the public."

If anyone’s drones are in a position to teem, Amazon’s are. In 2012, the company said it shipped 15.6 million items on its busiest holiday shopping day; based on Bezos’ claim that 86 percent of packages are under 5 pounds, that could add up to a peak of 13.5 million eligible shipments per day, a number that will likely only grow over the years.  Amazon’s FAQ says.

"One day, Prime Air vehicles will be as normal as seeing mail trucks on the road today."  

But a sky swarming with yellow octocopters is still far, far away, especially in the US.  Cummings says.  

"There will never be a time in our foreseeable lives where we look up in the sky and see a bird-trail of UAVs flying back and forth.  I suspect that within the next 10 years, you will occasionally see one going by."

Within five years, she thinks the FAA might let Amazon send delivery vehicles between approved fulfillment centers; for anything like Amazon’s door-to-door concept, more like 10 to 15 if it happens at all.

That doesn’t mean, however, that we might not be seeing Prime Air drones in the sky sooner — it just won’t be over American soil.  Besides Australia’s Zookal, Chinese company SF Express is reportedly testing a delivery UAV, albeit only in remote areas.   Cummings says.

"Amazon is not stupid.  They’ll go to other countries."

Bezos, meanwhile, has made clear that his company is in this project for the long haul.  He said in 60 Minutes.  

"I don’t want anybody to think this is just around the corner.  This is years of additional work from this point."

But it will almost certainly take more than his optimistic estimation of a half-decade before the drones arrive at our doorsteps.

COMMENTARY:    I remember what people were saying when Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon would be producing the Kindle, it's highly successful book eReader.  Then he announced that Amazon would be producing its own tablet, the Kindle Fire.  Well, folks.  Never underestimate Jeff Bezos.  The guy is a genius when it comes to developing great new ideas and products, and I would take Amazon's Prime Air robotic drone delivery service very seriously. Obviously a lot of kinks still need to be worked out, and the FAA has to establish guidelines for commercial UAV's like Prime Air, so I don't see this happening for several years.   Having said this, I can definitely see a company, if not Amazon, using commercial UAV's  to make deliveries of goods or provide services.  

Courtesy of an article dated December 2, 2013 appearing in The Verge

STARBUCKS LAUNCHES A STORE INSIDE A SWISS COMMUTER TRAIN, COMPLETE WITH WOOD TALBES, LEATHER CHAIRS AND HOT JAVA

WHAT IF YOU COULD SIT INSIDE A COZY STARBUCKS DURING YOUR MORNING COMMUTE? NOW, COMMUTERS IN SWITZERLAND CAN DO JUST THAT.

Starbucks locations already seem to be everywhere you look. But starting November 21, the company will take on a new frontier: trains. Starbucks, with the help of Swiss train company SBB, has converted a double-decker car running from Geneva Airport to St. Gallen in Switzerland into a fully functional Starbucks store, complete with wood tables, leather chairs, and, in another first for the company, waitstaff.

Click Image To Enlarge

Starbucks is no stranger to new concept stores. Strategically, its train is probably most like its mass-fabricated popup store. It's an idea the coffee giant is putting into the wild to see if it might scale because, while big storefronts represent the core of its business, smaller, niche Starbucks offer an opportunity to expand through unused, underserved cracks.

Click Image To Enlarge

Muller says.

"The Starbucks train cafe's goal is to offer commuters a wonderful experience. We wanted to make sure it feels like a club and that you could see a person across the room, so the train feels more spacious.”

Click Image To Enlarge

So the challenge was not just to fit a coffee counter into the corner, but to pull in all of the elements we associate with Starbucks into a stock mass-commuting platform. That meant accounting for weight, electrical, and fire-safety requirements, of course, but it also meant attaching all those windowed bar seats, shared tables, and the cozy armchairs to the same skeleton of fasteners that seating inside a typical train car would use. In other words, Starbucks architects had to design a whole new social floor plan using the exact same anchors of an old commuter-centric one.

Click Image To Enlarge

Muller says.  

“Just because it’s functional doesn’t mean it can’t be engaging.  So we asked, ‘Why can’t we?’ Just because we’re on a train, why can’t it be more comfortable?”

Click Image To Enlarge

(too flammable) and to create solutions (like bucking convention by deploying them anyway). In this case, the solution was opting to treat the wood to be flame retardant, plus use of thinner pieces wherever possible (because less wood essentially equates to less kindling). That approach still sounds simpler than it was, of course: Every table and chair was designed and built from scratch and tested by regulators.

Click Image To Enlarge

Muller explains.  

“You design a new chair, maybe one version is light cream and one in dark cream.  You build eight of each, they set them afire, and if you have a high score, you pass.”

In the end, designers were able to seat 50 commuters at once--just six fewer than a stock train car--while also having the same three core seating arrangements you find in a Starbucks store for different customers: Commuters just one stop from their destination may snag a stool at the bar, while those on a longer journey could head upstairs to sit in a plush armchair or at a shared “community table, to use your laptop or have lunch.”

Click Image To Enlarge

Furniture aside, it’s all of the small touches that make the project so compelling. The bottom floor was carpeted to absorb noise in the space. Surfaces have clocklike maple inlays to acknowledge Switzerland’s love affair with timepieces. A waiter takes and delivers an order upstairs so that people wouldn’t need to claim their seat, run downstairs to the line, and run back up--which Starbucks designers witnessed happening in their own field research. (A waiter can also serve the ground floor for good measure.) And in a very cool touch, tables are treated to have a textured surface, plus they wobble the slightest bit as a train comes into the station, to prevent spilling your coffee.

Click Image To Enlarge

In a world of travel increasingly chasing new ways to charge for a few inches of legroom, Starbucks’s latest concept has certain promise: that travel can still be as much about the journey as the destination--assuming other companies make the effort.

Muller concludes.  

“I wonder sometimes that our customers won’t understand truly what this took.”

And, of course, they won’t, which is a hallmark of any good design, isn’t it?

COMMENTARY:   This is a great idea, but I would've preferred PEET's coffee.  It's just better coffee.   Just the same, it's an idea that makes sense.

Courtesy of an article dated November 13, 2013 appearing in Fast Company Design