Death to the automobile (again)
By Ed Wallace Ed Wallace is a recipient of the Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, bestowed by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA, and hosts the top-rated talk show, Wheels, 8:00 to 1:00 Saturdays on 570 KLIF AM. · Jul 3, 2020
SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FIRST SEGWAY BACK IN 2001, AMERICANS HAVE PURCHASED 280,976,831 NEW CARS, TRUCKS, AND SUVS — AGAINST 140,000 SEGWAYS. THAT SUGGESTS THAT MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THE SEGWAY WAS NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE AUTOMOTIVE AGE.
It’s hard to believe, but it has been nearly 20 years since inventor Dean Kamen announced the start of the “urban transportation revolution,” and how our “cars would be obsolete.” He added that it was “absurd for a 4,000-pound car to be used for short trips.”
Now, Kamen was simply repeating a mid-Fifties column by George Romney, head of American Motors and Mitt Romney’s father, titled, “The Dinosaur in the Driveway.” Romney was talking about a small housewife’s using a large, extremely heavy automobile to drive a short distance to the drugstore to buy a package of bobby pins. He was pointing out the waste: The waste in the material to build large cars and the waste of the fuel to power it; later he would decry the waste in materials to build roads for America’s oversized vehicles. And this was in a day and age when the Suburban existed, but individuals didn’t purchase them.
One can follow Romney’s logic of waste in the automobile scene with this comparison: If everyone drove a Chevrolet Suburban and you parked them end to end on one mile of a three-lane freeway, it would hold 846 Suburbans; but that same area of three-lane freeway would hold 1,266 Nash Metropolitans. Clearly, you’d need far less concrete, rebar, and labor to build roads sufficient to accommodate the same number of smaller vehicles.
Let’s do a different comparison using a modern Honda Civic in lieu of the Nash Metropolitan. To drive a 22-mile distance those 846 Suburbans would use 846 gallons of gasoline, while the 1,266 Honda Civics would use only 658 gallons. That shows that you don’t need as much freeway built, or anywhere near as much gasoline burned, for the same number of individuals to cover the same distance. Of course, Romney formulated his position in an era when conservatism was still based on the root meaning, to conserve. But it was Romney’s public discussions and logic that over 40 years later Dean Kamen would use to introduce his Segway to the world. It’s just that everyone forgot that he originally claimed his twowheeled, self-balancing transporter would ring the death knell for automobiles.
Even Apple’s Steve Jobs, who was there for the secret unveiling of the Segway, said it was as big a deal as the personal computer, before later trashing it. But then they came to market and the biggest complaint was their high cost, which started at over $6,000.
Maybe it was the fact that the Segway still had nickel metal hydride batteries, or perhaps it was their short mileage range and long recharging time of 8 to 10 hours. Or maybe it was just all the videos that showed up in TV shows where Segway riders ran into each other or the device simply rolled over and threw them to the ground. Let’s face it, the best thing the Segway ever did was become the movie poster for the second Paul Blart, Mall Cop.
And so last week China’s Ninebot, which had purchased the failing Segway in 2015, announced that the first so-called challenger to end the age of the automobile had in fact come to the end of the road itself, having sold only 140,000 units in the past 19 years. But in between, we shouldn’t forget the rentby-the-minute bicycles showed up overnight in downtowns worldwide. They were promoted as ending the age of the automobile in metropolitan areas — only to fail quickly, immediately replaced by electric push scooters one could also rent by the minute. And, while the jury is still out on that one, long term, it’s stunning how few exist in downtown Dallas today as compared to a year ago.
Yet the name Segway will go on; Ninebot in China has many products that carry that name, including the No. 1 scooter pick of the New York Times’ electronic publication, Wirecutter. That’s right, the Segway Ninebot KickScooter Max, which Ninebot claims can go 40 miles on a single charge and sells for $895, looks like the best bet for those wanting to ditch their automobiles for the future of personal mobility. Only the review pointed out that it doesn’t go 40 miles on a single charge, but around half that. The Amazon page said it’s both safe and comfortable, but one wonders whether that’s true when someone running a red light hits you. Or, how long it takes before one needs knee replacement surgery? After all, you are standing on a small scooter for 20 miles a day as your sacrifice for the next big thing in transportation.
I’m still not sure these electric push scooters have solved the “middle of winter in New England/Texas thunderstorm season” weather issues that would influence your being out in the open on your foldable electric scooter. But I’m sure they are working on a fully enclosed, air-conditioned version; they have already added, I kid you not, cruise control.
As for the death of autos? Since the introduction of the first Segway back in 2001, Americans have purchased 280,976,831 new cars, trucks, and SUVs — against 140,000 Segways.
That suggests that maybe, just maybe, the Segway was not the beginning of the end of the automotive age.
Not to worry. Last week Andy Cohen, writing at Oil Price magazine, said he has finally found the company that will finally end our love affair with the automobile. The bullet points to his June 22 article, read “There’s a brandnew megatrend that is taking Wall Street by storm.” Wow, a megatrend; that’s supposed to be really big. Cohen goes on, “Canada’s Silicon Valley has a new star, and it’s ready to upend the auto industry as we know it.” Good timing, Mr. Cohen. Three days later, the first auto industry upender was declared dead after two decades.
Here’s his opening line. “With a combined market cap of some $70 billion, Uber and Lyft are severely disrupting the giant auto industry. But their business models are broken and the giant disruptors may be about to be disrupted themselves.” First, let me remind you that just two paragraphs ago I reported Americans had purchased 280,976,831 vehicles over the past 18 years. So no, Uber and Lyft have not disrupted anything.
Second, Cohen’s first paragraph says together they are worth $70 billion, but their business model is broken; they just can’t make money. There’s a great story about overhyped zombie companies but it’s been covered in this column numerous times.
But Cohen can’t be stopped. He reveals this new disruptor to all things automotive with this line, “Facedrive is leading the evolution of shared mobility, and it’s got a new business model to lure in big capital that’s tired of the big competitors’ cash burn, bad press and endless unprofitability.”
You might want to go get a cup of coffee right now, to help give the anticipation for the transportation system of the future time to build.
Yeah, Facedrive is going to allow you to order an electric vehicle or hybrid electric for your drive and then will plant a tree to offset your carbon footprint. It plans on bringing cities in as partners and treating drivers as people who deserve a living wage. That’s right, Andy may have a degree in journalism, but he has zero grasp of business math. He hasn’t yet figured out how Uber and Lyft, owning nothing but servers and using under-paid drivers often with old beat-up cars — I have one emailer using a 300,000-mile Altima that he claims is great for his Uber rides — can’t make money.
But Facedrive is going to force drivers to buy far more expensive cars and pay them legitimate money as Internet taxi drivers. And — in spite of additional and much higher labor rates, combined with a super jump in the cost of the capitalized equipment, meaning the cars being used — how is it that this company will make money when Uber can’t? Because business logic and 4thgrade math dictate that it will lose far more money than Uber or Lyft, unless Facedrive’s service is so compelling that customers will pay exorbitant fares to use it.
Aside from that, nothing was really explained about the tree-planting that will offset one’s destruction of our planet using this taxi service. Does the user get to pick the tree and where they want it planted? And if they do, shouldn’t this service be called FacePlant instead of Facedrive? Or will they wait until this company fails to use the name FacePlant? Further, once that sapling is planted, does Facedrive have forestry experts to make sure it gets watered and stays healthy? Let’s face facts: If the sapling dies, then there’s no carbon offset.
In the past 50 years we’ve gone from cars that get 8 miles to the gallon in town to cars that often deliver in the mid-fifties. While the cost of the average car is no higher against income inflation, it has seen a great many improvements in safety, sound equipment, and overall quality of the vehicle.
Yet over and over again we find many predicting the end of the auto age — when the easy-to-find sales numbers soundly refute that claim.
One day the oil age will end, but we’ll simply find something new to power our cars.
[–]jamesK_3rd[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)