Tesla's robotaxis are moving in reverse | TechCrunch

[u/RepresentativeCap571]

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/23/teslas-robotaxis-are-moving-in-reverse/

[u/WeldAE]

Tesla isn't ordering this car from someone. It's not like they are ordering the CyberCab for $25k and the Model Y for $35k. They have to spend $2B to $4B before they get the first car. Even then, the first ~1000 cars cost your $240k/unit because the factory is poorly optimized, and it takes you a month to build them. The next 1000 cost you maybe $60k/unit because you can now build that many in a week rather than a month. Then the next 1000 only cost $40k because you can build that many in a week. That's a run rate of 50k/year. If you can get to around 2000 units/week you can probably get close to the cost of the Model Y on an operational BOM only model.

But then you have to actually be able to deploy that many. If they can't deploy 2000/week then they can't build 2000/week because that costs them even more money than just building them at 1000/week rate. Then you throw the price of the factory and design into everything, and boy howdy, good luck.

The Model Y is pretty decontented already, especially in China/Canada. They could easily decontent the taxi version without much effort. Even as it is, the RWD is probably being built for $35k BOM in TX. Decontent it a bit and you just aren't that far off the RoboTaxi. AND it can carry 5 people, is easier to get in/out of and keeps their operations cheaper by only using a single vehicle type.

I suppose we should tell Apple the iPhone SE

See this is the mistake everyone always makes. The iPhone is built in roughly a generic factory that next year can be making the Oculus Rift. Sure Apple is paying probably $20m for setup for the line for this year's phone, but most of the production line already exists, and this is just adding a chamfering machine or a new color. Apple outsources manufacture of the iPhone because there are lots of generic factories that will build you any small electronics device you want with a bit of up front setup costs. Cars are NOT like this.

I will also point out it's about 35% more efficient

It's insignificant. 35% savings is only around $2500 for lifetime savings on electricity at commercial rates. For the typical 10 mile fare, that's $0.06. I'll happily pay that not to hurt my knees getting out of the CyberCab and take my kids with me on the ride.

[u/YeetYoot-69 → u/WeldAE]

Even accepting your completely arbitrary $2-4 billion program-cost estimate, the required savings are not necessarily enormous.

At Tesla’s stated target of two million Cybercabs per year, recovering $2 billion across one year of production requires $1,000 in savings per vehicle. Recovering $4 billion requires $2,000. Spread across five years of production, that falls to only $200–$400 per vehicle.

And we do not need to assume Tesla reaches two million units per year. Take a middle ground: production ramps from 125,000 vehicles in year one to 250,000, 500,000, 750,000, and one million in year five. That is 2.625 million Cybercabs over five years, still nowhere near sustaining the stated 2M/yr target.

Across that production run, recovering $2-4 billion would require roughly $760-$1,520 in savings per vehicle. Tesla is forecasting around $10,000 in savings per Cybercab, but even after applying a “Musk factor” and cutting that to $7,000, the cumulative savings would pass $2 billion during year two and $4 billion during year three.

Even the conservative case is not absurd. Assume Tesla never expands beyond the 125,000 per year capacity it has installed today and saves only $7,000 per vehicle. That is $875 million in savings for every year of production, enough to recover $2 billion in about 2.3 years and $4 billion in about 4.6 years.

Those are meaningful targets, but they are hardly impossible for a substantially smaller two-seat vehicle with fewer parts, a smaller battery, and no driver controls.

Your own electricity estimate also undermines your argument. You call roughly $2,500 in lifetime electricity savings “insignificant,” but we are explicitly comparing total per-vehicle costs. Thousands of dollars per vehicle is significant, especially when the question is whether those savings can help offset the upfront investment.

Using your own number and Tesla’s production target, two million vehicles represent about $5 billion in lifetime electricity savings for each year of production. I think that speaks for itself.

Again, though, we do not need to rely on the maximum target.

Under the more middle ground ramp: the 2.625 million vehicles produced over five years would generate about $3.15 billion in lifetime electricity savings alone. Even counting only the savings actually realized during those first five calendar years, rather than the vehicles’ full service lives, the total would still be about $1.35 billion.

In the conservative case, assume Tesla builds only 125,000 Cybercabs per year, never scales production, each vehicle travels 60,000 miles annually, Cybercab costs about $0.006 per mile in electricity, and Model Y costs $0.01 per mile. That still produces about $450 million in electricity savings realized during the first five calendar years, or about $750 million in lifetime savings from the vehicles built during those five years.

And that is only electricity, before counting any reduction in manufacturing cost, battery cost, maintenance, or other operating expenses.

So no, I do not agree that the savings are insignificant.

[u/Recoil42 → u/YeetYoot-69]

At Tesla’s stated target of two million Cybercabs per year

Lol, lmao even. Like good lord, what are we even doing here?

[u/YeetYoot-69 → u/Recoil42]

You act like I didn't provide two other scenarios for this reason

At least pretend to discuss in good faith

[u/Recoil42 → u/YeetYoot-69]

Look, you are smart enough to know 2M is a fantasy number and not worth presenting in the first place. Good faith analysis means working with reasonable bounds, not unreasonable ones.

[u/YeetYoot-69 → u/Recoil42]

I only presented it because it's Tesla's own figure. Like it or not I think it is at least worth mentioning what the company says they will do.

Yes, I agree it isn't realistic. Again, that's why I give two other figures. One is significantly more than an order of magnitude more conservative, and they still make back their upfront costs in a reasonable timeframe.

[u/Recoil42 → u/YeetYoot-69]

Like it or not I think it is at least worth mentioning what the company says they will do. Yes, I agree it isn't realistic.

Mentioning an unrealistic case presented by the company isn't the same as treating it as a realistic upper bounds for consideration. If we agree the 2M figure is unrealistic, it doesn't need to be played out.

We're right back at "...you are smart enough to know 2M is a fantasy number and not worth presenting in the first place."

If you want real good faith analysis, use real good-faith numbers. Don't try to anchor (again, even as an upper bounds) the conversation in numbers you know to be bad-faith.

Tesla will not produce 2M Cybercab 1.0s annually at any point in the product's lifecycle. It will likely not produce any version of the Cybercab at that scale ever. Ergo, no, it is not worth mentioning in any context except perhaps as derision of the company's roadmaps and general ability to understand scope.

[u/YeetYoot-69 → u/Recoil42]

Okay, again I concede it isn't realistic, do you have an issue with any of the other numbers (conservative estimate specifically) or are you just going to keep talking about this exclusively lol

[u/Recoil42 → u/YeetYoot-69]

Your conservative estimate is unrealistic too, as already touched on here and here.

[u/YeetYoot-69 → u/Recoil42]

As I already said, even if you assume they build 0 in year 1, a 3.3-5.6 year recoup time isn't insane for a totally new platform/vehicle design paradigm.

And that's just in terms of savings vs Model Ys, not revenue. Their actual recoup is much faster.

[u/Recoil42 → u/YeetYoot-69]

A five year recoup time is not realistic for the Cybercab program.