5 ms·

A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it wil

A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction. Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so. The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily. The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there. The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines. Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.

ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
> We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction. If by flying cars you mean flying robotaxies, then all you need are landing pads. They can be easily accomodated on top of buildings. And regulation for what? We already know how to fky helicopters by autopilot, no need for innovation stiffling with more regulation.
- ajmurmann 1mo ago
  If they are supposed to replace cars we'd need so many of these landing pads. No idea how this is supposed to work. I'm the suburbs it's unclear where you'd put them. Where do I walk to fly this to Costco? Does it land on the Costco warehouse next to an entire line of these arriving instead of cars today? In proper downtown areas I suspect even if you'd cover every rooftop in these it wouldn't be enough capacity
  - Atheros 1mo ago
    Airtaxis can't retrofit suburbs just like cars can't retrofit 1850s cities. Imagine a city built around airtaxis and delivery drones. I think it is doable which means that they'll do it.
  - ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
    There are two aspects to this: - what are the dimensions of a flying car? Double than a car? Triple? - are they autonomous or need to be flown manually? Looking at current drone designs, you could get away with a flying car the size of large SUV. If they are autonomous, then you don't have to worry much: Car, take me to Costco.
    - ajmurmann 1mo ago
      You don't think that there needs to be lots of clearance around the landing area? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to have one landing right next to me while I'm loading up groceries
      - ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
        If the blades have sufficient ground clearance ;like a helicopter or higher), then yes, they would land next you. It is going to suck in winter and rainy weather though. Now thinking of this, you can have landing/takeoff areas and then you taxi on the ground as not to disturb fellow shoppers loading groceries.
thinking_cactus 1mo ago
> First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. I wonder what it would be like for most cars to be replaced with flying cars (i.e. helicopters). I think the noise alone would be a huge issue. Helicopters can be heard from extremely far away and are quite noisy. If you multiply that by like 1 million in a metropolis, I think that would approach unbearable, specially at nighttime, etc.. Also I don't think noise can be reduced too much, including electric propulsion. Propeller engineering would give you some reduction but still I think too much for near universal usage. But I think the main thing is just cost. Electric aircraft like that would really be just too expensive for everyone to have em. Not everyone can afford a good old (electric) automobile today. There's also battery technology needing a significant improvement. Regulation and infrastructure is comparatively solvable I think.
- Atheros 1mo ago
  Cities were originally built around walking. Later they expanded a little bit with horses. After that they were rebuilt for cars. They will be rebuilt again when transportation technology changes, at least for those that can afford it.
jgilias 1mo ago
The automobile itself was initially nothing more than a toy for the rich and powerful.
wahern 1mo ago
Amazon had approximately zero net profits for 20 years or so. It was a meme not too long ago--how much longer will investors keep pouring money into Amazon before either they stop or Amazon starts reaping a bounty they had been sowing for decades. But everybody seemed to believe Amazon was building an insurmountable, monopoly-like position. That never happened. Then AWS came out of nowhere and that's when their profits finally took off, and investors won their bet, but in an unpredicted way. The problem with the car industry is that, excepting Tesla for 5-10 years, nobody believes there are outsized profits to be made, and other than Musk (once upon a time), nobody with the personality to convince them otherwise. Though Amazon didn't need a personality; everyone just sort of assumed Bezos was an evil business genius biding time.

ExoticPearTree 1mo ago

> We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction. If by flying cars you mean flying robotaxies, then all you need are landing pads. They can be easily accomodated on top of buildings. And regulation for what? We already know how to fky helicopters by autopilot, no need for innovation stiffling with more regulation.

ajmurmann 1mo ago
If they are supposed to replace cars we'd need so many of these landing pads. No idea how this is supposed to work. I'm the suburbs it's unclear where you'd put them. Where do I walk to fly this to Costco? Does it land on the Costco warehouse next to an entire line of these arriving instead of cars today? In proper downtown areas I suspect even if you'd cover every rooftop in these it wouldn't be enough capacity
- Atheros 1mo ago
  Airtaxis can't retrofit suburbs just like cars can't retrofit 1850s cities. Imagine a city built around airtaxis and delivery drones. I think it is doable which means that they'll do it.
- ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
  There are two aspects to this: - what are the dimensions of a flying car? Double than a car? Triple? - are they autonomous or need to be flown manually? Looking at current drone designs, you could get away with a flying car the size of large SUV. If they are autonomous, then you don't have to worry much: Car, take me to Costco.
  - ajmurmann 1mo ago
    You don't think that there needs to be lots of clearance around the landing area? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to have one landing right next to me while I'm loading up groceries
    - ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
      If the blades have sufficient ground clearance ;like a helicopter or higher), then yes, they would land next you. It is going to suck in winter and rainy weather though. Now thinking of this, you can have landing/takeoff areas and then you taxi on the ground as not to disturb fellow shoppers loading groceries.

thinking_cactus 1mo ago

> First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. I wonder what it would be like for most cars to be replaced with flying cars (i.e. helicopters). I think the noise alone would be a huge issue. Helicopters can be heard from extremely far away and are quite noisy. If you multiply that by like 1 million in a metropolis, I think that would approach unbearable, specially at nighttime, etc.. Also I don't think noise can be reduced too much, including electric propulsion. Propeller engineering would give you some reduction but still I think too much for near universal usage. But I think the main thing is just cost. Electric aircraft like that would really be just too expensive for everyone to have em. Not everyone can afford a good old (electric) automobile today. There's also battery technology needing a significant improvement. Regulation and infrastructure is comparatively solvable I think.

Atheros 1mo ago
Cities were originally built around walking. Later they expanded a little bit with horses. After that they were rebuilt for cars. They will be rebuilt again when transportation technology changes, at least for those that can afford it.

jgilias 1mo ago

The automobile itself was initially nothing more than a toy for the rich and powerful.

wahern 1mo ago

Amazon had approximately zero net profits for 20 years or so. It was a meme not too long ago--how much longer will investors keep pouring money into Amazon before either they stop or Amazon starts reaping a bounty they had been sowing for decades. But everybody seemed to believe Amazon was building an insurmountable, monopoly-like position. That never happened. Then AWS came out of nowhere and that's when their profits finally took off, and investors won their bet, but in an unpredicted way. The problem with the car industry is that, excepting Tesla for 5-10 years, nobody believes there are outsized profits to be made, and other than Musk (once upon a time), nobody with the personality to convince them otherwise. Though Amazon didn't need a personality; everyone just sort of assumed Bezos was an evil business genius biding time.