I wasn’t going going to do a post on Tesla’s Cybercab Robotaxi, as it’s a bit out of our mission here, but here’s the thing: I immediately noticed that it has significantly larger rear wheels on the rear than the front, and after a bit of scanning the automotive media and some Googling, it seems I’m the only one that’s noticed that. What does that say? That I have good eyes or that nobody thinks that it’s odd to put larger wheels on a what is supposed to be an urban two-passenger taxi? This is not going to be a high performance vehicle by any stretch; undoubtedly it will be the slowest Tesla ever made, not counting the Semi.
So what’s the answer?
The answer is probably related to the question of why it has butterfly doors. I suppose there’s a bit of an argument to be made that they save some room, in not opening out quite so far. But if one does open in front of a bicyclist in traffic, it might be worse to take the full brunt in the face rather than the bike and the body. There’s other questions that could be asked of that decision.
The one that seems to be raised most often, apart from the overriding issue as to when Tesla’s Full Self Driving software will be able to actually be implemented, is why a two-passenger format? That is debatable, as undoubtedly the great majority of the time taxis only carry one or two passengers. So there’s a significant weight and cost savings by going two-passenger.
Of course there’s a whole raft of related questions, as to how these will stay clean inside and such (Tesla showed a video of a robotic cleaning machine, but that was likely just CGI). And who will own and operate them. And so on. I’m sure you will have some too.
Tesla and Elon Musk have always placed efficiency very high on the list of priorities, so the very aerodynamic format is not surprising. Musk has said that it will be the most efficient production EV, allowing a range of around 200 miles with a quite small battery. Efficiency = low cost, the most important Musk formula, and undoubtedly this will cost significantly less to build as a consequence. Musk suggested it will be $30,000 but one can never take these initial numbers for granted.
What’s a bit more interesting to me is that this platform was co-developed (to some degree or another) with the planned cheaper Model 2, which also had a price bandied around at the $25-30k point. That project got axed in favor of this, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be revived at some point. But apparently Musk is much more interested in what this can deliver in sustaining Tesla’s stratospheric stock price than a low-margin conventional car.
So many questions, assumptions and predictions; at least Musk admitted that the 2026 production goal was not exactly etched in stone. But my questions about the wheels are still awaiting answers. This is from press shots by Tesla, but it appears to be a CGI image. The ring that’s on the tire is clearly intended to make the actual tire look almost non-existent, to take the concept of ever smaller sidewalls to an absurd extent.
Images of the real thing shows that it’s essentially a whitewall tire in body color. The wheel discs are a bit curious too; now what I would have done is to mount them in a fixed (non turning) position on the actual axle stub/spindle, and have some design or graphic on them to enhance that aspect. Never mind.
So to answer my question, as to the larger wheels on the rear, my obvious guess is that Musk wanted them that way, for the looks. It’s trying to look like a supercar. Yes, looks are always a very big think for Elon, but it is a bit so for a proposed taxi, where practical things like not having to deal with two tire sizes are a much bigger thing than on a supercar. It’s easy to say or assume that change if/when the Cybertaxi goes into production, but then that’s not been the pattern in the past, as Tesla has rather avoided the whole concept car thing that Detroit did do much, showing something very dramatic and then building something very dull. We shall see, in more ways than one.
As a cyclist, those doors make me nervous.
the whole thing is stupid, but if they’re going for a live cargo transport, why not enclose the rear wheels, and go for mini-van sliding door style doors on both sides.
I’d never get into a vehicle that I couldn’t expert any control over. I could always wrest control from a cab driver. Before you ask, that’s why I don’t like flying.
Notwithstanding some of the curious design decisions, this big announcement by Musk strikes me as much ado about not much. I had the occasion today to be driving at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, and there were numerous Waymo autonomous taxis (based on Jaguars) picking up and dropping off passengers. Manoeuvring amidst the chaotic conditions of the drop off points without incident (although I admit to being somewhat wary of getting too close as the vehicles changed lanes and entered traffic).
Seems Elon is not really breaking new ground?
Smaller front tire OD, tighter turning radius?? Though not quite London cab tight.
Larger rear tire? Better tire wear on an RWD vehicle? Personally I would think matching front rear (with non-directional tires) would make the guys in the maintenance shop happy. But maybe that’s not a priority …
Partial CC Effect (taxi-related): I saw a Checker this morning. First one I’ve seen in years actually driving, not parked. It was a station wagon.
Why 2 seats?
Does anyone know what the average number of passengers is, in the cab trade?
Whatever, I think Leon and crew are having a harder time coming up with earthshaking events, and with whipping up the fan boys and gals, and they know this. So they presented an attractive package, went light on the tech details, and leaned a lot on Hollywood to avoid having to do too much work on their own. Result: nobody was really satisfied, not even the Tesla faithful, and it was still too high tech for Wall St.
I think Elon is breaking child labor laws.
Between this and the Cyber Truck, clearly he’s hiring 9 year old designers.
Larger rear wheels = car slanted downhill = better mileage. Right??
”as to how these will stay clean inside” : it’s simple .
The passenger compartment will be like the box above the glove box in the new Hyundai SantaFe, a room to be bombarded with UV and a sunscreen dispenser will be standard.
Tesla does sterile well.
Automotive designers use staggered wheels to reduce the visual mass of a thick rear fender above the wheel opening.
As to the two seater layout: average taxi usage is below 2 riders per ride and I get the need for efficiency.
I understand the efficiency argument, but this leaves the Robotaxi unable to cope with (say) a family plus luggage, or a rider with a bike, etc. The “sports car” height and layout also precludes the type of “walk in” access enjoyed in a typical London taxi, which is essential for older or disabled passengers, or the accommodation of a wheelchair.
A company called Indigo is approaching ride-share differently with a taller, roomier vehicle, allowing more flexibility. It is planned to initially use a driver and go autonomous later on.
Have a look at: http://www.indigotech.com
Which would you rather ride in?
Yes. Now that I’m older and less agile, I find that the low doors of a modern sedan are hard to negotiate. I can handle a minivan or pickup easily. The upward supercar doors on this thing would make it even harder, because there’s no inner armrest to hold onto while getting out.
What does an urban taxicab need aerodynamics for? This must be a sporty coupe design that they repurposed.
I can’t believe so many older people put up with the high step-in height of most crossovers and SUVs. OTOH, I haven’t seen a minivan whose front seat went back far enough for my legs. Looks like someone would make a car specifically for the not normally shaped.
After my father’s stroke in ’23, I was flabbergasted by the poor selection of recliners, grab handles, and food warmers available. I ended up building several contraptions myself with some success. There’s a growing market of elderly that someone daring and inventive like Musk could cater to.
None, but in order to answer why, I’ll need to go into politics which we are not supposed to do here – make of it what you will…
It’ll be a looooooong time before I’d get in a cab with no driver.
Unlikely. Automated Vehicles can work on a predetermined route because the daily hazards can be mostly identified and planned for. But once the taxi goes off grid, it’s at the mercy of software that has numerous issues. It’s not AI but sophisticated machine learning that doesn’t think, just identifies patterns already encoded. One of the big issues with ML is ‘hallucinations’ were the software churns out errors but doesn’t recognise that humans don’t have 6 fingers as an exanmple. Put that software on the road in a car and wait for the accidents. They will happen. But will any government even allow these taxis to operate? We know Musk has lost the plot but is he really leaving the market open to lowcost Chinese EVs?
I think the answer is Elon thinks it looks cool. Same reason the Cybertruck is shaped like it is, despite not being good for rear seat headroom or outward visibility or pedestrian safety. The last one may make them illegal to sell in the EU and UK where (unlike the US) there are laws about this.
I’ll take this opportunity to rant about the recent trend towards mismatched front and rear tire sizes, especially when the difference is slight. Combined with many modern tires being unidirectional, it makes it impossible to rotate tires and thus requires more frequent tire replacement. It seems especially poorly suited for taxi use. I also think many passengers, especially older ones, would find the Tesla taxi difficult to enter and exit. The whole car seems to be opposite the Checker cab ethos, a super-roomy, easy to use car with easy-to-swap parts, the same bumpers front and rear, etc. with little regard for high style.
I didn’t notice the tires have silvery stripes on them. I’ve wondered for years why, given the popularity of huge wheels and tiny-sidewall tires, that whitewalls, or actually silverwalls, with the silver part running right up against the bead, haven’t become a thing. The only thing close are the whitewall-with-gold-stripe tires that Vogue Tyres makes. The same thing with a purely silvery stripe would make the wheels look bigger and IMO sell like crazy. Maybe it’s not easy or possible to make a silvery stripe on a tire, or maybe the tire companies just haven’t thought of this.
Edging into Kabuki Theater space.
I don’t know why the rear wheel size is larger than front, we are all interested in to hear some of vehicle designers among this website readers to have their inputs. As for two swing doors, I don’t know the rationale either. I believe the slide doors like that seen in Bedford van article last week. For the shape, I prefer it takes the form of new Toyota Comfort Taxi, it is quite practical for passengers.
About the cost reduction and range, I believe Musk and his team clearly are aware the price of lithium batteries mostly from China has been dropping, its LFP price for a while, it is now below $75 KWh from CALT and BYD. I think the robot taxi is produced in US where labor and other production costs are high, so to meet the $30k target is hard. If it chooses to use Chines batteries with range of Tesla 3 76 KWh-size battery, that item alone after 100 % tariffs is over $12k alone. But Tesla business people can adopt the Uber driver trick – don’t take call when the vehicle is charging, the trade off is lowering the rate of utility.
My main concern is how the driverless feature works out. I was told that one of main handicaps to roll out in US is its poor 5G network, and very difficult government regulations and aggressive legal actions.
Anyway, with introduction of this vehicle, we are one step to close driverless mobility.
Probably the most incompetent taxi design ever.
It’s just silly for all the reasons stated. It makes no sense at all as a taxi.
Last month a federal judge granted a motion to enforce a 2014 settlement agreement requiring that at least 50 percent of New York City’s yellow medallion taxicabs be wheelchair accessible. And probably half the taxis in the US are in NYC. Also the basic speed limit in NYC is 25 miles an hour, so aerodynamic efficiency isn’t really a priority.
This is not intended for use in NYC, which has requirements (and traffic challenges) that make it unsuitable there. But there are plenty of other cities other than New York.
If there was an automotive visual of what jumping the shark looks like…
Within the last few weeks a Waymo robotaxi with a young, single woman passenger was held hostage by a couple of thugs in San Francisco. They stood in front of it at a red light and demanded that the female passenger give them her phone number. The Waymo. just shut down when the 2 men refused to move until the woman gave them her phone number. She called Waymo, who did virtually nothing. She called the police, but by the time they arrived the 2 thugs had fled. The criminals have already figured that the passengers in robotaxis are easy prey. How long before there are widespread muggings, rapes or kidnappings of robotaxi passengers. You are a sitting duck in a robotaxi because you can’t drive it out of a dangerous situation.
This is a silly design for a cab. Everyone else designs boxy vehicles with easy access, and sliding doors that require minimal space to open. Tesla offers a latter day Pontiac Fiero with Toyota Paseo doors.The only thing sillier was the Robovan, a vaguely Art Deco windowless box, straight out of a Sci-Fi dystopia. I suppose a Tesla 15 passenger van would make The Loop less useless.
In many ways this is typical of Tech Bro thinking, they always want pods of some sort because they crave separation from the masses. In this scenario the primary use of the Robovan would be a tech shuttle from San Francisco to Silicon Valley since it would be an exclusive vehicle.