Connect with us

News

Tesla ride-sharing program: exploring its practicality and real world benefits

Published

on

Many of the Tesla faithful sat with bated breaths waiting for the Master Plan Part 2 to be published. Once it did, we devoured every word, with some words more surprising than others. Making a pickup truck, while not surprising is thought-provoking. Ride-sharing as a concept, also not very surprising. Ride-sharing using the autonomously driven car that you personally own? Now there’s something to think about.

“In cities where demand exceeds the supply of customer-owned cars, Tesla will operate its own fleet, ensuring you can always hail a ride from us no matter where you are.” – Elon Musk

Let’s consider for a moment what this might look like.

Practicality 

My initial thought of an autonomous Tesla was ride-sharing within the same household. My spouse and I have jobs that are in opposite directions, but we also work different hours with him having the far shorter commute. That being said, it would technically be feasible for a car to drop me off at work and make it back home just in time to take him. Then, it would have plenty of time to come back to me before my work day is done. Driving me home would also be tight – but I think the car would make it just in time to drop me off and go grab him. (Anyone else getting wide-eyed at the thought of a car driving you around? I sure am!) The only downside that I can think of is that both of us, at times, like to run errands on a lunch break. Surely with a little planning we could just schedule who will have the car available mid day. For example, on his day the car wouldn’t come back to get me until later in the day. Should I need to use it, it could come back to me earlier. All of this sounds technically feasible but the miles would add up quickly. Over 90 miles a day, to be exact; double what we currently drive combined. This may be obvious, since the car is making each round trip twice, but on paper that distance really hits home. As for cost, our electricity use at home would clearly go up. What would go down, however, is the cost associated with having a second car. I only estimate that the Tesla costs us $50/month to power now but even if it went up to $150, that delta is far less than the savings associated with not having a second car to insure and maintain. (Let alone pay to own/lease, depending on how expensive a car you’d be giving up.)

Tesla Model 3 15" center touchscreen

In this regard, I see practicality as a wash. If technically feasible with your schedule as it would be with ours, it may work. Getting past the mental barrier of having only one car between two adults who drive and work full time however, may be a challenge. Tesla has shifted thinking in many ways already, so it’s possible this will as well. I keep trying to think of reasons why we need two cars but aside from our daily jobs, which a car that can drive us to negates, all I’m coming up with is the rare occasion where we both need to go somewhere different at the same time. Truth be told, I’m sure even that could be worked out in most cases. In those where it can’t? Summon up another autonomous Tesla to drive you where you need to be. Again, this comes with a cost but again, it pales in comparison to the cost to own a second car that spends over 90% of its life parked anyway.

Public Domain

Most Tesla owners I know treat their cars with extreme care. I am no exception. The thought of a stranger taking up residence in my car without me sends shivers down my spine. I guess there is only so much damage a person could do sitting in the back seat being chauffeured, presumably while staring down at their smart phone to pass the time. The after 2am crowd, on the other hand, poses additional risks but I for one wouldn’t send my car out that late. A sick passenger is one danger, sharing the road with impaired drivers in (gasp!) manual driving mode is another. How do you specify who is eligible for pick up anyway? Imagine the headline “Tesla picks up prison escapee and drives it across the state line.” Add in your fear here (underage runaway, woman in labor, very sweaty marathon runner.)

Battery expert Jeff Dahn inside the frunk of a red Model S

Battery expert Jeff Dahn inside the frunk of a red Model S [Source: dal.ca]

Availability

This is the main point I’ve heard brought up in my quick chats about this topic. How do you schedule your car to go off and pick people up within a strict window until you need it again? How does traffic play a part? Do you wait until you’re home for the evening and send it out, knowing full well it’ll definitely make it home by the next morning? Or do you risk letting it take a 4pm pickup when doing so could leave you stranded at the office? How far would you let your car go anyway? What about charge? You might need a certain range to get home so can you restrict your car’s pickup jobs to a certain distance? What if it’s cold outside?

In this regard, I have a lot more questions than answers. I have no interest in my car being late to bring me to or from work. It’s my car after all. I have even less interest in being picked up without enough range to get me where I’m going. I live in a major city and I don’t expect to see a Supercharger within our limits any time soon. There are now chargers within 100 miles of me in all major directions, which very easily enables long distance travel as intended. I’m happy with this, as I certainly don’t find myself needing a fast charge close to home. If I plan on letting my car work all day however, that may change. Letting it go home and plug in is impractical at the current rate of my charging setup. 29 miles per hour doesn’t speak well to quick turnaround.

Advertisement
-

Quick-Tesla-App-3

Cost

All of the questions above can be overlooked for a price. The big question is what that price might be. In my own life, I wouldn’t entertain the idea if it made me $100 per month. If it made me $1,000, I’d be the first in line to sign up. Everyone has a different sensitivity to price but I’d be willing to bet that even the least price sensitive people would at least consider using their Tesla in this way if the resulting income matched or exceeded their car payment. Getting to own and drive what I consider the world’s best car for no monthly payment is an offer that’d be too hard to refuse.

Those were just arbitrary numbers though. What might be realistic? I’d like to think that tomorrow’s Tesla is comparable to today’s Uber Black. My Uber app only gives prices for Uber X but I know that Black costs more. At this very moment, a quick ride from my work place to the very center of our downtown is $12 on Uber X. Let’s estimate that it would be $20 for Black. In fact, let’s assume the average ride would net $20. The car would certainly be smart enough to try to do another pickup on the way back to me so I can probably count on $40 as a “round trip” made during my work day. If I let the car drive two round trips on Friday and Saturday nights as well as one each work day, that bring us up to 9 round trips per week, or $360. Already, this isn’t sounding so bad. Let’s scale that down due to some Tesla profit and market saturation. It still seems very reasonable that with little time commitment, $200 per week is reasonable. We’re at $860 per month. If you, like me, go out into a city once or twice a month yourself and spend anywhere from $10-30 in parking or cab rides, you could be earning/saving a combined $900 each month. I suppose I just learned that yes, I’d probably consider letting my car go out and work for me. Even at half the dollars I’m picturing, a Model 3 payment would be covered.

Convenience

Airports. Nights out drinking. Events out of town that force a one night hotel stay. Finding parking in crowded places. Paying for parking at concert or sports venues. These are some of the most popular reasons people today might use ride sharing services even if they have a car. It would sure be convenient if your own car could handle these occasions for you. This, I know, has more to do with autonomy than making the decision to allow your car to work for you. But it’s only a small leap from one to the other. I say this because if my car dropped me off at an Eagles game, I wouldn’t want it paying for parking while it waits. I’d want it headed back home, because that’s a safe place for it to wait. But if it’s going to driving alone anyway, why not pick someone up? It’ll be an exceptionally convenient life when cars can drive for us.

Tesla-Autopilot-Traffic-Rain

Implementation

How might a program like this actually work? Given a very elementary level of consideration, I imagine the same way Uber works now. I picture a beautiful and streamlined app interface on your smart phone that allows you to log in when you want the car to be able to drive. I imagine the ability to draw a border around the distance you’re willing to let your car travel, as well as the ability to set a time that the car has to return by. Many people far smarter than I will program fantastic algorithms that only allow the car to accept rides that, given traffic and other factors, will get the car back within its allowable time window. I also picture the ability to send the car out with a child’s car seat, if summoned. That would require a bit of interaction, as the app would have to notify you to install it first unless you leave one installed. Speaking of app, I imagine it would notify you that it’s about to head out. (“Mom! I’m going out for a bit. Be back in an hour!”)

Teslarati-Lifestyle-App

Supercharger map with crowdsourced recommendations from Tesla owners

Challenges

Much like I expect to be challenging for vehicle autonomy in general, the regulatory nightmare that is a driver-less vehicle will be the biggest hurdle to jump, in my humble opinion. Those aforementioned people way smarter than I? They’ll figure out programming the self driving technology sooner than later. They’ve already done a lot. Those perhaps-not-as-smart people we elect to office? Those folks I’m not too confidant in. Well, not them per say. The big jumbled mess of a political system that in the United States and so many other places churns out rules based on the almighty dollar rather than the good of citizens. Right here in my own home town, Uber is technically not legal. It’s legal in the state, just not the city, which has a cluster of a Parking Authority that somehow controls taxis. Except, by the way, when the Democratic National Convention came to town around the same time our local train system was having problems. Then the city made a special exception to “let” Uber operate. (Spoiler alert: it operates anyway.) My point is to illustrate that all the engineering and data in the world won’t guarantee that Tesla will even be allowed to operate driver-less ride sharing services as quickly as the technology itself will be available. That to me, is challenge numero uno.

Quick-Tesla-App-PARZ

The technology itself though, still has a lot of work ahead. Just like any parent tells their teenage driver “It’s not you, it’s the other cars on the road I’m worried about.” A Tesla can be a flawless driver 100% of the time on empty roads and that still won’t even come close to accurately predicting how it will drive when sharing the roads with distracted drivers, well-meaning drivers in poor weather conditions, and anything in between. Temporary lane restrictions are hard to compute, as is seeing a car that you just know is going to make a move without a signal. Years of driving experience allows people to read another car’s “body language” so to speak. Will a car ever be able to do the same?

An extension on the both of the topics above, I can only imagine the bureaucratic and technological nightmare that will result if (when!) cars have to learn to talk to each other. Surely that’s where we are headed. It’d be safer that way. But can you see BMW, who I suspect is a little hurt right now, cooperating with Tesla? I can’t but I hope they’ll have no choice. Step up or step aside.

Advertisement
-

Production vs. demand is another potential challenge. If the ability to buy a car and have it work for you to the tune of effectively negating your payment arrives sooner than Tesla exponentially increases its output of cars, we’ll have a problem. Maybe I’m biased, but I assume a darn lot of people would jump at the chance of driving a car that pays for itself. I mean, I wasn’t wrong when I called myself crazy for assuming there would be 50-100,000 people would put in reservations for a Model 3. Well, I was wrong, but in the right direction.

What do you envision ride-sharing capability looking like? What challenges will it face? Drop me a comment.

"I'm Electric Jen

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones

Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”

He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”

The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”

Advertisement
-

That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.

SpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome

While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.

The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet

Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.

Published

on

By

Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.

The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.

Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.

Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.

There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.

The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.

Advertisement
-

The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk

Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.

Published

on

By

Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter

Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.

Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.


SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.

Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.

The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.

SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.

Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.

Continue Reading