Owners will charge what they are comfortable to cover all these prospective costs. It is a market.
Too many unknowns to calculate a risk premium - a burned out clutch might cost me $1000 to replace. What about the time the car is out of action because it is in the shop getting said work done? I could pull out my spreadsheet and begin to work some figures using pivot table, but this is about saving money not practicing for an MBA.
The main benefit from a borrower's point of view is that Getaround is both cheaper and more convenient than conventional rental.
Sure but the main competitor here in ZipCar (and its rivals) not rentals. If I want to rent by the hour I'm going to ZipCar, not Alamo.
An owner has already accepted the bargain of their idle inventory, and only sees upside in rental against the existing costs.
Not entirely true on existing costs - there are existing costs plus potential new costs directly associated with the rental element -- see above. The upside is the what's left of both of those costs.
The cars were closer (read, more distributed than zipcars) and cheaper.
I'm in SF, where their beta roll out is, and ZipCar is absolutely plastered across the city. I can't see how Getaround has greater distribution than a ~10 year incumbent. I'm not also not seeing as being cheaper, esp if you compare like-for-like models and factor in ZipCar includes fuel.
If I charge $7/hr, and Getaround take 40%, I make $4.20/hr. To make $100, I gotta have the car utilized for 24/hrs a month - just under 1hr a day. I think that's a tough threshold (given I need to use the car too). I'm not even sure whether $100 makes it interesting for an owner either.
Getaround is probably going to W2 me on that, so I'll have to pay tax on it, so I'll be lucky to end up with $70.
"
Too many unknowns to calculate a risk premium - a burned out clutch might cost me $1000 to replace. What about the time the car is out of action? I could pull out my spreadsheet and begin to work some figures using pivot table, but this is about saving money not practicing for an MBA.
"
Hmm, I guess I'm saying, charge $100/hr if you like. It's up to the owner. And it's not about saving money for a car owner, it's about making money. It's only about saving to the borrower.
"
Sure but the main competitor here in ZipCar (and its rivals) not rentals. If I want to rent by the hour I'm going to ZipCar, not Alamo.
"
At this point, I disagree -- rental is way larger than zipcar. And I think the Getaround approach is more scalable, so that when conventional rental is dead, Getaround will have a large lead, and distribution, over Zipcar.
"
I'm in SF, where their beta roll out is, and ZipCar is absolutely plastered across the city. I can't see how Getaround has greater distribution than a ~10 year incumbent. I'm not also not seeing as being cheaper, esp if you compare like-for-like models and factor in ZipCar includes fuel.
"
That's where I rented, too. Not sure what to say here, we're both anecdotes, I guess.
"
If I charge $7/hr
"
Are you saying that because you're fixing on what Zipcar charges? Most of the world hasn't heard of Zipcar. They've heard of car rental.
Too many unknowns to calculate a risk premium - a burned out clutch might cost me $1000 to replace. What about the time the car is out of action because it is in the shop getting said work done? I could pull out my spreadsheet and begin to work some figures using pivot table, but this is about saving money not practicing for an MBA.
The main benefit from a borrower's point of view is that Getaround is both cheaper and more convenient than conventional rental.
Sure but the main competitor here in ZipCar (and its rivals) not rentals. If I want to rent by the hour I'm going to ZipCar, not Alamo.
An owner has already accepted the bargain of their idle inventory, and only sees upside in rental against the existing costs.
Not entirely true on existing costs - there are existing costs plus potential new costs directly associated with the rental element -- see above. The upside is the what's left of both of those costs.
The cars were closer (read, more distributed than zipcars) and cheaper.
I'm in SF, where their beta roll out is, and ZipCar is absolutely plastered across the city. I can't see how Getaround has greater distribution than a ~10 year incumbent. I'm not also not seeing as being cheaper, esp if you compare like-for-like models and factor in ZipCar includes fuel.
If I charge $7/hr, and Getaround take 40%, I make $4.20/hr. To make $100, I gotta have the car utilized for 24/hrs a month - just under 1hr a day. I think that's a tough threshold (given I need to use the car too). I'm not even sure whether $100 makes it interesting for an owner either.
Getaround is probably going to W2 me on that, so I'll have to pay tax on it, so I'll be lucky to end up with $70.