The truck wouldn't need to slow down (let alone stop), multiple drones would give high utilization, and you could further optimize delivery routes by "crow flying" to houses that aren't even on the same street.
https://www.inverse.com/article/43043-ready-player-one-drone...
- that book was set in a shitty gig economy dystopia, even if the main character managed to personally get rich in the end
- that book was fucking terrible and it's frankly embarrassing that grown adults make reference to it in a positive manner
You still avoid the inefficient stop-and-go driving and the time-wasting "last 100 feet" walk. Sure it's not as superior in rural areas vs suburban, but with low enough overhead you could still beat the traditional truck.
Naturally if the drone gear cost millions of dollars and took up half the truck, then I'd agree it wouldn't be worth it. In reality I don't think that's the tradeoff though.
UPS demoed an interesting "roof mounted" hardware approach (ignoring the rest of the operational depiction): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBu2glKHTA
Can you share why you think it makes sense cost wise?
A truck gets that for free via tyres and tarmac.
Air travel makes sense for high-value and time-sensitive payloads, most especially passengers, but also communications (airmail delivery was, and remains, a significant revenue source for airlines).
Fixed-wing drones (as Zipline uses in Rwanda) are more efficient than rotary craft, as forward velocity generates lift, though at a cost of being unable to hover, which makes point delivery to locations lacking a landing strip (or other capture device) more challenging. Zipine utilises parachutes (and lightweight cargo) for its deliveries. Pivot-rotor craft (which Zipline seems to be experimenting with for urban deliveries) make hovering more viable whilst preserving the efficiency of fixed-wing flight.
I still see this as an option with very limited applicability.
(I'm not being sarcastic. "Why not both?" thinking is powerful!)
Somewhere years ago I have a chat log where I describe the whole thing as imagined, including the phrase "print out helipad_qr.pdf and tape it to your driveway" as part of the process. ;)
- a second person (pay + benefits + training)
- drones
- helipad
- vehicle idle time for loading the drones
is more expensive than one just driving the boxes around.
You're describing the total cost and ignoring the larger amount of packages being delivered.
Cost per package drops.
At that point you have reached human peak efficiency and then the only thing you can do is build a self driving delivery van with an integrated crane/robot arm to operate the locker.
Self driving is hard. Building a robot arm that inserts packages sideways into a locker doesn't appear as difficult. The post office can dictate the package formats and add visual markers to make it easier for the robot to grab the right side.
Just put the mailbox so the postman reaches it from the driver seat window.
No SaaS, apps, drones or VC money needed.
The truth is that the wave of “imminent drone delivery” mania was always just marketing, and wasn’t going to make sense except in extremely limited scenarios.
I don't remember seeing this demo, but considering it is exactly what I imagined and it's a demonstration from 6 years ago, maybe I did.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCnpxmhWRuw and https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/drone-regulation-ir...
3. https://dronelife.com/2023/05/08/manna-drone-delivery-flies-...
(The prospect of delivery drones is silly, but whatever it is fun to think about).
A lone driver might get paid X $/hour but in a rural area, only reach a single house with his truck, whereas the same driver might make 10x deliveries in the same time period in an urban area. And optimally, you'd have one drone pilot controlling multiple drones at the same time with each one taking less time than a car.
I'm guessing the biggest cost here isn't fuel or energy, it's the staffing.