[banks_h]

Definitely, we've experienced workers being sent home for a number of reasons (too cold, too windy, too rainy, materials didn't show up as scheduled). Fortunately with an autonomous system there's no logistical overhead, if some external factor prevents us from working then we aren't stuck covering hundreds of per diems and sending everyone home. Yes, we'll have some equipment depreciation as it's not working, but it's at a similar rate to the rented or depreciating trucks/skid steers/telehandlers on existing sites when no one's working them.

Totally hear you on the CA vs MA weather swings (I've lived in both!). We actually see this as a key advantage for us. Sites we've visited in central CA have significant water distribution logistics, frequent shade breaks, and still have high heat exhaustion rates. Sites we've visited in northern climates report about 50% speed reduction in work due to gloves/cold, and will send workers home if the temperatures drop far enough. Our robots can handle both climates without an impact on installation rates (or any of the associated health risks for workers!).

[mrraj]

“Fortunately with an autonomous system there's no logistical overhead”

It might be too early to tell.

Those telehandlers and skidsteers are almost always rentals, so they get called off and picked up at the site. Moving heavy machinery is much more difficult than moving people, and all of your equipment is unique so it’s glued to that job site until it’s complete. Owning your own equipment presents its own set of challenges - you have to store it when it isn’t being utilized, keep excess capacity in case it becomes unavailable, fix/repair on your own, etc. All of the costs in the current installer model, while perhaps higher, are tightly coupled with the cash flows from the job portfolio. This might decouple the cash going out from the cash coming in, to say nothing of the fixed costs of having having hardware/software engineers on staff.

I really want this to succeed so please keep in mind this is just food for thought.

[banks_h]

Yes! Sorry I explained poorly above, I meant there isn't additional logistical overhead involved in stopping operations for a day for robots, whereas there's tons when workers are involved.

You're dead on with regards to the logistics involved in operating this equipment on site, we'll absolutely be facing each of the challenges you mentioned.

[worik]

> I meant there isn't additional logistical overhead involved in stopping operations for a day for robots, whereas there's tons when workers are involved.

Time value of money. There is a lot of capital tied up in those machines. If they stop for a day there is no income from that capital.

Does not invalidate your point, but it blunts it

[hef19898]

I'd call that assumption about logistical over-head highly optimistic. Besides all the manual labor still needed before the mounting structure can go up, you still need to set up your "mobile factory". And if that factory isn't working you still incur the fixed costs of said factory. And as things stand, the most robust, flexible and climate tolerant robot to date is still a human. Especially if sad human labor tends to be comparatively cheap.

EDIT: Autonomous forklifts are old tech by now, most container ports are close to be fully automated as are tons of factories all over the world. Heck, we even have automated lawn mowers and hoovers...

[banks_h]

I was making a much narrower point above, just that there isn't additional overhead involved in shutting down for a day with our system, as opposed to sending hundreds of workers home which does happen today. Absolutely as you mentioned there's overhead in general involved with delivery, setup, teardown, and supervision.

And yes, as you said there is still the lost time value of money associated with any equipment that's not doing productive work.