EV-related Research Has Dubious Validity
Thanks for your comments on my pieces on Deloitte and the dubious validity of its EV-related research. Perhaps the real issue is actually something that I’ve seen quite often in research efforts: proving what they’ve already assumed. Also known as circular logic, begging the question, or as the Latin scholars would say, “petitio principii,” it’s parodied here in an episode of the old sit-com Happy Days:
Fonzie: I know for a fact that she’s a virgin.
Richie: How do you know?
Fonzie: She told me.
Richie: How do you know she wasn’t lying?
Fonzie: Simple. Virgins don’t lie.
It seems funny here, but applying it in business can be lethal — and it’s a very easy trap into which to fall. If you’re trying to prove that a strong market exists for a certain product, there is almost always a way to construct a research effort that will bear that out. Conversely, studies that take a step back and attempt quantify markets honestly and accurately are not as common as one may think.
The case here — research concerning EVs — is particularly susceptible to this frailty. A guy called me from New York City yesterday wanting me to nail down the projected penetration of EVs in Manhattan by 2015. There are methodologies that will provide some level of insight in the direction of that figure, but, obviously, they’re not at all precise. (If you want to know more about how we will be cracking that nut, please feel free to write or call.) In any case, you can rest assured that our approach will not be to make some assumption and back our way into proving it’s correct.
Refreshing Craig. Thanks. I think the debate over percentages of anything in the future is nonsense. Who cares. It’s irrelevant if the current % is virtually “0”!!
Why can’t we focus the dialogue and action on what we have to work with and what we can do with it today? Let’s act as if the market penetration at some point in the future can be 100%, and keep plugging until we get there. And let’s come to an agreement that it needs to happen very very soon. Within months or years not decades!! Imagining some partial success sometime in the future is a waste of time and energy.
The pure mechanical industry is now giving 10000% of its energy to sell as much as possible because they know that the decline is already at the corner. That’s to say that for instance, Peugeot in France had a cycle of 4 to 8 years to clear a car model, but know it is going faster and faster. The automobile cycle is getting faster and faster. We live what they call car face-lift……
I agree that the EV has to come ASAP it is, it is the way to change the source of energy. It is the way to create a one world based on the same eco-values…….
For Manhattan and others, the product will be introduced withot major sayings. It is acceptable. It is even mandatory.
More outreach and communication is needed!
Cheers, and have a good Sunday.
A.Jai
As for what has been posted and said, I too, have waited to see what technology would have been presented by the bigs. Companies like Nissan, Ford, Chevy, etc are looking around for all the New Technology. The point is this: If small companies don’t have the capital, but have the all the new technology, then see the reason for buy-outs. Capital infusion. Investors will not make large returns on large companies. Investors love ground floor. History has always provided young and healthy Technology investments through small companies that spend most of there money on Technology.
There are some companies that have been innovating since the 70’s and 80’s. We will wait for the right time. Companies like Classic Muscle, SSI-Racing, EV-Blue, Eestor, Fortin Financial and CFS already have the best technology in the Industry and have been able to position themselves with unlimited funding. These companies have been negoitating for years regarding EV -Electric Vehicle & ES-Electric Semi Technology. Small or Large the Technology will come and FOR THE RECORD and I quote ” 3 to 8 hr Charging Stations & EV’s will not benefit the World” We have the technology and patents for 250/500/800 mile/range and 5 minute Charges with Public Charging Stations. We will use that on our Product Line and also provide Battery Technology and Eduction/Training Programs for States like HI, TN, and CA that will always invest in EV & ES Technology. It is very sad to have people sit back and wait to take advantage of someone life and hardwork. This Industry of Inventors and Designers will not allow it. We have been screwed over one to many times and the EV & ES Industry couldn’t came at a better time in History. Thank GOD!
Eighty percent of the adults who live in Manhattan do not own motor vehicles, and rely on buses, subway, taxis to get around — plus their own two feet. Taxis wear out a lot faster than private cars, so any mandated conversion of the taxi fleet to PHEVs and EVs should happen rather quickly. Great strides have been made with compressed-natural-gas (CNG) and hybrid-electric city buses, and subways have been electric for over a century.
So, Manhattan is a rather atypical place. My guess is that only 1-2% of the US population lives in Manhattan or similar center-city areas.
I invite everyone to look at my website at http://www.LeviCar.com
I propose a system using modular cars, with detachable drive trains. In partial response to Abderrahmane Jai’s comment, this way the R&D and modernization of the drive train, and changes to the car bodies, can occur independently. The drive trains could be electric on the East Coast, and CNG in Texas and Oklahoma. A car owner would periodically swap the drive train with the leasing company, which can then maintain and perhaps modernize the “old” drive train before lending it to yet another of its customers.
The other part of the LeviCar system is the use of a Magnetic-Levitation (MagLev) network for longer-distance transportation. The car bodies, with passengers and luggage, but sans drive train, are carried at 300 mph from a station within ten miles (in built-up areas) of the starting point, non-stop to another station within ten miles from the final destination. At this final station, a new drive train is provided. The new drive train might be different than the one left behind. It might be CNG instead of electric, or it might be more powerful if the destination is in a mountainous area.
This short summary cannot provide all the details, so please first look at the website if you have any technical questions or comments.
Josh: You’re certainly right that Manhattan is atypical driving. Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/new-york-city/3951/.
I hope we can use logic if she says so.
Great Job
Can a car-sharing concept work for this kind of products?
I am confident it will. People opting for this kind of solutions are already ecologically prepared (if I may say so) for this kind of services.
So why not as an introduction point?
Meilleures salutations à tous;
A.Jai
I completely agree! Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/funride/3762/
EVs may well be the vehicle technology of the future, but it is too soon to know for sure. It may be that artificially produced fuels, such as ammonia, will become practical to replace petroleum-based fuels and internal combustion engines designed to run on those fuels will predominate. In any case, we cannot depend on petroleum-based fuels forever.
In defence of Deloitte…
EV adoption will come about when two things occur: an EV is available to purchase in a place and with a value proposition that works for consumers, and consumers are ready to purchase.
In spite of all the wishful thinking out there, there are still hurdles to having an EV available in the right place with the right value proposition. And the Deloitte survey tells us something about the views of (perhaps uninformed) consumers.
The rate of uptake will also be hugely driven by the amount of choice out there, and as long as ICE is still for sale, many will choose what they perceive to be the lower risk option.
I don’t think the adoption curve is relevant (Deloitte distraction) because the automobile functionality is already available in most every home. EV is not a new gadget, (like a washing machine was when you didn’t have one) it is just a new form of existing gadget (think top load vs front load, or wringer vs spin).
The diffusion of EV drive systems into the vehicle fleet will be slow as long as: 1. there is lots of choice between EV and other drive systems; 2. I can keep my old pick-up; 3. the EV is not available where I go to buy a new car when I am ready; 4. the salesman is motivated to tell me the alternative is better; 5. information is out there telling me that EV is more expensive and less reliable; 6. the perceived risk of going EV exceeds my threshold for risk; 7. the expected resale value is as good as the alternative; 8. and so on.
Many car-buyers are known for buying a car from someone they have decided to trust. When that person tells them EV is the way to go, then you will see big diffusion of EV into the fleet. And that person is relying on satisfied customers for the next and next sales, so you can imagine how confident they want to be with that information before they start to give that advice.
Thanks Craig for bringing the Deloitte work to our attention. I think it is a useful perspective.
It seems to me that if I (A Potential Buyer) figure out that I am going to be buying cars for X$ at some time in the (near) future anyway, and I figure out that I really only drive let’s say 20 miles (30 Kms) a day – then a car that happens to be electric, and gives me a range of 100 miles – is actually more than I need on a daily basis to make my rounds to work, etc., then – I might not even buy it – because it has a cost – value ratio above my needs and a cost to match, but I might buy it if I drove maybe 35-40 miles a day, since I knew – If I missed a charge one night – I would still be OK. On the other hand, I might take what I have learned – and do a personal conversion for half the price instead of trading in my older car. And – there are a lot of places that have such information.
EVs may well be the vehicle technology of the future, but it is too soon to know for sure. It may be that artificially produced fuels, such as ammonia, will become practical to replace petroleum-based fuels and internal combustion engines designed to run on those fuels will predominate. In any case, we cannot depend on petroleum-based fuels forever.