Comments on: Andy Grove: PEV Retrofit of Cars Winning Strategy http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/ Investing, entrepreneurship, music, reading, life. Sometimes it's better off the beaten path. Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:50:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: edaciuk http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/#comment-118 edaciuk Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:50:46 +0000 http://outsidetheherd.com/?p=115#comment-118 Yep. One of my hobbies. Though not as often as I'd like. Yep. One of my hobbies. Though not as often as I’d like.

]]> By: PiterJankovich http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/#comment-110 PiterJankovich Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:24:59 +0000 http://outsidetheherd.com/?p=115#comment-110 My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby? P.S. Sorry for my bad english My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool
And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
P.S. Sorry for my bad english

]]> By: Magnaflow Catalytic Converter http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/#comment-98 Magnaflow Catalytic Converter Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:26:42 +0000 http://outsidetheherd.com/?p=115#comment-98 The Magnaflow catalytic converters are particularly built in such a manner that these support an easy installation. The main function of the catalytic converter is to filter hazardous gases for improved emissions, turning your vehicle into an environment-friendly automobile. After the gases are passed out from the device, they are completely clean and hazard-free. In other words, the Magnaflow Catalytic converter is a dependable reliable catalytic converter that your auto desperately needs in order to avoid problems faced as a result of release of unclean gases from a vehicle. So, you can save the environment and most importantly boost your vehicle’s performance.

]]> By: FN http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/#comment-38 FN Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:32:02 +0000 http://outsidetheherd.com/?p=115#comment-38 Boy, picking a fight with Andy Grove is tricky business, but here goes. Andy Grove is wrong. Here's why: 1) Comparing fleet replacement rates to Prius is the wrong benchmark. A better benchmark would be the catalytic converter, airbag or unleaded fuel. All of these were required by mandates that were enforced (and would have taken much, much longer if penetration were by market forces alone). The problem is externalities are not solvable by the market, i.e. I want everyone to have a catalytic converter, it's just the *I* don't want to pay to have one on my car. The introduction of these technologies by mandate resulted in 100% penetration within 10 years. A similar penetration rate of new PEV could be achieved. 2) Retrofitting vehicles is a tough business and I'd be surprised if the numbers add up (the article by Grove doesn't include any numbers that are helpful to the retrofit case). Retrofits are artwork, not science. Each car (even of the same model) will have issues to deal with. A retrofit invalidates the warranty. It's like buying a computer from Dell and then installing a new OS you bought used on eBay...who do you call for service? If there ever were a case of voodoo economics it's this. 3) Grove's data are misleading. He starts by citing the fact that 80% of *all* cars drive less than 40 miles per day. Later he says that retrofitting *all* cars is a bad idea and instead wants to focus on 6 types of large trucks used in fleets. Any data on what *their* average miles per trip are? I bet it's more than 40... 4) For the government to invest money in retrofitting a durable good with a useful remaining life of 5-7 years makes no sense. Better to spend those "retrofit dollars" on building efficiency which can have a useful remaining life of 40+ years. Instead, money should be invested in developing technology for building new plug-in EVs. Hybrids are a joke and are at best a bridge technology. Let the market pursue hybrids if they're deemed necessary. Any government money should be invested in the final solution and accelerating it's delivery to market as soon as possible. 5) The argument that "it takes to long" so we can't get started now is specious. Governor Schwartzenegger was on 60 minutes telling a story about how he met with the auto industry executives in 2000 and asked about electric vehicle technology and was told that the return on investment wasn't there and that it would take 5-10 years to see the cars hit the road. Woops. Ok, that's it. I'm stepping down from my soap box! Boy, picking a fight with Andy Grove is tricky business, but here goes. Andy Grove is wrong. Here’s why:

1) Comparing fleet replacement rates to Prius is the wrong benchmark. A better benchmark would be the catalytic converter, airbag or unleaded fuel. All of these were required by mandates that were enforced (and would have taken much, much longer if penetration were by market forces alone). The problem is externalities are not solvable by the market, i.e. I want everyone to have a catalytic converter, it’s just the *I* don’t want to pay to have one on my car. The introduction of these technologies by mandate resulted in 100% penetration within 10 years. A similar penetration rate of new PEV could be achieved.

2) Retrofitting vehicles is a tough business and I’d be surprised if the numbers add up (the article by Grove doesn’t include any numbers that are helpful to the retrofit case). Retrofits are artwork, not science. Each car (even of the same model) will have issues to deal with. A retrofit invalidates the warranty. It’s like buying a computer from Dell and then installing a new OS you bought used on eBay…who do you call for service? If there ever were a case of voodoo economics it’s this.

3) Grove’s data are misleading. He starts by citing the fact that 80% of *all* cars drive less than 40 miles per day. Later he says that retrofitting *all* cars is a bad idea and instead wants to focus on 6 types of large trucks used in fleets. Any data on what *their* average miles per trip are? I bet it’s more than 40…

4) For the government to invest money in retrofitting a durable good with a useful remaining life of 5-7 years makes no sense. Better to spend those “retrofit dollars” on building efficiency which can have a useful remaining life of 40+ years. Instead, money should be invested in developing technology for building new plug-in EVs. Hybrids are a joke and are at best a bridge technology. Let the market pursue hybrids if they’re deemed necessary. Any government money should be invested in the final solution and accelerating it’s delivery to market as soon as possible.

5) The argument that “it takes to long” so we can’t get started now is specious. Governor Schwartzenegger was on 60 minutes telling a story about how he met with the auto industry executives in 2000 and asked about electric vehicle technology and was told that the return on investment wasn’t there and that it would take 5-10 years to see the cars hit the road. Woops.

Ok, that’s it. I’m stepping down from my soap box!

]]>