Market Analysis of 3-Wheelers
5.1 Most preferred brand of CNG kit for auto-rickshaws
• As far as auto-rickshaws are concerned, the choice of a particular
brand mainly goes with the reference or the dealer’s choice i.e.
company ftted
• The following brands of kit are most popular in the Ahmedabad
market namely Lovato, Tartarini, inda and !agas
Figure 5.1: Preferred gas kit for auto rickshaws
"#$ of the market in the auto-rickshaw gas kit segment is being covered
by the !agas gas kit
%&$ is covered by Lovato and so on. The ma'or reason behind the
popularity of !agas is the performance. The kit consumes lower amount
of engine oil as well at the time of ignition, it does not consume the
battery power.
5.2 !erage "uantit# of gas re$%%ed:
• The (uantity of gas reflled mainly depends on the running of the
auto rickshaws. ainly, & )g is the preferred (uantity because of
the mileage and the average run is around "* kms per auto per day
Figure 5.2: &uantit# of gas re$%%ed per !isit
5.' (ocation for refue%%ing:
• As the auto rickshaws are moving all around the city, there is no
specifc fuelling station for getting the vehicle reflled. The auto
drivers refll it as and where the gas is re(uired
Figure 5.': Preference of re$%%ing station
5.) !erage nu*ber of ki%o*etres tra!e%%ed per week:
• As the number of rickshaws have increase manifold since &**&-
&**+, due to induction of ,-., the average running per rickshaw
has decreased to an average of 'ust #* kms per day
Figure 5.): !erage running distance per week
5.5 +#pothesis of ,ene$t percei!ed and -istance
tra!e%%ed:
+.: /he bene$t percei!ed fro* a%ternate fue% has a signi$cant
re%ationship with distance tra!e%%ed
+1: /he bene$t percei!ed does not ha!e an# signi$cant
re%ationship with the distance tra!e%%ed
/or the same, mean ranking is applied to the beneft perceived. The
highest mean ranked *.#" has been achieved by savings. Therefore, the
chi-s(uare calculation is applied to savings and distance travelled.
/ollowing are the chi-s(uare calculations0
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Economy 50 .00 1.00 .2000 .40406
Environmental Concern 50 .00 1.00 .0400 .19795
Savin! 50 .00 1.00 ."600 .#5051
$etter enine %er&ormance 50 .00 1.00 .2400 .4#142
'alid N (li!t )i!e* 50
Savings * Kilometres per week Cross tabulation
Count
+ilometre! %er )ee,
-otal 0.#00 #01.450 451.560 561.700
Savin! Not !elected 0 2 # 2 7
Selected 1 10 20 12 4#
-otal 1 12 2# 14 50
Chi-Square Tests
'alue d&
/!ym%. Si. (2.
!ided*
0ear!on C1i.S2uare .252
a
# .969
3i,eli1ood 4atio .#"" # .94#
3inear.5y.3inear /!!ociation .000 1 1.000
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The chi-s(uare calculation according to the 1earson method is .&2&,
whereas at 32$ confdence level and degree of freedom as +, the
tabulated value is .+2&
/hus 02 Ca% 1 02 /ab
4* is accepted and 4% is re'ected. Therefore, there is a positive
association between the beneft perceived and distance travelled in terms
of savings.
5.2 3e%ationship between price and popu%arit# of the
gas kit:
To know what kind of relationship e5ist between the price and popularity
of the gas kit, the cross tabulation 1earson co-relation is applied.
Price * Popularity Cross tabulation
Count
0o%ularity
-otal Not !elected Selected
0rice Not Selected 12 19 #1
Selected 9 10 19
-otal 21 29 50
Symmetric Measures
'alue
/!ym%. Std.
Error
a
/%%rox. -
5
/%%rox. Si.
6nterval 5y 6nterval 0ear!on7! 4 ..0"5 .142 ..592 .557
c
8rdinal 5y 8rdinal S%earman Correlation ..0"5 .142 ..592 .557
c
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The value of 1earson 3 4 -.*#2, this means there is a negative
correlation between price and popularity of the gas kit.
5.5 3e%ationship between *i%eage and perfor*ance of
the gas kit:
To know the relationship between the mileage and the relative
performance of the gas kit.
Mileage * Perormance Cross tabulation
Count
0er&ormance
-otal Not !elected Selected
Mileae Not !elected 9 26 #5
Selected 5 10 15
-otal 14 #6 50
Symmetric Measures
'alue
/!ym%. Std.
Error
a
/%%rox. -
5
/%%rox. Si.
6nterval 5y 6nterval 0ear!on7! 4 ..07" .145 ..540 .591
c
8rdinal 5y 8rdinal S%earman Correlation ..07" .145 ..540 .591
c
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The value of 1earson 3 4 -.6#, this means there is a negative correlation
between mileage and performance of the gas kit.
5.6 3e%ationship between brand of gas kit and percei!ed
durabi%it#:
To know the relationship between the brand of gas kit and the
relative perceived durability the following hypothesis is been
established0
+.: /here is signi$cance re%ationship between preference
towards brand of gas kit and percei!ed durabi%it#.
+1: /here is no signi$cance re%ationship between preference
towards brand of gas kit and percei!ed durabi%it#.
!ran" o C#$ Kit * Durability Cross tabulation
Count
Dura5ility
-otal Not !elected Selected
$rand o& CN9 +it 3ovato 4 2 6
-artarini # 2 5
Saa! 21 1# #4
'ana: 2 0 2
8t1er! # 0 #
-otal ## 17 50
Chi-Square Tests
'alue d&
/!ym%. Si. (2.
!ided*
0ear!on C1i.S2uare 2.929
a
4 .570
3i,eli1ood 4atio 4.501 4 .#42
3inear.5y.3inear /!!ociation .5#6 1 .464
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The chi-s(uare calculation according to the 1earson method is &.3&3,
whereas at 32$ confdence level and degree of freedom as 7, the
tabulated value is .6%%
/hus 02 Ca% 7 02 /ab
4* is re'ected and 4% is accepted. Therefore, there is no signifcant
relationship between brand of kit and perceived durability.
5.8 3e%ationship between safet# and brand of gas kit:
To know the relationship between the brand of gas kit and its
association with the safety perceived by the consumers.
+.: /he re%ationship between percei!ed safet# and its association
with the brand of gas kit is not signi$cant in nature
+1: /he re%ationship between percei!ed safet# and its association
with the brand of gas kit is signi$cant in nature
!ran" o C#$ Kit * Saety Cross tabulation
Count
Sa&ety
-otal Not !elected Selected
$rand o& CN9 +it 3ovato 6 0 6
-artarini 1 4 5
Saa! #0 4 #4
'ana: 2 0 2
8t1er! # 0 #
-otal 42 " 50
Chi-Square Tests
'alue d&
/!ym%. Si. (2.
!ided*
0ear!on C1i.S2uare 17.7"7
a
4 .001
3i,eli1ood 4atio 14.### 4 .006
3inear.5y.3inear /!!ociation .27# 1 .602
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The chi-s(uare calculation according to the 1earson method is %6.6#6,
whereas at 32$ confdence level and degree of freedom as 7, the
tabulated value is .6%%
/hus 02 Ca% 7 02 /ab
4* is re'ected and 4% is accepted. Therefore, there is no signifcant
relationship between brand of kit and perceived safety
doc_322059362.doc
5.1 Most preferred brand of CNG kit for auto-rickshaws
• As far as auto-rickshaws are concerned, the choice of a particular
brand mainly goes with the reference or the dealer’s choice i.e.
company ftted
• The following brands of kit are most popular in the Ahmedabad
market namely Lovato, Tartarini, inda and !agas
Figure 5.1: Preferred gas kit for auto rickshaws
"#$ of the market in the auto-rickshaw gas kit segment is being covered
by the !agas gas kit
%&$ is covered by Lovato and so on. The ma'or reason behind the
popularity of !agas is the performance. The kit consumes lower amount
of engine oil as well at the time of ignition, it does not consume the
battery power.
5.2 !erage "uantit# of gas re$%%ed:
• The (uantity of gas reflled mainly depends on the running of the
auto rickshaws. ainly, & )g is the preferred (uantity because of
the mileage and the average run is around "* kms per auto per day
Figure 5.2: &uantit# of gas re$%%ed per !isit
5.' (ocation for refue%%ing:
• As the auto rickshaws are moving all around the city, there is no
specifc fuelling station for getting the vehicle reflled. The auto
drivers refll it as and where the gas is re(uired
Figure 5.': Preference of re$%%ing station
5.) !erage nu*ber of ki%o*etres tra!e%%ed per week:
• As the number of rickshaws have increase manifold since &**&-
&**+, due to induction of ,-., the average running per rickshaw
has decreased to an average of 'ust #* kms per day
Figure 5.): !erage running distance per week
5.5 +#pothesis of ,ene$t percei!ed and -istance
tra!e%%ed:
+.: /he bene$t percei!ed fro* a%ternate fue% has a signi$cant
re%ationship with distance tra!e%%ed
+1: /he bene$t percei!ed does not ha!e an# signi$cant
re%ationship with the distance tra!e%%ed
/or the same, mean ranking is applied to the beneft perceived. The
highest mean ranked *.#" has been achieved by savings. Therefore, the
chi-s(uare calculation is applied to savings and distance travelled.
/ollowing are the chi-s(uare calculations0
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Economy 50 .00 1.00 .2000 .40406
Environmental Concern 50 .00 1.00 .0400 .19795
Savin! 50 .00 1.00 ."600 .#5051
$etter enine %er&ormance 50 .00 1.00 .2400 .4#142
'alid N (li!t )i!e* 50
Savings * Kilometres per week Cross tabulation
Count
+ilometre! %er )ee,
-otal 0.#00 #01.450 451.560 561.700
Savin! Not !elected 0 2 # 2 7
Selected 1 10 20 12 4#
-otal 1 12 2# 14 50
Chi-Square Tests
'alue d&
/!ym%. Si. (2.
!ided*
0ear!on C1i.S2uare .252
a
# .969
3i,eli1ood 4atio .#"" # .94#
3inear.5y.3inear /!!ociation .000 1 1.000
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The chi-s(uare calculation according to the 1earson method is .&2&,
whereas at 32$ confdence level and degree of freedom as +, the
tabulated value is .+2&
/hus 02 Ca% 1 02 /ab
4* is accepted and 4% is re'ected. Therefore, there is a positive
association between the beneft perceived and distance travelled in terms
of savings.
5.2 3e%ationship between price and popu%arit# of the
gas kit:
To know what kind of relationship e5ist between the price and popularity
of the gas kit, the cross tabulation 1earson co-relation is applied.
Price * Popularity Cross tabulation
Count
0o%ularity
-otal Not !elected Selected
0rice Not Selected 12 19 #1
Selected 9 10 19
-otal 21 29 50
Symmetric Measures
'alue
/!ym%. Std.
Error
a
/%%rox. -
5
/%%rox. Si.
6nterval 5y 6nterval 0ear!on7! 4 ..0"5 .142 ..592 .557
c
8rdinal 5y 8rdinal S%earman Correlation ..0"5 .142 ..592 .557
c
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The value of 1earson 3 4 -.*#2, this means there is a negative
correlation between price and popularity of the gas kit.
5.5 3e%ationship between *i%eage and perfor*ance of
the gas kit:
To know the relationship between the mileage and the relative
performance of the gas kit.
Mileage * Perormance Cross tabulation
Count
0er&ormance
-otal Not !elected Selected
Mileae Not !elected 9 26 #5
Selected 5 10 15
-otal 14 #6 50
Symmetric Measures
'alue
/!ym%. Std.
Error
a
/%%rox. -
5
/%%rox. Si.
6nterval 5y 6nterval 0ear!on7! 4 ..07" .145 ..540 .591
c
8rdinal 5y 8rdinal S%earman Correlation ..07" .145 ..540 .591
c
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The value of 1earson 3 4 -.6#, this means there is a negative correlation
between mileage and performance of the gas kit.
5.6 3e%ationship between brand of gas kit and percei!ed
durabi%it#:
To know the relationship between the brand of gas kit and the
relative perceived durability the following hypothesis is been
established0
+.: /here is signi$cance re%ationship between preference
towards brand of gas kit and percei!ed durabi%it#.
+1: /here is no signi$cance re%ationship between preference
towards brand of gas kit and percei!ed durabi%it#.
!ran" o C#$ Kit * Durability Cross tabulation
Count
Dura5ility
-otal Not !elected Selected
$rand o& CN9 +it 3ovato 4 2 6
-artarini # 2 5
Saa! 21 1# #4
'ana: 2 0 2
8t1er! # 0 #
-otal ## 17 50
Chi-Square Tests
'alue d&
/!ym%. Si. (2.
!ided*
0ear!on C1i.S2uare 2.929
a
4 .570
3i,eli1ood 4atio 4.501 4 .#42
3inear.5y.3inear /!!ociation .5#6 1 .464
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The chi-s(uare calculation according to the 1earson method is &.3&3,
whereas at 32$ confdence level and degree of freedom as 7, the
tabulated value is .6%%
/hus 02 Ca% 7 02 /ab
4* is re'ected and 4% is accepted. Therefore, there is no signifcant
relationship between brand of kit and perceived durability.
5.8 3e%ationship between safet# and brand of gas kit:
To know the relationship between the brand of gas kit and its
association with the safety perceived by the consumers.
+.: /he re%ationship between percei!ed safet# and its association
with the brand of gas kit is not signi$cant in nature
+1: /he re%ationship between percei!ed safet# and its association
with the brand of gas kit is signi$cant in nature
!ran" o C#$ Kit * Saety Cross tabulation
Count
Sa&ety
-otal Not !elected Selected
$rand o& CN9 +it 3ovato 6 0 6
-artarini 1 4 5
Saa! #0 4 #4
'ana: 2 0 2
8t1er! # 0 #
-otal 42 " 50
Chi-Square Tests
'alue d&
/!ym%. Si. (2.
!ided*
0ear!on C1i.S2uare 17.7"7
a
4 .001
3i,eli1ood 4atio 14.### 4 .006
3inear.5y.3inear /!!ociation .27# 1 .602
N o& 'alid Ca!e! 50
The chi-s(uare calculation according to the 1earson method is %6.6#6,
whereas at 32$ confdence level and degree of freedom as 7, the
tabulated value is .6%%
/hus 02 Ca% 7 02 /ab
4* is re'ected and 4% is accepted. Therefore, there is no signifcant
relationship between brand of kit and perceived safety
doc_322059362.doc