China Automotive Engineering Research Institute responded. Was it just an unintentional act that the Li Auto i8 "won" in the collision with an 8 - ton truck? The vehicle enterprise tests urgently need to be regulated.

The public opinion about the collision between the Li Auto i8 and an 8 - ton truck is still intensifying.

After the Chenglong truck side issued a statement, Li Auto and the third - party testing institution, China Automotive Engineering Research Institute (CAERI), successively made public responses on the evening of August 3rd.

Li Auto released "Explanation on the Safety Collision Test of the Li Auto i8", responding to aspects such as why the test was conducted, the test results, and the public opinion on the incident. Regarding the unexpected involvement of the Dongfeng Liuzhou Automobile Chenglong brand in the public opinion controversy, the official stated that it was just an "unintentional act" and there is no direct competitive relationship with Dongfeng Liuzhou Automobile Chenglong.

CAERI issued a statement letter, providing a detailed explanation of the entire test. It stated that this test only verified the safety of the Li Auto i8, was not a standard vehicle - to - vehicle collision test, and did not involve the safety performance evaluation of other brand vehicles.

Statements from three parties | Source: Official

However, after a comprehensive review, Li Auto and CAERI seem to have left several points unclear, so Dianchetong is not fully convinced.

The disputes among the three parties are hard to end

After sorting out, there are mainly three points of doubt in the incident of the Li Auto i8 colliding with an 8 - ton truck:

1. The state of the truck and the test data have not been fully disclosed, so the results cannot convince everyone.

2. Is there a possibility of targeted design in the test state and test scenario?

3. The key information was not blurred in the first - released video, but was quietly blurred later. Does it imply "criticizing first and then compensating"?

Based on the statement issued by CAERI, the following key information can be obtained: Li Auto formulated the outline, and CAERI was responsible for the implementation; the truck was randomly purchased from the market and weighted to 8 tons. During the test, the collision speed of the Li Auto i8 was about 60 km/h, and the oncoming speed of the truck was about 40 km/h. The final result was completely consistent with what Li Auto announced.

However, the official did not explain the state of the locking structure of the truck cab's roll - over before the test. So, there is still no good explanation for why the truck cab fell directly onto the Li Auto i8 after the collision - whether the locking structure was damaged during the collision or was not locked before the collision test remains unknown.

Source: Screenshot from Li Auto's official website

So far, CAERI has at least disclosed all the important test data. Initially, it seems that there was no fraud in the entire test process. Dianchetong has previously interpreted the collision results. When the Li Auto i8 collided with an 8 - ton truck with a higher center of gravity and a shallower body, the upward and offset impact force could completely lift the cab. The truck would experience a brief phenomenon of all four wheels leaving the ground due to the upward reaction force. It's just that the marketing gimmick of "a 2.6 - ton passenger car colliding with an 8 - ton truck" sounds a bit scary.

However, as the party formulating the outline, Li Auto may not escape the accusations of Chenglong trucks.

According to Li Auto, the dangerous working condition of "a small car colliding with a large car" has extremely high requirements for vehicle safety. Therefore, it actively simulated this collision scenario, and the test requirements were formulated based on the high - frequency traffic accident situations on ordinary roads.

Chenglong trucks accused a certain brand (actually referring to Li Auto specifically) in the statement, saying that "by customizing collision conditions and specifically designing non - conventional test scenarios, and releasing collision videos with results that deviate significantly from the public's perception of normal collisions, it not only demeans our brand image but also easily misleads the majority of vehicle owners."

Top: Screenshot from the Li Auto i8 launch event | Bottom: Screenshot from Li Auto's latest official video

Both Li Auto and CAERI stated that this test was only to verify the passive safety of the Li Auto i8, and stated that "it does not involve the safety performance evaluation of other brand vehicles", "there is no horizontal comparison", and "there is no direct competitive relationship between the two parties". However, it cannot cover up the fact:

The collision scenario of the Li Auto i8 colliding with an 8 - ton truck indeed has a strong "customized" flavor. Meanwhile, the key information such as the LOGO was not blurred in the first - released video, and Chenglong trucks were more or less affected. At least, Li Auto should sincerely apologize to Chenglong trucks. Judging from the fact that Chenglong trucks have already activated their legal department, this storm will not end so soon.

Li Auto's ability to attract traffic remains as strong as ever. The collision test of "a small car colliding with a large car" is rare and can indeed bring good traffic. However, not blurring the LOGO on the truck was the only mistake Li Auto made during the communication process. If Li Auto had done this well, at least it would not have dragged Chenglong trucks into the situation, and the public opinion in the market would not be as intense as it is now.

Automobile manufacturers can use safety tests as "blockbusters", but they should hold the bottom line

According to regulations, all passenger cars listed in the Chinese market must first pass the C - IASI collision test. After passing all the tests and obtaining the "Announcement of Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Products" from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the CCC certification, they can be legally sold. On the basis of meeting the mandatory national standards, automobile manufacturers can voluntarily participate in C - NACP or C - IASI to obtain grade and star ratings for brand promotion.

I wonder if you have the feeling that most models get high scores such as five - star ratings in the evaluations of C - NACP, C - IASI and other evaluation institutions.

The only explanation is that almost all automobile manufacturers have figured out the design and materials required for collisions and are capable of producing products that can smoothly achieve high - score evaluations.

Source: C - NCAP

When automobile manufacturers promote the passive safety capabilities of their products, most of them mention the five - star ratings from C - NACP or C - IASI. The collision results are not fake, but consumers are easily indifferent to overly official videos.

In order to attract more consumers' attention, automobile manufacturers are increasingly competing in the field of safety tests. Using safety tests as "blockbusters" for communication has become a common practice for automobile manufacturers.

The "collision between the Li Auto i8 and an 8 - ton truck" is a typical "blockbuster" with visual impact. Before this, there were numerous safety tests with strong visual impact, such as colliding with trucks and high - altitude drops. What impressed Dianchetong deeply was the high - speed spiral roll - over test challenged by the Ora Lightning Cat. This test simulated a major accident scenario where a vehicle loses control, hits the guardrail and rolls over on a highway or an urban express elevated road.

Source: Ora's official website

More automobile manufacturers choose the path of "blockbusters" that exceed the rules. For example, in the actual - measurement working condition of the Geely ZEEKR 7X's heavy - truck intersection serial collision, the vehicle body withstood a side collision from an 8 - ton truck at a speed of 50 km/h. The instantaneous impact force exceeded the national standard by 8 times, and the survival space of the passenger compartment remained intact after the collision.

Whether in terms of marketing effect or consumer acceptance, there is no fault for automobile manufacturers to create safety test "blockbusters". The purpose is to better translate engineering language into emotional value recognized by the public.

However, automobile safety marketing should firmly grasp the boundaries. Automobile manufacturers can use collision test results for reasonable marketing, but there should be no suspicion of "pulling down others" or "a small car can beat a large car". Otherwise, once the trust is broken, it will be difficult to attract consumers even with the most powerful capabilities.

So, what are the boundaries of safety marketing? Dianchetong believes that there are actually only two points:

1. Automobile manufacturers can create "beyond - the - syllabus" scenarios, but they should disclose all test conditions and original data. Otherwise, it may constitute a misrepresentation. It is best to allow officially recognized institutions, other automobile manufacturers, the media, and even consumers with the conditions to replicate the test.

2. The testing party is only to prove its own strength, not to pull down opponents. The collision test should be approved by the colliding party or the key information should be blurred.

Of course, these are only the marketing boundaries for passive safety tests. For the marketing of active safety technologies, more caution should be exercised in promotion to avoid consumers' over - trust in driving assistance technologies.

Testing specifications need to keep up with the times

Some time ago, an automobile service platform organized an intelligent driving test. Such a test was very topical, but the official did not provide detailed information such as the software version and vehicle state. Therefore, the test results also caused a lot of controversy.

Ultimately, consumers attach great importance to automobile safety and do not allow "targeted design" and other tricks in tests, or "under - the - table operations" such as non - transparent key details.

Specifications are the premise for all safety tests. But as mentioned before, consumers hope to see the capabilities of new cars under extreme working conditions. Credible institutions can appropriately raise the baseline of tests or allow automobile manufacturers to customize more difficult test challenges. As long as all the data of the entire test process are disclosed, even "customized" tests will be recognized by the market.

Finally, Dianchetong also wants to say that the assisted driving technologies of automobile manufacturers are gradually improving. For extreme scenarios such as sudden pedestrian appearances, obstacle recognition in rainy, foggy weather or at night, relevant departments should formulate corresponding standards. Moreover, for dangerous behaviors such as "taking hands off the steering wheel and eyes off the road" when drivers use assisted driving technologies, the vehicle's feedback can be quantified into risk levels. In this way, consumers will have clearer indicators for the assisted driving capabilities of products.

This article is from the WeChat official account "Dianchetong". Author: Dianchetong. Republished by 36Kr with permission.