Collision with Marketing Traps: A Sturdy Car Doesn't Equal Safety | A Letter from an Engineer

When crash tests become a marketing tool, how should consumers identify vehicle safety?

During the new car launch event of Li Auto, a video of a head - on collision between a 2.6 - ton SUV and an 8 - ton truck was shown. In the video, the two vehicles collided at a relative speed of 100 km/h. Subsequently, the truck's wheels bounced up, and the cab "nodded and landed", while the A, B, and C pillars of the Li i8 remained undeformed, all airbags were deployed, and the battery did not catch fire.

This "safety show" that defies physical common sense quickly sparked doubts and dissatisfaction among consumers. In fact, using crash tests to prove safety has become a standard practice at new energy vehicle manufacturers' launch events.

At the launch event of NIO LeDao L90, a scene was shown where the vehicle was sandwiched between two trucks at high speed in the rain, and the body frame remained intact. BYD Sea Lion 06 conducted a static roof pressure test, claiming that it could withstand a pressure of about 9.9 tons, equivalent to the weight of two elephants.

The common features of these tests are: strong visual impact, special test conditions, and results that go beyond common sense. Vehicle manufacturers are trying to use "explosive" test results to cover up consumers' understanding of the essence of safety: the real safety of a vehicle lies in protecting passengers and long - term reliability, rather than "special - effect performances" in specially designed laboratory scenarios.

Behind the marketing chaos, consumers' doubts about vehicle crash safety have never dissipated.

Currently, the main domestic institutions providing vehicle crash tests include CATARC C - NCAP, CIASI, and commercial platforms such as China Automotive Engineering Research Institute and Dongchedi. However, the rating standards of these institutions have not been widely recognized. Questions such as how these institutions obtain test vehicles and whether vehicle manufacturers can manipulate the vehicles submitted for testing have remained unanswered for a long time.

Simo, an engineer engaged in vehicle crash safety work, told 36Kr that since it is a common industry consensus that the standards of Chinese testing institutions are lower than international standards and the scoring methods are unreasonable, engineers engaged in crash safety rarely pay attention to these crash results.

"Even if a vehicle gets a five - star rating, it doesn't directly mean that the vehicle has excellent safety. What is truly related to safety is the internal crash tests of the vehicle manufacturers. The standards of vehicle manufacturers must be higher than any third - party standards."

Amidst the marketing scripts and doubts about evaluation data, consumers need professional interpretations to penetrate the data fog. In terms of vehicle crash safety, what exactly is worth paying attention to? Simo shared more with 36Kr.

The following is a conversation between 36Kr and vehicle safety engineer Simo, slightly adapted without changing the original meaning:

36Kr: Which crash test institutions are more recognized globally? What are the characteristics of these evaluation systems?

Simo: Globally, the Euro - NCAP of the European Union is more recognized.

The characteristic of E - NCAP is strictness. First, it does not accept vehicles submitted for testing; only random inspections are carried out. Second, the standards for many tests are the highest in the world. For example, the speed requirements for some crash projects are about 10 km/h higher than those in China. Many current tests and test standards originated from E - NCAP and were then promoted globally.

Moreover, this is not just a reference standard but more like an access standard. If a vehicle fails to achieve a three - star rating in E - NCAP, it is very likely to be taken off the market.

For Chinese vehicles to obtain E - NCAP scores, they must be sold in Europe. There is some data that can be referred to, but not much.

36Kr: What about Chinese crash evaluation institutions? Which ones are trustworthy?

Simo: The well - known ones are CATARC C - NCAP and CIASI. Of course, platforms like Dongchedi also conduct crash tests now.

Let me first talk about the positive aspects. Whether it's C - NCAP, CIASI, or other platforms, Chinese crash evaluation institutions are ahead of other countries in terms of electric vehicles, especially battery crash safety.

However, domestic evaluation institutions each have their own drawbacks. The projects and standards set by Dongchedi are relatively close to current hot topics, but after all, it is a commercial company, and commercial companies inevitably have commercial purposes.

As for C - NCAP, its projects are basically in line with E - NCAP, but the standards are slightly lower. If the collision is carried out at a non - threatening speed, passing the test is not worth celebrating. If it fails to pass, then the vehicle should not be launched on the market.

Moreover, the scoring rules of C - NCAP are also different. First, to promote the popularization of certain configurations, C - NCAP has some bonus items. For example, if a vehicle is equipped with a function that alerts when the rear seat belts are not fastened, some points will be added. However, the cost of improving the score by 1 point in the occupant crash test is not that low.

Finally, think about it. The five - star rating rate of C - NCAP can exceed 70% in a year. The purpose of consumers looking at evaluations is not to see how good everything is but to see which vehicles are good and which ones are not. Since most of the vehicles tested are rated as good, the credibility of this institution is questionable.

CIASI is more trustworthy because of its independent vehicle - purchasing method, but its standards are different. A high - level rating from CIASI does not necessarily mean a high - level of safety; it may be an evaluation of the economy of vehicle repair. For a car like Audi, where replacing a headlight costs 10,000 yuan, it may not score high in some of CIASI's test projects.

So, when looking at evaluation institutions, one should first look at the standards and see what exactly the scores are evaluating, rather than assuming that a high score means the vehicle is the safest.

36Kr: So, what should a credible crash test be like?

Simo: I can talk about how vehicle manufacturers conduct crash tests.

First, everyone should understand that the root purpose of conducting crash tests is to improve vehicle safety, minimize the casualties of vehicle occupants during a crash, and some indicators are to protect pedestrians outside the vehicle.

So, when looking at a crash test, the core is not to see whether the front or rear of the vehicle is smashed. The white body is just the first line of defense for safety. If the white body does not have sufficient strength, the vehicle will not be launched on the market.

The real data of a crash test depends on the casualty situation of the dummy models inside the vehicle. This is why many vehicle manufacturers like to promote how expensive the dummies are and how much money they have invested in purchasing them.

Secondly, within vehicle manufacturers, the scenarios and intensities of crash tests are more diverse. For example, people may think that as long as the A - pillar is strong enough, the crash result will be safe. That's not the case. Differences in dummy models, the positions of the steering wheel and airbags, the angle, speed, and force of seat - belt tightening, etc., even a one - degree difference in these data can lead to different results.

36Kr: So, do you think the test results of these institutions have little reference value?

Simo: For institutions like E - NCAP and C - NCAP, their test projects are all single and fixed scenarios, and the standards are public. Passing the test does not directly mean that the vehicle is excellent. However, if a vehicle fails to pass C - NCAP, it probably shouldn't be launched on the market.

36Kr: Will vehicle manufacturers make targeted optimizations for these tests?

Simo: The types and standards of internal crash tests of most vehicle manufacturers are higher than national standards and the standards of various evaluation institutions. To be honest, our team hardly pays attention to domestic institutions like C - NCAP. We have conducted all the tests they do, and we have also conducted tests that they haven't. There is no need to pay attention.

Of course, the certification team will pay attention to some regional access standards. If our vehicles are to be sold in Europe, we will definitely pay attention to European crash regulations and try to pass their tests.

These non - access evaluation standards have little reference value for vehicle manufacturers' R & D. If a vehicle manufacturer spends most of its efforts on meeting the standards of these institutions' test projects, the quality of the vehicle is hard to evaluate.

36Kr: How big is the difference in crash performance between high - and low - end models of the same vehicle?

Simo: There are often differences in the materials used in high - and low - end models of many vehicles. For example, high - end models may use aluminum alloy, while low - end models use steel plates, and high - end models may have more airbags. Many civilian tests may play such tricks, comparing a high - end model with a low - end model. So, generally speaking, the data from institutions that purchase low - end models are more reliable.

36Kr: Is the experiment of a passenger car colliding with a truck meaningful?

Simo: I think when ordinary consumers look at a crash test, they should first focus on the purpose of the test.

Crash tests are mainly divided into two categories. One is the body structure strength test, which is usually carried out repeatedly at the white - body stage without waiting for the whole vehicle to be assembled. The other is the crash safety test, which is the core of the whole - vehicle crash test. The focus is to understand the damage data of dummy models under various crash conditions.

The experiment of a passenger car colliding with a truck can at most prove that there are no major problems with the body structure, but it does not mean that the vehicle occupants will not be injured. And colliding head - on with a truck is not the best or most effective way to prove the body structure strength.

Moreover, crash tests generally need to be carried out in professional venues, and professional equipment is required to accurately control the acceleration. If the collision is carried out by a person driving, it's questionable. How can you keep the speed consistent? How can you control the acceleration? If these cannot be controlled, how can the results be reliable?

36Kr: The public's perception of crash safety is that a hard - bodied vehicle is equivalent to safety, but in your description, a hard - bodied vehicle doesn't seem to equal safety?

Simo: Vehicle safety is a very broad topic. In fact, the R & D of every component is related to safety. Some established enterprises even have their own independent safety systems, with their own standards for each link from R & D to testing.

The perception that a hard - bodied vehicle equals safety is an impression left on the public by the times.

In the past, the materials and manufacturing processes were not as good as they are now. It was a challenge to build a white body with sufficient structural strength and torsional stiffness. Moreover, the dummy simulation technology was not mature 20 years ago, so the crash regulations at that time focused on whether the body structure was intact and whether the doors could be opened smoothly.

However, now the crash regulations have changed. The current crash regulations focus not on whether the A, B, and C pillars are intact but on the casualty situation of the dummies inside the vehicle after a crash. And the dummy models have gradually expanded from data based on European white men to include female, child, and elderly dummies.

For example, if a vehicle collides with a tree at a speed of 60 km/h in an offset collision. Even if the body strength is excellent and the A, B, and C pillars remain intact, the vehicle occupants will definitely be impacted front - to - back. If the seat belts of the vehicle do not tighten and cannot fix the passengers, the passengers' heads may repeatedly hit between the window and the seat, resulting in a concussion and facing the risk of injury or even death.

So, you will find that many vehicle manufacturers are now emphasizing that the seat belts will tighten during an accident and that airbags are installed in certain corners. These facilities that prevent internal impacts are the key factors affecting the casualty situation of vehicle occupants at present.

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that the white body is excellent enough. If a sedan gets under the truck's rear and the A - pillar is completely destroyed, then the airbags will be useless. However, the manufacturing difficulty of the white body has been greatly reduced now. The competition among manufacturers is not about maintaining the lower limit but about raising the upper limit.

So, the safety index of vehicle occupants is actually closer to the core of vehicle safety.

36Kr: Which is more difficult to improve, the strength of the white body or the prevention of internal impacts on vehicle occupants?

Simo: The difficulty varies for different enterprises. Some enterprises have had their own crash centers since 1980 and have been conducting crash tests for more than 40 years. For them, improving the white - body strength is definitely not that difficult, right?

Currently, the main difficulty in the industry lies in preventing internal impacts on vehicle occupants. I know that some enterprises have specifically formed a team of more than 20 people to be responsible for the design of internal impacts in crash safety.

This is a rather meticulous and complex task.

First, there is the issue of dummy models. What parameters of dummy models should be used? Currently, the regulations only specify one type. If an enterprise wants to introduce more dummy data, such as for the elderly and women, it requires the enterprise's decision - making.

Enterprises with a strong safety awareness may test the crash results of a dummy in different front - to - back positions of the seat and different positions of the steering wheel to ensure that their customers can be well - protected in any scenario.

Then there is the design of crash scenarios. The regulations require less than 10 scenarios, but enterprises cannot limit themselves to these. At least 10 - 20 scenarios are needed, and enterprises with sufficient funds and experience may conduct 80 - 90 scenarios. Considering all these factors, it's not excessive to assign a 20 - person team to handle this.

36Kr: So, is safety based on a sufficient number of crash tests?

Simo: To a certain extent, yes. If there is no money, simulation tests can be done; if there is money, real - vehicle crash tests can be carried out. Whether it's improving the white - body strength or preventing internal impacts, a large amount of cost is required. Our job is to optimize vehicle design based on these crash results.

36Kr: For consumers who don't know much about cars, what projects do you recommend they pay attention to?

Simo: The scenarios closest to daily accidents, such as high - speed offset collisions, are worth paying attention to. In addition to checking whether the doors can open and the airbags can deploy as shown in some promotional videos, the most important thing is to look at the damage situation of the dummies, especially the data for female family members and children, which consumers may be more concerned about now.

Most enterprises do not disclose their internal test results. If consumers want to know, they can go to the official websites of CATARC and CIASI. Don't just look at the rating results; look at the test videos and the specific data of various damages announced by the institutions.