Core Viewpoint - The official statements from Li Auto and China Automotive Engineering Research Institute (China Automotive Research) address the controversy surrounding the crash test video involving the Li Auto i8 and Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor's Chenglong truck, clarifying that the test was aimed at validating the safety performance of the Li i8 and not evaluating other brands' products [2][4][5]. Group 1: Test Purpose and Execution - The crash test was designed to verify and enhance the passive safety performance of the Li i8, with the test outline created by Li Auto and executed by China Automotive Research [2][4]. - The test involved a collision scenario of a small car (Li i8) against a larger vehicle (Chenglong truck), a method commonly used by major automotive manufacturers to demonstrate vehicle safety [4][5]. - The test was conducted on June 27 at the Sichuan test base, with the Li i8 colliding at a speed of 60±2 km/h and the Chenglong truck at 40±2 km/h [5]. Group 2: Response to Controversy - The delayed response from Li Auto and China Automotive Research has been criticized, as they did not address key concerns raised by Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor regarding the test conditions and vehicle status [3][7]. - Li Auto emphasized that the Chenglong truck was used merely as a movable barrier and that there was no intention to make quality assessments of the truck [5][8]. - The controversy has led to increased visibility for the Chenglong brand, with significant growth in social media followers and public support following the incident [9]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The incident highlights the potential risks associated with marketing strategies that involve crash tests, as they can inadvertently affect the reputation of other brands [6][8]. - The involvement of a state-owned enterprise like China Automotive Research adds a layer of complexity to the situation, as it navigates public perception and industry standards [9]. - The event has sparked discussions about the integrity of crash testing and the importance of transparency in the automotive industry [7][9].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving the crash test conducted by Li Auto and the subsequent reactions from involved parties highlights significant issues related to commercial ethics, legal compliance, and the competitive landscape in the automotive industry [2][4][6]. Group 1: Incident Overview - Li Auto conducted a crash test simulating real traffic scenarios, which inadvertently involved Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor's brand, leading to public controversy [2]. - Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor claims that the crash test constitutes serious infringement and misleads the public, damaging its brand reputation [2]. - China Automotive Engineering Research Institute (China Automotive Research) emphasized its commitment to scientific rigor and objectivity, while reserving the right to pursue legal action against malicious interpretations [2][3]. Group 2: Commercial Ethics - Respect for commercial ethics is crucial, encompassing honesty, fair competition, and social responsibility [4]. - Violating commercial ethics can lead to a loss of public trust, which is harder to regain compared to breaches of legal regulations [4]. - The ongoing crash test incident has heightened public attention, influencing marketing strategies and pushing boundaries of commercial ethics [4]. Group 3: Legal Compliance - The crash test videos fall under advertising law, as they serve a promotional purpose beyond standard safety testing [5]. - Non-standard tests conducted for marketing purposes are subject to advertising regulations, and any resulting damage to competitors can be considered commercial defamation under anti-unfair competition laws [5]. Group 4: Industry Competition - The automotive sector, particularly in the context of new energy vehicles, is under scrutiny for irrational competition practices [6]. - Regulatory bodies are emphasizing the importance of addressing non-rational competition in the industry, which includes not only pricing but also marketing tactics like the crash test [6]. - The crash test incident may evoke concerns about hidden forms of irrational competition, necessitating a cautious approach to such promotional activities [6].

理想汽车发布《关于理想 i8 安全性碰撞测试的说明》，对为什么要做这次测试、测试结果、事件舆论等方面进行了回应，其中对东风柳汽乘龙品牌被意外 卷入舆情争议，官方表示只是"无心之举"，并且与东风柳汽乘龙不存在直接竞争关系。 理想 i8 对撞 8 吨卡车的舆论还在发酵。 当乘龙卡车一方发出声明之后，理想汽车和第三方测试机构中国汽研在 8 月 3 日晚相继作出公开回应。 中国汽研发布声明函，对整个测试作出详细说明，表示这次测试仅验证理想 i8 的安全性，非标准车对车碰撞试验，不涉及其他品牌车辆的安全性能评价。 三方声明｜图源：官方 不过整体看下来，理想汽车和中国汽研似乎还有几点没有讲清，以至于电车通并未完全释疑。 三方争议难以休止 经过梳理，理想 i8 撞 8 吨卡车事件主要有三点质疑： 1.卡车状态、测试数据没有完全公开，结果无法让所有人信服。 2.测试状态和测试场景存在定向设计的可能性？ 3.首发视频没有给关键信息打码，后续却悄然打码，是否有"先踩后补"的意味？ 根据中国汽研发布的声明可以得出以下关键信息：理想来制定大纲，中国汽研负责执行；卡车是在市场端随机购买的，配重到 8 吨，测试过程中理想 i8 的 碰撞 ...

Core Viewpoint - The collision test between an 8-ton truck and the Li Auto i8 SUV has sparked controversy regarding its validity and the implications for automotive safety testing standards [1][3][5] Group 1: Collision Test Controversy - The test is criticized for being a non-standard vehicle-to-vehicle collision test, which does not evaluate the safety performance of other truck brands [1][3] - Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the test scenario and the independence of the third-party testing agency [5][7] - The use of an empty truck (8 tons) in the test contrasts with the typical loaded weight of 20 tons or more in real accidents, raising questions about the energy differences in collision scenarios [5] Group 2: Statements from Involved Parties - China Automotive Technology and Research Center (CATARC) clarified that the test was solely to verify the safety of the Li Auto i8 and not to assess other brands [1][7] - Li Auto stated that the truck was merely a "mobile barrier" and that they did not intend to make quality assessments of the truck brand involved [3] - The truck manufacturer, Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor Co., emphasized that the test conditions were significantly different from real traffic situations [5] Group 3: Financial Performance of Testing Agency - CATARC reported a revenue of 4.697 billion yuan in 2023, a 14.65% increase year-on-year, with a profit of 1.14 billion yuan, also up 14% [8] - The automotive technology services segment contributed the most to revenue, generating 4.125 billion yuan, a 21.36% increase, with a gross margin of nearly 50% [9] - The revenue from new energy and intelligent connected vehicle development and testing grew by 42.86%, although its gross margin slightly decreased to 47.61% [9] Group 4: Industry Insights and Testing Practices - The automotive testing industry is under scrutiny for potentially prioritizing visually impactful test scenarios over rigorous safety evaluations [13][14] - Traditional collision tests are still conducted, but there is a growing trend for more sensational testing methods to attract consumer attention [13] - The automotive testing process involves multiple stages, including enterprise-commissioned tests and government approvals, ensuring that vehicles meet safety standards before market entry [11][12]

近期，中国汽车业经历了激烈的竞争，在一定程度上导致一些过度设计与过度营销的现象。现在， 反"内卷式"竞争的行动使得企业不能继续依靠降价赢得市场优势，有分析认为一些"测试"可能成为新的 营销方式，有的去纽北赛道刷成绩，有的测辅助驾驶系统水平，各显神通。"测试"的优势在于它能够以 直播或短视频等方式在短时间内获取流量，用视觉影像征服消费者，而不只是消费者的需求以及产品内 在品质等因素。 汽车产业目前存在两个挑战。一是产业"内卷式"竞争导致在价格不断下行过程中，一些车企通过"减 配"降低成本，可能会降低车辆安全性、耐用性与使用价值。二是我国在全球汽车产业电动化、智能 化、网联化发展中占据一定优势，随着越来越多新技术的市场化应用，使用功能变化迫切需要新的质量 安全治理体系。 降成本压力与新技术应用都会对汽车的安全质量与可靠性产生冲击。我国汽车产业正处于快速发展的关 键阶段，在追逐技术迭代的产业狂奔中，各方需要清醒地认识到，严格的检验检测是保障质量安全、提 升产业竞争力的关键环节，是保障数智时代汽车产业安全发展的生命线。如果不能制定严格的标准以及 加强检验检测，任何一个产业都难以走远。 因此，要通过专业且严格的标准制定 ...

Core Viewpoint - The collision test of the Li Auto i8, conducted by China Automotive Engineering Research Institute, has sparked controversy, particularly from the truck manufacturer Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor, which claims the test misrepresents real-world scenarios and infringes on its rights [1][3]. Group 1: Collision Test Details - The collision test aimed to validate the passive safety performance of the Li Auto i8, utilizing a "short front suspension safety structure" and various energy-absorbing structures [1]. - The test results indicated that the A and B pillars of the i8 showed no significant deformation, nine airbags deployed correctly, and there were no leaks or fire from the battery pack [1]. - The test specifically simulated a "small car colliding with a large truck" scenario, with the truck used merely as a movable barrier, not as a comparison to other brands [1][3]. Group 2: Reactions from Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor - Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor criticized the test, stating that the testing conditions significantly differ from actual traffic situations, which they argue constitutes infringement [3]. - The company has actively responded to the controversy through social media, emphasizing their safety principles and accusing the test of distorting the truth [5]. - Their social media engagement has led to a significant increase in followers and interactions, indicating heightened public interest in the issue [5]. Group 3: Impact on Li Auto - Following the test and subsequent controversy, Li Auto's stock price has experienced a decline, dropping 6.2% on the day of the i8's launch after an initial rise [8]. - As of August 1, the stock price had accumulated a total decline of 13.53% since the launch [8]. - In terms of sales performance, Li Auto has lowered its 2025 delivery target from 700,000 units to 640,000 units, with July deliveries down 39.74% year-over-year [9].

Core Viewpoint - The collision test involving Li Auto's i8 and the Chenglong truck has sparked significant public discourse, leading to responses from both companies and the China Automotive Engineering Research Institute (C-AE). The test aimed to validate the i8's passive safety performance, not to evaluate other brands' vehicles [2][4]. Group 1: Test Details - The collision test was conducted on June 27, 2025, at the Sino-German Intelligent Connected Vehicle Sichuan Test Base, focusing solely on the Li i8's safety [4]. - The test utilized a second-hand Chenglong truck as a mobile barrier, with the i8 colliding at a speed of 60±2 km/h and the truck at 40±2 km/h [4]. - Results indicated that the i8's passenger compartment showed no significant deformation, airbags deployed normally, and there were no leaks or fires from the battery pack [4][5]. Group 2: Company Responses - Li Auto emphasized that the test was not intended to target other brands and was conducted according to national standards [2]. - Chenglong truck's official statements criticized the test for not accurately reflecting real-world traffic scenarios and claimed it constituted infringement [2][7]. - C-AE clarified that the test was strictly for the i8's safety validation and did not involve safety evaluations of other vehicles [4][5]. Group 3: Market Impact - Following the test and subsequent discussions, Li Auto's stock price experienced a decline, with a drop of 13.53% by August 1, 2025, after an initial rise of 6% on the day of the i8's launch [9]. - Li Auto revised its 2025 delivery target from 700,000 units to 640,000 units, with July deliveries at 30,700 units, a 39.74% year-on-year decrease [10].

Core Viewpoint - The incident surrounding the crash test conducted by Li Auto and China Automotive Engineering Research Institute has raised significant concerns regarding commercial ethics, legal compliance, and potential unfair competition in the automotive industry [1][2][3] Group 1: Commercial Ethics - All parties involved must respect commercial ethics, which include honesty, fair competition, and social responsibility [3] - Violating commercial ethics can lead to a loss of public trust, making it difficult to regain once lost [3] - The ongoing attention on the crash test incident has blurred the lines of marketing strategies, pushing them into a gray area of commercial ethics [3] Group 2: Legal Compliance - The crash test videos fall under the category of advertising as per the current advertising law, which regulates promotional activities [4] - Non-standard tests initiated by companies for marketing purposes, rather than for internal validation, are subject to advertising law regulations [4] - The current anti-unfair competition law prohibits commercial defamation, focusing on the objective damage caused rather than the subjective intent behind actions [4] Group 3: Industry Context - The automotive industry, particularly the new energy vehicle sector, is under scrutiny for irrational competition, which could lead to severe penalties [5] - Recent government initiatives emphasize the importance of regulating irrational competition in the new energy vehicle industry [5] - The crash test incident may evoke public perceptions of irrational competition within the automotive sector, highlighting the need for caution in marketing practices [5]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the crash test conducted by Li Auto has sparked a significant public relations battle among the involved parties, including Li Auto, Dongfeng Liuqi, and the testing agency, China Automotive Research Institute [2][3][4]. Group 1: Li Auto's Position - Li Auto stated that the crash test was commissioned to assess the safety of its i8 vehicle and did not intend to evaluate the safety of other brands, specifically Dongfeng Liuqi's truck [2][3]. - Despite claiming no intention to cause harm, Li Auto's testing process led to the identification of the truck involved, prompting a backlash from Dongfeng Liuqi [3][4]. - Li Auto is urged to issue a sincere apology and actively engage in addressing the controversy stemming from the test [3]. Group 2: Dongfeng Liuqi's Response - Dongfeng Liuqi responded to the test results by asserting that the testing conditions were not representative of real-world scenarios, and they have initiated legal procedures to address the situation [2][4]. - The company criticized the test for being misleading and questioned the integrity of the testing parameters, suggesting that the test was designed to favor Li Auto [4][5]. - Dongfeng Liuqi's official statements emphasized their commitment to quality and reliability, attempting to counter the negative publicity generated by the crash test [2][3]. Group 3: China Automotive Research Institute's Role - China Automotive Research Institute clarified that the test was not a standard vehicle-to-vehicle collision test and was solely focused on Li Auto's vehicle safety [2][4]. - The institute is expected to maintain all legal documents and test data in light of potential legal actions from Dongfeng Liuqi [4][5]. - The agency's involvement has raised questions about the transparency and credibility of the testing process, with calls for a more open and rigorous safety evaluation [4].

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the safety collision tests of the Li Auto i8 and the subsequent controversy involving Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor's Chenglong trucks [1][2] - Li Auto stated that the tests were designed based on common traffic accident scenarios and were conducted by China Automotive Research Institute (CARI) [2][11] - CARI clarified that the tests were solely to verify the safety of the Li Auto i8 and did not evaluate the safety performance of other brands [3][9] Group 2 - Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor responded to the controversy, claiming that their brand was misrepresented and that the testing video was used without authorization [5][4] - The company emphasized adherence to a "real-world protection" principle in their safety systems and condemned any actions that undermine industry integrity [5][4] - Both Li Auto and CARI confirmed that the i8's passenger compartment showed no significant deformation during the tests, with airbags deploying normally and no leakage or fire from the battery pack [12][16] Group 3 - Concerns were raised regarding the testing methods, with experts noting that collisions between lighter and heavier vehicles typically result in more damage to the lighter vehicle [10][20] - CARI and Li Auto maintained that the tests were conducted under scientifically rigorous standards, with CARI being a state-owned enterprise and a recognized authority in automotive testing [13][16] - There is a suggestion from industry professionals that third-party testing should be subject to public notarization to enhance credibility [19][20]