Workflow
专访东风柳汽人士:首次还原“车头掉落”疑云与细节
Di Yi Cai Jing·2025-08-05 09:51

Core Viewpoint - The recent collision test involving a 2.61-ton SUV and an 8-ton truck has raised significant concerns regarding the safety and design of the truck, particularly focusing on the locking mechanism of the truck's cabin and the test conditions [1][6][7]. Group 1: Collision Test Details - The collision test was conducted by Li Auto and China Automotive Research, but many details remain undisclosed, leading to skepticism about the validity of the test [1][3]. - The truck involved was a second-hand Dongfeng Liuqi M3, which had undergone modifications, including weight adjustments and the installation of an autonomous driving system, potentially affecting the test results [7][8]. - The test speed was noted to be higher than conventional standards, with the SUV traveling at 60±2 km/h and the truck at 40±2 km/h, resulting in a relative speed of 100 km/h [7][8]. Group 2: Technical Aspects of the Truck - The truck's cabin is designed with a locking mechanism that can be either mechanical or hydraulic, with the hydraulic system being more reliable but costlier [3][4]. - If the locking mechanism is not engaged properly before a collision, it can lead to the cabin detaching from the chassis, which is a significant safety concern [4][5]. - The incident has raised questions about the structural integrity of the truck, as it is unusual for a truck cabin to detach from the chassis during a collision with a passenger vehicle [4][6]. Group 3: Industry Reactions and Implications - Dongfeng Liuqi, the manufacturer of the truck, has expressed concerns over the lack of detailed data from the collision test, which hampers their ability to assess the situation accurately [1][2]. - The incident has sparked a public relations challenge for both Li Auto and Dongfeng Liuqi, with the latter issuing a statement emphasizing its commitment to quality and safety [11]. - The automotive industry is witnessing a trend where collision tests are used as marketing tools, which may lead to misinterpretations of vehicle safety [10][11].