Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the wind resistance coefficient (Cd) of vehicles, with recent tests showing discrepancies between different companies' results [1][2] - Avita reported a wind resistance coefficient of 0.217 under specific testing conditions, while the "Zurich Prince" (贝勒爷) measured it at 0.286, highlighting the impact of testing conditions on results [1] - Avita clarified that the tests were conducted using a production vehicle, despite earlier claims of achieving lower coefficients with prototype vehicles [1] Group 2 - The lack of a unified national standard for wind resistance testing in China allows companies to manipulate testing conditions and present the lowest coefficients without clear communication [2] - The importance of wind resistance in enhancing vehicle range is questioned, as other factors like battery capacity and motor efficiency also play significant roles [2] - A blogger has accepted a challenge to conduct independent wind tunnel tests on a vehicle, indicating ongoing interest and scrutiny in this area [2]

这次阿维塔风阻事件热度非常高，也出现了中国赔偿金额最高的1000万起诉。 而每个事件最大的影响必然是直接冲击了销量，所以这次也邀请了5位小伙伴，从一线销售到店长和区域经 理，来看下对阿维塔销量是否有影响，客户和一线销售又怎么看待阿维塔风阻事件。 阿维塔 销售 有5个客户提及。 其中4个老客户，新客户只有1个，新进店客户很少提及这个事情，反而是老客户提及比较 多，他们比较关注品牌发展。 新客户从小红书了解到这个事情，在央视直播前询问，想知道有没有造假。老车主从车友群了解，觉得不能证 伪的话，对品牌影响很大，会直接影响他们介绍阿维塔给朋友。 风洞测试打6分，扣分主要是直播过于冗长，都是看小红书发的结果。 跟客户讲原理是听不懂的，实际跑出来 是简单直接的，客户一下子就理解了。 在起诉贝勒爷之前，很多客户认为阿维塔是自导自演，包括我也认为是。不知道自媒体会不会去测其他车型， 事情如果持续发酵，我觉得对阿维塔是有利的。 阿维塔 销售 有2个客户提及。 新进店客户很少有提到这个事，车主倒是有问过，问店里同事也很少看到。 客户从抖音了解到这事，他们也在担心会不会影响阿维塔销量，不过聊几句就过去了，真正关注的还是外观， 配置 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversies surrounding the wind resistance coefficients of electric vehicles (EVs) highlight the industry's obsession with technical parameters, which have shifted from being a tool for enhancing range to a symbol of brand "technological strength" [2][4][6]. Group 1: Industry Trends - The wind resistance coefficient has become a focal point in the EV industry, with companies like Tesla setting benchmarks that others strive to surpass, leading to a competitive environment where every 0.01Cd reduction is seen as a significant achievement [4][6]. - The lack of stringent national standards in China allows manufacturers to exploit testing conditions, often leading to misleading representations of vehicle performance [4][5]. - The pursuit of lower wind resistance has led to a phenomenon where companies prioritize testing standards over genuine improvements in aerodynamic performance, potentially stifling true innovation in the industry [5][6]. Group 2: Consumer Impact - Misleading marketing practices regarding wind resistance can confuse consumers, leading them to believe that advertised performance aligns with real-world capabilities, which can affect purchasing decisions [5][6]. - The focus on wind resistance has created a disconnect between consumer preferences and vehicle design, with many consumers favoring traditional designs over the increasingly popular aerodynamic shapes [7][8]. Group 3: Design and Innovation - The obsession with achieving lower wind resistance has led to design choices that may compromise user experience, such as reducing cabin space or eliminating practical features [6][8]. - Successful examples in the industry demonstrate that it is possible to balance aesthetics, functionality, and efficiency without solely focusing on wind resistance metrics [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Avita 12's wind resistance coefficient has escalated, leading to legal action by Avita Technology against a social media influencer for alleged misrepresentation of the vehicle's testing conditions [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Actions and Responses - Avita Technology's legal department has filed a civil lawsuit against the influencer, demanding the cessation of infringement and compensation of 10 million RMB for economic and reputational damages [1]. - The influencer issued an apology but continued to imply that the vehicle tested was a prototype rather than a production model, raising further questions about the vehicle's classification [2][5]. Group 2: Vehicle Classification and Testing - Avita Technology asserts that the vehicle used in the wind tunnel test was a production model, which is designed for mass production and must meet stricter durability and safety standards compared to prototype vehicles [2][3]. - The distinction between prototype and production vehicles is critical, as prototypes are often used for testing extreme design features and do not need to comply with all regulations [3]. Group 3: Wind Resistance Testing and Industry Standards - The wind tunnel test conducted by Avita Technology showed a wind resistance coefficient of 0.2169Cd to 0.2173Cd at a speed of 160 KPH, closely aligning with the previously advertised coefficient of 0.21Cd [5]. - The automotive industry is witnessing a shift in focus towards wind resistance coefficients, with many electric vehicles achieving coefficients between 0.2Cd and 0.3Cd, which is crucial for enhancing product competitiveness [6][7]. - There is currently no national or industry standard for wind resistance testing, leading to significant discrepancies in results from different testing institutions [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent controversy surrounding the wind resistance coefficient claims of the Avita 12 vehicle, highlighting the differing test results and the implications for the automotive industry regarding transparency and standards in wind resistance testing [2][5][34]. Summary by Sections Incident Overview - The controversy began when a tech blogger, "Zurich Beile Ye," claimed that the wind resistance coefficient of the Avita 12 was 0.281 Cd, which contradicted Avita's official claim of 0.217 Cd, suggesting a regression to levels seen in gasoline vehicles from 20 years ago [4][5][6]. - Avita responded by launching a legal suit against the blogger for defamation and initiated a public wind tunnel test to validate their claims [2][5]. Testing Conditions and Results - Both parties' claims were validated under different testing conditions: Avita's test used electronic mirrors and air suspension, while the blogger's test used standard mirrors and a different vehicle configuration [9][10][12]. - The article emphasizes that the wind resistance coefficient is highly sensitive to testing conditions, and thus, results can vary significantly based on the setup [11][12]. Industry Implications - The article points out the lack of standardized testing methods in China, which leads to discrepancies in reported data and consumer confusion [23][31]. - It highlights the need for a unified national standard for wind resistance testing to restore trust in the automotive industry and prevent misleading marketing practices [32][34]. Marketing and Consumer Perception - The competitive landscape has led to a focus on wind resistance as a key marketing parameter, with companies like Tesla setting benchmarks that others strive to meet [34][35]. - The article warns that excessive emphasis on wind resistance can lead to homogenization of vehicle designs, potentially sacrificing user experience and safety for the sake of lower coefficients [36][37].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the alleged false wind resistance coefficient of the Avita 12 has concluded, with both parties presenting valid points regarding their respective test results and conditions [1][5][13]. Group 1: Event Overview - The controversy began when a tech blogger, "Zurich Beile Ye," tested the Avita 12's wind resistance coefficient at 0.28Cd, contradicting Avita's claim of 0.21Cd, leading to significant public attention [1][2]. - Avita responded by offering a reward of 5 million yuan to combat negative publicity and conducted a live wind tunnel test, which yielded a coefficient of approximately 0.217Cd [2][3]. - The blogger received a lawyer's letter from Avita demanding the removal of false statements and a public apology, which he partially complied with while still implying that Avita used a prototype vehicle for testing [3][4]. Group 2: Testing Conditions and Results - Both parties' test results were deemed valid but were influenced by different testing conditions: Avita's test used electronic mirrors, air suspension, and low-resistance wheels, while the blogger's test used standard mirrors and a different vehicle configuration [5][6][10]. - The differences in testing conditions highlight the complexity of measuring wind resistance coefficients, which can vary significantly based on vehicle specifications and testing environments [7][18]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The incident underscores the lack of standardized testing protocols in the automotive industry, leading to potential consumer confusion regarding vehicle performance claims [20][23]. - The competitive landscape has intensified, with companies like Tesla setting benchmarks for wind resistance, prompting other manufacturers to engage in similar marketing strategies [25][26]. - The pursuit of lower wind resistance coefficients has led to increased R&D costs and a trend towards homogenized vehicle designs, raising concerns about user experience and safety [26][27].

在上周公开直播风洞测试"自证"风阻系数之后，5月12日，阿维塔科技法务部在社交平台发布关于要求 立即删除不实言论并公开道歉的律师函。 根据阿维塔方在律师函中陈述，5月2日-5月9日期间，博主"苏黎世贝勒爷"在全网各平台陆续发布了标 题为"一个敢吹，一个敢测？？头铁博主风阻系数全网首测！！国产电车风阻系数屡破记录，实测竟和 20年前燃油车水平一样""车企公关骚操作第二集""打，奉陪到底！测，别玩儿猫腻！风阻事件当事人回 溯！"等的文章和视频内容。 前述文章发布后，阿维塔注意到较多如该博主在内的网友关注着阿维塔 12汽车空气动力学的风阻系 数，基于此，阿维塔本着求实、负责的原则，于2025年5月9日在中国汽车工程研究院风洞实验室针对阿 维塔 12汽车空气动力学的风阻系数测试全过程进行了公开直播。直播全程由中国汽研权威机构实测， 专业技术人员操作，公证处现场公证，采用国际通行的风洞测试标准，测试环境、设备均通过第三方认 证，即阿维塔已通过权威机构完成风阻系数测试，最终结果120kph测试风速下风阻系数Cd:0.217。 阿维塔方还表示，在前述权威机构实测、公证处公证、央视直播得出的风阻系数面前，博主仍继续发文 意图 ...

中新网重庆新闻5月11日电 近日，阿维塔科技采用直播的方式，在中国汽车工程研究院的风洞实验室中 对阿维塔12进行了风洞测试。风洞测试结果显示，阿维塔12在低风阻状态下(风速120KPH)，风阻系数 为0.2171Cd。 据悉，中国汽研风洞中心成立于2014年，经过多年建设与发展，现已拥有国际一流水平的全尺寸汽车空 气动力学-声学风洞、汽车环境风洞、高低温环境舱、五轴联动数控加工中心和高性能仿真计算平台， 已在汽车空气动力学、热力学、风噪技术领域形成了完整的仿真开发、试验验证能力，构建了边界条件 与中国汽研实体风洞一致的数值风洞以及涵盖主流车型的开发数据库两个服务平台。 为全面剖析车辆风阻系数的影响因素，当天模拟了六种工况进行测试，覆盖不同配置与行驶状态下的风 阻表现。测试结果显示，在低风阻状态下(测试风速160KPH)，风阻系数为0.217Cd；当风速降至 120KPH时，风阻系数微增至0.2171Cd；更换运动轮毂后(测试风速120KPH)，风阻系数升至0.2327Cd； 更换物理后视镜并提升空气悬架(测试风速120KPH)，风阻系数达到0.2509Cd；主动进气格栅开启时(测 试风速120KPH)，风阻系 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the aerodynamic drag coefficient of electric vehicles, particularly focusing on the controversy involving the Avita 12 model and the implications of wind tunnel testing in the automotive industry [1][2][3]. Group 1: Wind Tunnel Testing Costs and Importance - Wind tunnel testing is a crucial yet expensive process in automotive design, with costs averaging around 30,000 yuan per hour, leading to total expenses exceeding 1 million yuan for comprehensive testing [1][2]. - Despite the high costs, car manufacturers continue to pursue low drag coefficients as they significantly impact vehicle efficiency, noise, and comfort [2][3]. Group 2: Competition and Marketing in Drag Coefficient - The competition for lower drag coefficients has intensified since Tesla's Model S claimed a coefficient of 0.208Cd, prompting other manufacturers like Mercedes and Xiaomi to announce similarly low figures [2][3]. - The article highlights that differences in drag coefficients below 0.2Cd often become marketing gimmicks rather than reflecting real-world consumer experiences [2][3]. Group 3: Discrepancies in Testing Results - The Avita 12 faced scrutiny when a blogger reported a drag coefficient of 0.28Cd from a wind tunnel test, contrasting with the manufacturer's claim of 0.21Cd, raising questions about the accuracy and consistency of testing methods [2][3]. - Various factors influence drag coefficients, including vehicle design, frontal area, and testing conditions, leading to discrepancies in results across different wind tunnels [4][5]. Group 4: Lack of Standardization in Testing - There is currently no unified standard for wind tunnel testing in China, resulting in variations in reported drag coefficients based on different testing conditions and methodologies [6][8]. - The absence of a national standard means that manufacturers may present optimized results from test vehicles rather than production models, potentially misleading consumers [12][13]. Group 5: Implications for the Automotive Industry - The controversy surrounding the Avita 12 serves as a wake-up call for the industry regarding the need for more transparent and standardized reporting of aerodynamic performance [13]. - As electric vehicles become more prevalent, the focus on drag coefficients as a marketing tool may overshadow their original purpose of improving vehicle performance and efficiency [13].

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversy surrounding the aerodynamic performance of the Avita 12 highlights the tension between marketing claims and actual wind tunnel test results, raising questions about the integrity of wind resistance measurements in the automotive industry [3][10][12] Group 1: Wind Tunnel Testing Costs and Practices - Wind tunnel testing is an expensive process, with costs averaging around 30,000 yuan per hour, leading to daily expenses exceeding 120,000 yuan for companies [1][2] - The automotive industry typically requires multiple wind tunnel tests during the design phase, with a minimum of three tests, each lasting between 8 to 16 hours [1][2] - The lack of standardized testing methods in the industry results in variations in wind resistance measurements across different manufacturers and testing facilities [7][11] Group 2: Marketing and Consumer Perception - The competition for lower wind resistance coefficients has become a marketing strategy, with companies like Tesla, Mercedes, and Xiaomi promoting their vehicles' aerodynamic efficiency as a key selling point [2][10] - The difference of 0.01Cd in wind resistance coefficients among vehicles has been criticized as a "digital game," often failing to reflect real-world consumer experiences [2][10] - Companies are urged to provide clearer information regarding the conditions under which wind resistance coefficients are measured to avoid misleading consumers [2][10] Group 3: Discrepancies in Wind Resistance Measurements - The Avita 12 faced scrutiny when a blogger reported a wind resistance coefficient of 0.28Cd, significantly higher than the company's claimed 0.21Cd, leading to widespread debate [3][4] - Factors affecting wind resistance measurements include vehicle configuration, testing methods, and the completeness of certain components, with vehicle design accounting for nearly 60% of the wind resistance coefficient [4][5] - Different wind tunnel facilities yield varying results, and the absence of a unified testing standard complicates the comparison of wind resistance data across manufacturers [7][8] Group 4: Industry Standards and Future Implications - The automotive industry lacks a national standard for wind tunnel testing, relying instead on group standards and international references, which can lead to inconsistencies [7][11] - The pursuit of lower wind resistance is critical for improving fuel efficiency and electric vehicle range, with a 10% reduction in wind resistance potentially lowering fuel consumption by 0.12L/100km and increasing electric vehicle range by approximately 15km [7][8] - The recent controversies have prompted companies to reconsider their marketing strategies, with many adjusting their promotional language regarding wind resistance to avoid misleading claims [12]