Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the different design philosophies between electric vehicles (EVs) and traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, emphasizing that there is no absolute right or wrong in these choices, but they lead to different commercial outcomes in the short, medium, and long term [1]. Group 1: Design Philosophy - The design of Xiaomi's SU7 and YU7 has received positive feedback for its aesthetics, which closely resemble those of traditional ICE vehicles [2]. - Xiaomi prioritizes aesthetics in its design philosophy, aiming for mainstream consumers to find the vehicles visually appealing at first glance [1][2]. - The criticism of Li Auto's MEGA design led to adjustments in the appearance of its i8 and i6 models, indicating a shift towards more conventional aesthetics [1]. Group 2: Financial Performance - Xiaomi has shown strong financial performance over the past 15 months, while Li Auto's financial results have not met earlier expectations, leading to dissatisfaction regarding its design choices [2]. - Public sentiment towards a company's design and decisions often correlates with its financial performance; positive results lead to praise, while negative results lead to criticism [2]. Group 3: Competitive Landscape - Tesla's first-generation EV design has set a standard in the industry for the past decade, focusing on low drag, good handling, low energy consumption, and long range [2][3]. - Li Auto has built upon Tesla's design principles, potentially leading the industry for the next 5-10 years due to the significant user value of its design approach [3]. Group 4: Technical Aspects - Li Auto has not surpassed Tesla in low drag, handling, energy efficiency, or range, as these aspects are largely dictated by physical laws and design choices [4]. - Xiaomi's SU7 MAX is designed to match Tesla's Model 3 Performance in handling, indicating its capability to achieve similar performance levels [5]. - Li Auto's approach to charging infrastructure and design after removing the engine is seen as a competitive advantage, focusing on user experience with fast charging capabilities [5][6]. Group 5: User Value Considerations - Li Auto prioritizes internal space over front trunk space, believing that maximizing internal space will provide greater user value, especially with the future of autonomous driving [6]. - The design choices made by Li Auto reflect a belief that internal space will be more valuable than aesthetic considerations derived from traditional vehicle designs [6].

此前理想曾说25年4000站，其中1200高速站。 根据 交通运输部官网发布的《2024年交通运输行业发展统计公报》数据，2024年高速公路里 程19.07万公里。 即要想100%高速公路平均双向200公里1个超充站，需要1907个站。平均双向100公里1个超 充站，需要3814站。 理想25年7月超充站可能要3000站，消息来自一个人告诉我。 即我们可以大致认为，理想高速建1900个站，基本就全国贯通了，建3800个高速站，作为一 家企业而言，就基本饱和了。 将产品价值纳入考量，理想超充体系是固态电池大规模商用前中国市场最优解。 理想超充体系表面上是5C电池+5C超充站作为根基，实际是5C电池+5C超充站+纯电正向设计 作为根基。 纯电正向设计，最核心是两点: 1.考虑风阻，获得单位度数下，更好的实跑高速续航。 2.没有发动机后，省下的空间拿来干啥。特斯拉之前的方案是拿来做前备箱，增大储物空间， 在10年前是最先进的理念，后续有许多车企追随。理想的方案是干掉前备箱，获得单位车长下 最大内部空间，是目前最先进的理念，之后其他车企会像追随L9一般去追随的。 背后核心是成本/实跑续航/补能速度/电容限制/车其他方 ...