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].

申明：本文不是呼吁或认为理想纯电应该谋求800以上Cltc，侧重分享一些视角供理想参考。 TOP2将尽量准确复述一位经过仔细思考后的群友的观点，以及背后依据，不代表TOP2就完全同意其 观点。 为什么这位群友的观点值得参考？ 因为这位群友既深度经历特斯拉 Model 3 Performance高速体验（即纯电高速体验经历丰富），下一辆 车只考虑纯电，不考虑增程（即资深纯电党），下一辆车基本只考虑理想纯电（是一位深度认可理想 人士），曾经是一位地图厂的产品经理，涉及的业务正好是储能充电规划相关的工作 （之前的工作 和高速补能关联度挺高）。 叠加了这四重Buff，可以说其对理想纯电是非常高接受度，但就是这样一位群友对i8没能突破800 cltc 表示非常遗憾，打算等等看i7i9(他认为理想将来旗舰产品有提高续航的可能，不过据TOP2分析，理 想现阶段是没有计划做800以上Cltc的准备)这或许意味着，会存在一个更广的受众，会因为这点不考 虑理想纯电。 他个人很愿意多花1.5万买10度电，多花2万也会买，但觉得性价比低了些。 该群友认为，多出来的大几十公里边际效用非常大 ，认为至少实现以下2点： 1.补能体验可以实 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent controversies surrounding Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra electric vehicle, particularly focusing on the implications of high horsepower vehicles on public safety and the need for regulatory measures in the automotive industry [2][6][13]. Group 1: Recent Events and Controversies - Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra has faced significant public scrutiny following a serious traffic accident, which has led to increased regulatory attention on false advertising related to assisted driving [2][12]. - The vehicle's high performance has raised concerns about the safety of allowing such powerful cars on public roads, especially after videos of extreme speeding surfaced online [8][11]. - Xiaomi implemented an OTA software update that limited the SU7 Ultra's horsepower from 1548 to approximately 900 under normal driving conditions, aiming to enhance safety [15][17]. Group 2: Reactions and Implications - The OTA update received mixed reactions; while many praised Xiaomi for its responsible approach, some SU7 Ultra owners felt their rights were infringed upon, as they were not adequately informed prior to the changes [26][27]. - The incident highlights a broader industry issue regarding the accessibility of high-performance electric vehicles and the potential risks they pose to public safety [36][39]. - The article suggests that simply relying on manufacturers to impose horsepower limits is insufficient; there is a pressing need for regulatory frameworks to ensure safe driving practices [39][46]. Group 3: Regulatory Considerations - The article references international examples where countries have implemented regulations to restrict high horsepower vehicles, such as requiring special licenses for driving high-performance cars in Australia and Italy [47][50]. - It draws parallels between the current situation in China and Japan's past experiences with high-performance vehicles, emphasizing the need for proactive measures to prevent accidents [60][61].