news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

unexpectedly, after n years, c-iasi’s collision results are popular again.

however, the reason for this backfire was not that some car bent the a-pillar and broke the b-pillar, but that c-iasi changed its regulations, which are extremely difficult and have great value.

just a few days ago, china insurance research institute, the collision test organization that previously broke the passat's a-pillar, announced their latest collision test results on social platforms.

among the total of 8 cars, except for the ruifeng large van which was a bit out of place, the rest were almost all popular car models: the ones with high sales included xiaomi su7, zeekr 007, and ideal l6, and the ones with average sales but good reputation included bmw i5 and ideal mega.

as soon as the results came out, many experts gave their analysis and were amazed. but logically speaking, although c-iasi has posted the results on its official website for a long time and updated the results every month on its official account, the results are basically all green every time, just like this time, so what is there to analyze?

but everyone, please take a closer look. previously, the highest c-iasi score was only g (excellent), but this time the highest grade has become g+ (excellent+). it is even better than excellent. it is amazing.

those who know cars will definitely say, "oh, isn't this the basic operation of the testing agency? changing the name of the previous test makes it look stronger, and the car companies will have more face when using it for publicity, right? it's just a marketing move!"

but you know what, after careful study, brother neck found that this newly added g+ level does have some meaning.

the g+ rating updated by c-iasi this time actually comes from the 2023 version of the test procedures announced last year, which is the new version of the evaluation criteria. compared with the 2020 version three years ago, the new regulations have updated nearly 40 items, some of which are new and some are adjusted. in short, the dimensions are more detailed and the requirements are higher.

this is the rule update compiled by xiaomi. you can take a look at it, it is full of key points.

and the requirements for getting the highest rating of g+ are much stricter than before. originally, i wanted to get the highest rating of g in the major categories of occupant protection and pedestrian protection, but in fact, i only need to get g in some of the minor categories, and a (good) in the others.

now if you want to get the highest g+, you can't have just a's in the minor items, they must be all g's.

to put it bluntly, after the 2023 version of the regulations is released, it is equivalent to that car companies could get an excellent score by scoring 80 points out of 100 points. now, not only will the number of questions increase and the difficulty increase, but the total score will become 150 points, and you must score 140 points or above to be considered excellent.

there is a rumor that is not true, saying that many car companies, knowing that c-iasi is going to adopt a new standard, are eager to challenge it with their own models. as a result, many of them did not meet the g+ standard and failed one after another.

no wonder lei jun posted several weibo posts in a row after the results came out, celebrating his own su7's full g+ rating and explaining the technology to tell everyone how xiaomi's cars work on safety. he must be very happy after passing a more difficult test, right?

the reason why everyone says that this update is very valuable is that the increased difficulty mentioned above is not just a simple change of numbers, but an upgrade of the testing process, standards and even equipment, in order to make the testing standards adapt to more and more new energy vehicles.

brothers must be a little confused when seeing this. what’s the matter? aren’t the original rules suitable for new energy vehicles?

you know what, it’s true.

let me give you two examples so you can understand.

in the 2020 version of the side impact test regulations, which is the test that uses a dummy car with a honeycomb aluminum block to slam into the car from the side, it is stipulated that the mass of the dummy car needs to be around 1.5 tons, and the height of the honeycomb aluminum block from the ground after being installed on the dummy car must be 379mm.

this height from the ground basically corresponds to the position of the side beam of a car. if a gasoline truck wants to ensure that the passenger compartment does not deform under such a collision, it must rack its brains to think about the structural structure and use materials at all costs to produce parts with extremely high structural strength like the dragonfly to protect the safety of the passengers in the car.

but new energy vehicles basically have a huge battery pack in the chassis, which is much stronger than gasoline vehicles. the battery pack is even directly regarded as a part of the chassis. according to the previous side collision standards, as long as the battery pack is well protected, the safety is very high.

this is also why basically all the new energy vehicles tested by c-iasi before had no problems with side collisions.

c-iasi thought that wouldn’t work, as this would just be pure laziness.

therefore, in the new regulations for 2023, the ground clearance of the honeycomb aluminum mentioned above has been increased from 379mm to 400mm, and the weight of the fake car has also been increased from 1.5 tons to 1.65 tons. what does this mean? it avoids the battery pack and the impact force is greater.

we can also see from the test video of xiaomi su7 that the effect is very obvious, and the battery pack basically does not play a big role.

this is equivalent to telling new energy vehicle companies: don’t think that you can pass the test just by relying on the high strength of the battery pack. the strength of the safety cage and the b-pillar must also be well designed. otherwise, you won’t get a high score.

another point that i find very interesting is the update of the new regulations on collisions with pedestrians outside the vehicle. as we all know, electric vehicles now not only accelerate faster, but also become heavier because of the battery pack.

for pedestrians on the road, if they encounter a traffic accident, the risk level is also increased. therefore, in the 2023 regulations, c-iasi has made a major update to the leg shape used to test the collision of pedestrians outside the car, making it more in line with our real thighs.

the contrast is actually very obvious. this is the flexible leg model used in the old version of the specification, called flex-pli. its structure consists of four parts: femoral condyle, tibial crescent plate, spring and tensioned wire rope. at first glance, it is already complicated enough. in these structures, there are springs and wire ropes to simulate ligaments.

the impact test is to throw the model onto the front of the car at a speed of 11m/s. then, based on the force conditions at each stage, the deformation of the femur and tibia reflects the damage caused to the pedestrian's legs by the impact.

after the rule update, the complex flex-pli was no longer used and replaced by the more complex apli. a separate mass block was added to the structure to simulate the movement trajectory of the upper limbs during a collision.

when measuring the data, a femoral bending moment was added in addition to the previous tibial bending moment, which is the stress condition of the thigh bone.

the ligament cables on the flex-pli have also been rearranged to be almost exactly the same as the real ligament structure of the human body.

in this way, not only the weight of the leg model increases, the impact force on the vehicle also increases, and the measured data is more numerous and more accurate, and can better reflect the collision results in the real world.

if car companies want to get high scores, they have to design carefully how the front part of the car absorbs energy and deforms, and what materials should be used to reduce damage to people's legs.

for a car like the tesla cybertruck that looks painful at first glance, there’s definitely no hope of getting g+…

in addition, the new regulations have added a lot of collision tests on the passenger side, and the idea of ​​many car companies to treat the driver and the passenger side differently in order to cope with the test is no longer effective. overall, the version update of the c-iasi regulations this time is really more difficult.

looking back at thor's series of weibo posts at this time, it seems that he was also responding to the media collision test controversy a while ago: professional matters should be left to professionals, right?

however, the point i want to express here is that although everyone knows that c-iasi is an organization that serves the insurance industry, it can better formulate premium amounts and protect the interests of insurance companies by testing the safety of each vehicle, which is relatively objective.

but no matter whether it is the testing by c-iasi, the "five-star wholesale department" c-ncap or various media outlets, we still have to look at it dialectically.

the tests conducted by the agencies are indeed professional and accurate, but they also have their own limitations. the tests conducted by the media seem muddled and sometimes even very strange, but they are not completely without value.

take c-iasi for example. as we said before, after the update of the testing procedures, we still believe that it is the most professional evaluation organization in china with the most reliable test results.

but after giving the highest rating of g to the honda haoying even though it overturned in the 2020 test, people found that even the seemingly neutral china insurance research institute has many disputes with car companies that cannot be brought to the table.

the a-pillar is bent but the haoying still gets a g rating

on the other hand, there are some unscrupulous media that, in order to get paid, will try to suppress the safety of competing products in seemingly professional tests. but sometimes we have to say that the imaginations of media friends are really big.

sometimes the car is flipped over from the top of a slope to see if the body is deformed, sometimes a large truck is used to tilt sideways on the car to see the strength of its roof, and the car is even driven directly into the water to see if it will leak electricity.

although they cannot be said to be very rigorous, this kind of test that is closer to the real scene always gives me a better sense of understanding.

so i really think that as long as there is no bad intention, no matter whether it is a professional test with full equipment or a simple and abstract folk test, the more the better. the more tricks there are, the more indicators car companies need to worry about.

finally, we have built a car that is safe for any purpose, and we are the ones who benefit from it, right?

editor in charge: sui xin