Li Auto and CAERI readdress i8-truck crash controversy, emphasizing test objectivity, but netizens question inconsistencies and vehicle condition.
On the evening of August 3, both Li Auto and China Automotive Engineering Research Institute (CAERI) issued updated statements, once again responding to the controversy surrounding the crash test between the Li Auto i8 and a truck.
Li Auto’s latest response focused on clarifying the purpose of the test, stating that it was designed to simulate real-life collision scenarios and was carried out by the authoritative third-party agency CAERI. The company emphasized that the process and results of the test were scientifically valid and credible.
CAERI responded by reaffirming that the test was solely aimed at verifying the safety performance of the i8.
Compared to the first round of official responses, this second round from Li Auto and CAERI included more details and a more sincere tone. However, skepticism among the public did not diminish.
On social platforms like Weibo, some users continued to raise doubts, arguing that the two statements still left several key points unexplained.
Let’s first highlight the main messages from both statements.
Li Auto and CAERI: “For Users” and “Objective and Rigorous”
In essence, Li Auto’s latest statement aimed to convey that this crash test involving a truck was in line with industry and user interests. It asserted that the results were authoritative and reliable, that the test was not aimed at discrediting other brands, and that such tests were not unprecedented.
Li Auto explained that using a truck in the test was due to public concern about “small car vs. large vehicle” collisions. It emphasized that this testing approach is commonly used across the industry and is a standard promotional method. Therefore, choosing this method was a natural decision.
In response to doubts about the results being “unreasonable,” Li Auto doubled down, insisting the outcome was scientifically credible.
The test was carried out by CAERI, a state-backed institution with an “official endorsement” effect. The process was fully recorded and transparent, traceable at every stage.
Li Auto also added that the i8 was originally designed to meet complex conditions like “narrow truck gaps” and “truck pinch scenarios,” making a head-on crash with a truck well within its capabilities.
While Li Auto’s statement focused on the test’s context and the credibility of its partners, CAERI’s statement concentrated more on the technical details.
It provided one key data point, highlighted as a standalone paragraph: At the moment of impact, the Li Auto i8 was traveling at approximately 60 km/h, while the Chenglong truck was traveling at about 40 km/h.
This figure addressed a major public question: “Why wasn’t the 2.5-ton car pushed back by the 8-ton truck?” The answer lies in the differing speeds—the i8 had significantly more kinetic energy at the point of impact.
Previously, the Li Auto crash test video only mentioned a “relative speed of 100 km/h” without clarifying whether both vehicles were traveling at 50 km/h each or if there was a speed disparity. This lack of clarity led to the now-famous moment in the product launch where the i8 remained completely still while the opposing truck was shown lifting off the ground.
Additionally, both Li Auto and CAERI confirmed that the truck used in the crash test was a second-hand vehicle, purchased randomly from the market. The vehicle was then refurbished, including exterior camouflage and installation of autonomous driving devices. Most importantly, it was weighted to 8 tons.
Reviewing both statements reveals a fairly comprehensive explanation of the crash test’s background and some specific details. However, as noted earlier, many doubts remain unaddressed despite the increased transparency.
The “Used Vehicle” Mystery: Details Still Unexplained
One of the most central concerns involves inconsistencies about the truck used in the test.
Some sharp-eyed netizens pointed out that CAERI had previously stated in media interviews that the test vehicle was brand new. However, in the new official statement, this was changed to a “used vehicle.”
While this discrepancy may be due to internal miscommunication within CAERI following the sudden public scrutiny, this is far from the only unresolved issue.
Another major concern was: Why use a second-hand truck for such an important crash test? The i8 was clearly a brand-new vehicle during the test, and using a used truck introduces questions about variable control and the rigor of the testing conditions.
After all, what was the actual condition of the used truck? And how can CAERI prove that all its systems and performance parameters were still up to par?
Furthermore, Li Auto confirmed that the crash test was a non-standard test. The test specifications were independently determined by CAERI and had neither industry-wide endorsement nor referenced any common standards.
In such a context, putting a non-standard, potentially questionable test in the core section of an official product launch video may not have been the most appropriate move.
Adding to concerns, CAERI is known to be a partner of Li Auto and has appeared on Li Auto’s official WeChat account. Thus, having CAERI conduct this test naturally raises doubts about impartiality.
Aside from these points, users also identified additional flaws in the test conducted by CAERI.
For instance, according to official vehicle classification standards, only trucks with a gross weight over 12 tons qualify as “heavy-duty trucks.” However, the test truck used here was just 8 tons, yet the video was labeled “heavy truck crash test.” This clearly contradicts regulatory definitions.
Lastly, many technical aspects were glossed over or not explained in either statement. For example: why did the truck’s front section detach after the crash? Were the latches connecting the truck’s cab and chassis properly secured?
Considering all of the above, it appears that the updated statements from Li Auto and CAERI still fall short of convincing the broader public. Significant areas remain unexplained in the “crash test” controversy.
More importantly, Dongfeng Chenglong, the manufacturer of the truck involved in the test, had not issued any comment on the updated responses from Li Auto and CAERI as of the evening of August 4.
If Dongfeng Chenglong does not acknowledge or approve of Li Auto and CAERI’s versions of events, this debate is likely to continue for some time.
Discover more from ChinaEVHome
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
