Comments: The crash test results of Baoyan in G3, Tucki.

Volkswagen Passat's 25% offset collision score was at the bottom of the "incident" (Portal: Why Passat's 25% offset collision was so "miserable"). During the fermentation of Passat incident, the collision test between C-IASI China Insurance Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as "China Insurance Research Institute") and China Insurance Research Institute became a hot topic. What kind of cars are tested by China Insurance Research Institute, and what the test results are, are more and more expected.

According to the latest news, Tucki G3, the first product manufactured by New Power in Xpeng Motors, has been tested in China Insurance Research Institute. According to the results of the C-IASI crash test, the performance of Tucki G3 is not bad, and 25% of the small overlapping surface crash and side impact tests all got an A (acceptable).

Generally speaking, the safety of passengers in the car, the safety of passengers outside the car and the assisted driving of vehicles are all excellent evaluations of G.

But at the same time, we should also see that the "image" presented by Tucki G3 in the side impact test is not so "beautiful"-from the first round of crash test pictures released by C-IASI, in the side impact test, the B-pillar and roof structure of Tucki G3 collapsed obviously.

However, according to the evaluation standard of C-IASI, the distance between the B-pillar and the driver's seat after the collision is still large enough, and the battery pack is well protected, so the evaluation result of Tucki G3 in this project is not bad.

However, the release of side collision photos seems to make Tucki G3 look a bit indecent. Obviously, from the performance point of view, Tucki G3 is good. This seems to be contrary to "seeing is believing", but is this really the case? Or, why does the Tucki G3 side impact look bad, but it is actually good? To understand this problem, we need to understand the collision rules and standards, and then analyze the Tucki G3 itself.

Whether it is C-NCAP, C-IASI or IIHS in North America, the test method of side impact is similar-a collision trolley is used to vertically impact the test vehicle at a certain speed. The difference between the test procedures lies in the weight and height of the collision car. Among them, the weight of the car determines the intensity of the collision, and the collision height of the car determines the collision range.

According to the test method published by C-IASI, the mass of the collision trolley used to evaluate the side impact performance of vehicles is 1500 kg, the height of the trolley is 1 138 mm, and the center of gravity of the trolley is 566 mm from the ground. The trolley height of IIHS in North America is higher, reaching 1500mm. According to the latest C-NCAP crash test regulations, the mass of the trolley is increased from the previous 950kg to 1400kg, the height of the trolley is 600mm, and the center of gravity of the trolley is 500mm from the ground.

Obviously, in these three collision tests, although the speed of side collision is 50 km/h, the size of the car and the height of the car determine the collision intensity.

Compared with the car of C-NCAP, the car of C-IASI is taller and heavier. Higher trolley height still means that in the side impact test of the vehicle, the stress area of the column is also larger, the stress point is higher and the damage is greater.

Speaking of this, by the way, it was recently reported that SAIC Volkswagen sent Passat, which was at the bottom of the crash test of China Insurance Research Institute, to C-NCAP for testing. The tested model was a 380TFSI high-end version, and its intention was self-evident.

But what we need to understand is that the test rules are different and the test results are not comparable at all. In other words, even if Passat gets more than five stars in the C-NCAP crash test, it is not enough to "turn over" its test results in China Insurance Research Institute.

Off topic, let's take a look at the performance of Tucki G3 in C-IASI. It can be seen that the side wall of Tucki G3 is obviously deformed, which is completely different from that of the traditional car after side collision. The deformation of the upper part of the side wall leads to the rupture and folding of the panoramic windshield.

According to the scene pictures of the collision, the main reason for the excessive deformation of the roof of Tucki G3 in the side impact test is the panoramic windshield.

As a major selling point of Tucki G3, the design of panoramic windshield integrates the windshield and panoramic skylight, which brings a better sense of interior transparency and technology.

However, with the delivery of Tucki G3, this panoramic windshield has also been complained by users. This design, which looks full of science and technology, will make the interior of the car extremely hot in summer, so many G3 car owners in Tucki have bought extra insulation panels to seal the roof. Of course, this is beside the point.

In order to achieve panoramic effect, the redundant main cross beam between the A-pillar and the roof of Tucki G3 was cancelled. This also makes the side wall of Tucki G3 extend from the front wall fire partition to between the B-pillar beams. Compared with traditional vehicles, it lacks an A-pillar beam as a support. This is also a key reason for the obvious deformation of the upper side wall of Tucki G3 in the C-IASI side impact test.

Furthermore, after the deformation of the side wall, the rupture of the panoramic windshield also aggravated the visual sense of "broken" car body to a certain extent.

According to the side impact test, the floor strength of Tucki G3 is good, which is largely related to the existence of battery pack. As can be seen from the picture, in the process photo of the side impact test, the wheels of the collision car have left the ground, which seems to mean that the design of the floor has been guided to a certain extent, so that the collision force is far away from the battery pack and the battery safety problems caused by serious collision accidents are avoided.

Similarly, in the test of roof strength, due to the lack of A-pillar roof beam, the panoramic windshield broke and folded high during the test, which is completely different from the traditional car roof strength test. However, according to the test report released by C-IASI, the peak load of its roof strength reached 4.45, and it was rated as excellent.

As for the 25% small overlap collision test that everyone cares about, the performance of Tucki G3 is not bad, and the evaluation is acceptable. At least the A-pillar didn't collapse, and the invasiveness of the upper part of the carriage can be guaranteed. The main reason for losing points in this project is that the side airbag protection is insufficient, and the occupant restraint system fails to restrain the driver well, so that the head fails to contact the airbag correctly, and there is a risk of injury.

If one sentence is used to evaluate Tucki G3 in the C-IASI test, it is: poor eyesight and good grades. From this point of view, Xpeng Motors, as a typical representative of the new force of building cars, is still worthy of recognition.

Written in the back: From 20 14, the wave of new domestic car-making forces began to grow rapidly under the stimulation of the new energy era. They are called new forces because their development mode and production mode are largely out of the shackles of the traditional automobile industry. With the thinking mode of the Internet, the R&D and production resources of the whole vehicle are efficiently integrated to form an Internet-style industrial development system.

For this reason, the products made by the new forces are also trying to get rid of the connection with traditional cars in terms of modeling and product functions. Just like the panoramic windshield design of Tucki G3 mentioned above, it is obviously the product of this appeal.

However, Xpeng Motors is a relatively good brand among a group of new car-making enterprises. First, its financial situation is not bad. Second, Xpeng Motors' products have been mass-produced and put on the market.

For a long time, the automobile industry has been discussing such a problem. What should the new forces do to build a car? The most important reason why there are such doubts is that the new forces are too unconstrained under the fanaticism. OTA becomes the focus, and the seat with leg rest can be packaged as "Queen's Throne", and so on. However, with the "ebb tide" of fanatical capital, the new forces are increasingly aware that whoever is more like a traditional car-making enterprise can survive better.

Among the new force car-making enterprises, Tucki seldom talks about the concept, but from the most fundamental product safety point of view, it is quite good and worthy of praise.

Note: The pictures are from Internet and China Insurance Research Institute.

This article comes from car home, the author of the car manufacturer, and does not represent car home's position.