Multiple Chinese authorities led by the MIIT have issued a draft circular titled Notice on Further Strengthening Administration of Automotive Product Innovation‑Oriented Design, R&D, Testing and Validation. It imposes new requirements for technical parameter submission and safety validation documentation on newly‑filed models with innovative designs. Vehicles with insufficient validation or falsified materials will be denied public announcement approval.

The draft proposes adding 51 major technical parameters for motor vehicles: 41 for innovative design and 10 for R&D testing and validation. This marks a critical shift in regulatory logic — from meeting national standards for market access toward sufficient validation prior to market entry. The regulatory pendulum is swinging from encouraging innovation toward enforcing hard safety boundaries. As a new round of industry rectification unfolds, senior executives across OEMs have spoken out publicly, stirring undercurrents within China’s auto sector.

Zhao Yongpo, CEO of Wey (Great Wall Motors), commented: “The ultimate luxury is not a sofa, but braking performance.”

His remarks carry clear implications. In recent years, many new‑energy startups have marketed “fridges, large screens and plush sofas” as core luxury selling points. Features such as zero‑gravity seats, oversized in‑vehicle displays and pop‑out door handles have become showstoppers at product launches. The draft, however, intends to ban fully concealed pop‑out door handles and foldable/flexible on‑board screens. High‑profile configurations including zero‑gravity seats and motor‑driven suction doors will require supplementary safety assessments. Zhao’s statement represents a push‑back from established OEMs against the industry narrative that “configuration equals luxury”.

Great Wall has sounded alarms long before this. Back in August, Wei Jianjun, Chairman of Great Wall Motors, publicly warned: “I cannot speak for others, but I can say Great Wall has never built a ‘rush‑built vehicle’ in its 36‑year history.” He has repeatedly criticized impetuous industry mindsets, stressing that vehicle manufacturing is a marathon rather than a 100‑meter sprint. Zhao’s “braking‑first luxury” argument extends this stance, bringing the critique of rushed development down to core safety components.

Around the same period, Li Xiaoshuang, Vice‑President of Xiaomi Auto, shared test cases of extreme‑condition seat‑slide challenges and reaffirmed that “safety overrides everything”. Lei Jun set the same tone at a Pengcheng‑tech press conference in July. The timing of these remarks draws attention, given ongoing industry discussions over SU7’s development cycle. Xiaomi is evidently leveraging the prevailing safety debate to communicate its safety credentials.

Yet under the new regulatory framework, safety slogans are insufficient. With market‑entry prerequisites upgraded to full‑range R&D validation, all brands built around fast product launches will be measured by identical criteria. Affirming safety verbally is one thing; producing complete evidence of thorough validation workflows is quite another.

Numerous auto executives have voiced support for the draft, though their perspectives diverge.

Deng Chenghao, Chairman of Deepal Auto, stated: “The ongoing industry‑wide reflection prioritizing safety, opposing rush‑built vehicles and pseudo‑innovation benefits down‑to‑earth manufacturers and the development of China’s intelligent EV industry. Deepal fully endorses this direction.”

His comments echo CAAM’s initiative to reject innovation that prioritizes form over safety. Previously in a live stream, Deng clarified liability for Level‑3 autonomous‑driving accidents: OEMs shall bear responsibility when L3 is properly activated and in operation. Beyond genuine accountability, this high‑profile safety narrative serves clear brand strategy. As Changan’s new‑energy marque, Deepal deliberately distances itself from “rush‑built vehicle” accusations, aligning with its product roadmap and market positioning.

Lu Fang of Voyah Auto offered a more dialectical viewpoint: “The sole criterion for judging whether a vehicle is rush‑built is not development duration, but whether it completes all mandatory validation procedures. A product cutting development timelines yet fulfilling every statutory and industrial test qualifies as an ‘efficient‑development vehicle’. Only those skipping tests and cutting corners deserve the label ‘rush‑built’.”

This view raises a core industry question: given that digital simulation can conduct millions of kilometers of virtual testing, what makes physical road tests irreplaceable? Professor Zhu Xichan from Tongji University’s School of Automotive and Energy Engineering points out that full‑vehicle development demands “two‑winter‑two‑summer” extreme‑environment validation. Even facelift variants require at least “one‑winter‑one‑summer” trials alongside 30 000 km of real‑world road testing. While the “efficient‑development” logic may hold for individual enterprises, it risks becoming an industry‑wide excuse for substituting physical testing with pure simulation.

“Rush‑built vehicles” refer to models fast‑tracked for market windows, where developers compress R&D cycles heavily, replace physical validation with excessive simulation and skip extreme‑environment calibration. One widely‑cited industry example: an OEM performed 10 000 reliability cycles for door‑handle testing, among which merely 2 000 cycles were physical bench tests, and the remaining 8 000 were purely simulation‑based. Many reported field failures — fractured brake pedal brackets, premature body corrosion and high‑temperature vehicle shutdowns — could and should have been uncovered and resolved in pre‑launch validation phases.

Why is regulation tightening at this moment?

Profit margins across China’s automotive industry are under severe pressure. The overall automotive sector hit a low profit margin of 3.4 %, while vehicle manufacturing recorded merely 1.5 %, both trailing the 6.1 % average of downstream industrial sectors. Soaring costs and brutal price wars have pushed several major OEMs into losses in Q2. Against this backdrop, speed has become a go‑to competitive weapon: fast launches grab public attention and rapid iterations create an illusion of technological leadership, often at the cost of adequate validation.

Regulatory crackdowns are unfolding, foreshadowing industry reshuffling. Nevertheless, amid executives’ collective public statements, ordinary consumers struggle to distinguish genuine safety commitment from opportunistic PR posturing.

Enhanced regulation lays the foundation for healthier industrial development. More important than rolling out new rules, however, is rigorous enforcement to root out the chronic problem of rush‑built vehicle development.

今天 09:23