In response to the heated discussion that continued after the release of the Ideal i8 collision safety test video, Ideal Auto issued a response on the evening of August 3, saying that the test was only to verify the passive safety performance, and "the test results should not be interpreted as a judgment on the quality of other brands' products."
Ideal Auto and Dongfeng Liuqi Chenglong do not compete directly with each other. Therefore, Ideal's statements in its response that it "had no intention of making any insinuating comments about its quality" and "the unintentional involvement of the Dongfeng Liuqi Chenglong brand in public opinion controversy was entirely unintentional" are credible.
However, the public's focus on this test isn't about whether Ideal Auto or Chenglong Truck is more "tough." Although many netizens flooded Chenglong Truck's livestream and comment section after the incident, demanding a response, anyone with a discerning eye could see it was merely a joke and a playful meme, not something to be taken seriously.
The key question is, given the myriad safety testing methods available, why choose the "car-truck" scenario? Ideal Auto responded by stating that the "small car-truck collision" scenario has always been a top safety concern for many passenger car users. However, is this claim truly valid? Is a head-on collision between a family car and a heavy truck truly a common scenario? How many users would trust themselves to survive such a situation based on the safety test results?
I believe every reader knows the answers to these questions. So, the question worth asking is, why do car manufacturers insist on arranging such bizarre commercial marketing?
Looking back, over the past two years, many car brands have drawn criticism online for their bizarre marketing. Some advertised hot pot and mahjong in cars; some used the internet celebrity "motion sickness dog" to prove their cars' stable chassis; some touted their cars as relieving high blood pressure and boosting immunity; and one brand even announced plans to install toilets in cars. These ridiculous marketing tactics all share a common trait: they exploit perceived user needs.
The idea that a car can beat a truck in a collision is clearly a "pseudo-demand." While today's consumers are increasingly concerned about vehicle safety, no one truly believes their car can become a road-going tank or high-speed train.
So why did someone come up with the "car-to-truck" plot? Perhaps the fundamental reason is that these days, every car brand prioritizes safety. Brand A is safe, and so is Brand B, so how can they prove their own products are the "safest"? This anxiety inevitably leads to constant innovation and upgrades in marketing tactics, reaching an extreme where, naturally, the "truck can't beat a family car" scenario emerges.
At this point, it's clear that the root of the problem lies in the overall internal competition within the automotive industry. Fierce competition for limited resources has put every brand under immense pressure. With little chance of success, they're forced to resort to unusual strategies in some challenging situations.
The achievements of China's automotive industry, particularly new energy vehicles, are undeniable. Data shows that in 2024, Chinese-branded passenger car sales totaled 17.97 million, a year-on-year increase of 23.1%. Of this total, new energy vehicle sales reached 12.866 million, accounting for 40.9% of total new car sales, ranking first globally for 10 consecutive years.
After a period of rapid growth, if you want to achieve further breakthroughs in your existing achievements, you must calm down and continuously hone your technological innovation and product quality. This takes time and patience. Only by shifting more focus to long-term development, rather than relying on unconventional marketing, can you truly gain a firm foothold in the market.
Every user hopes that the car they buy is safer, but this does not need to be and cannot be proven through weird tests and marketing such as "car hitting truck".
