crashing the A-pillar like this is common on most cars to crumble, some cars even the roof cut off, unless they make a rigid C-guard like Smart4two which is uncommon nowadays.
@IYKYK-UK that is not fair comparison as the car height is different and shape of the pillars also have different angles. if you make the pillar pointy it will go under the truck rather than having straight cut.
@@bunnatang That’s just the outward design, the crash protection is supposed to be built into the chassis frame. This car has weak designed engineering for the chassis frame. The B pillar should have at least taken the force and stopped further collapse but it continued on to the rear.
This is a car with solid materials. However, due to the rigidity of the vehicle body, the rear anti-collision beam of the truck has almost no buffering effect. The overweight of the vehicle body is also a major reason for the tragic collision results. In standard offset collisions it performs very well.
@@chjin1796 You don't know what you are talking about. It did not perform well. They said the front longitudinal beam deformed in a strange way. Thta means that this manufacturer has no clue how to design crumple zones.
When a major collision happens, do not tell the e-Call operator it is a "false alarm". This may negatively affect their data.
I think many expected Zeekr to do better because it's a popular luxury car.
crashing the A-pillar like this is common on most cars to crumble, some cars even the roof cut off, unless they make a rigid C-guard like Smart4two which is uncommon nowadays.
Check their other videos, Telsa Model 3, Volvo S60 all fare much better in the same test.
@IYKYK-UK that is not fair comparison as the car height is different and shape of the pillars also have different angles. if you make the pillar pointy it will go under the truck rather than having straight cut.
@@bunnatang That’s just the outward design, the crash protection is supposed to be built into the chassis frame. This car has weak designed engineering for the chassis frame. The B pillar should have at least taken the force and stopped further collapse but it continued on to the rear.
спасибо за ваш труд
Интересно было бы увидеть тесты Kaiyi E5/Jetour Dashing/JAC JS4,нигде пока краш тесты этих машин не видел
should be selling good in china if really good in material used
This is a car with solid materials. However, due to the rigidity of the vehicle body, the rear anti-collision beam of the truck has almost no buffering effect. The overweight of the vehicle body is also a major reason for the tragic collision results. In standard offset collisions it performs very well.
@@chjin1796 You don't know what you are talking about. It did not perform well. They said the front longitudinal beam deformed in a strange way. Thta means that this manufacturer has no clue how to design crumple zones.