In a live broadcast in july last year, ceo li bin offered an interesting contrast to the renewal of the new energy car: mobile phones can easily be used to keep the batteries big, but the hands are high. A lot of people don't pay attention to the weight of the car -- now the industry is pushing the battery, and there's a real profit in keeping it going, but the bigger the car, the greater the security challenge, the greater the damage to the road. So a lot of countries are taxed by car."
A sharp controversy in the car ring has come to grips with the precision of this statement: is the new energy car getting heavier and crushing the road
In fact, xinhua has also recently published a note on this phenomenon, stating that new energy cars are collectively “increased” and are becoming a new subject for the industry。
The size of the car, the weight of the car, the size of the car, the size of the suv and the mpv, are now becoming the fragrance of the car, and the new energy car is more than a "sun" car。
But is “heavy” equivalent to “destruction”? The pot on the street. Should the train be carrying it? With that question in mind, the editor-in-chief of it decided to dig into the real situation。
The trams are increasing their weight
Now that we're talking about whether the tram broke down or not, let's start by making clear how much weight the new energy car weighs。
Directly speaking, the ministry of industry and communications has published data, which in 2012 averaged 1312 kg for new vehicles, and by 2024 this number jumped to 1704 kg。
In 2026, according to data on motor vehicle risk, the average total capacity of new energy vehicles in the country was 1939. 3 kg, an increase of 27. 5 per cent over 2020。
As a result, car obesity is a major trend in the industry, although the size of electric cars is higher than the tonnage。
Now there are five big, six big suvs and mpvs in the streets, and you see only their size, but you have no idea of weight。
In the case of the recently released question group m9 ultimate, the total mass of the pure electronic version of the vehicle is 3105 kg, while the incremental version is 3200 kg, the right 3 ton class player。
But it's not enough to look at u8l, just because it's ready to reach 3639 kg and full load to 4210 kg。
What is the concept of 4210 kg more than some small trucks。
The reason why new energy companies are making cars bigger and heavier is ultimately consumer attachment to big space。
As soon as the body is increased, the constant anxiety will be mitigated by a large battery, which is the “coercion” of the whole vehicle。
In the case of 100 kwh battery packs, the triple lithium version is up to 550 ~ 600 kg, and the phosphorous lithium version is up to 600 ~ 700 kg, which alone accounts for 30 ~ 40 per cent of the total vehicle weight and, on average, an additional 107 kg for each 10 kwh capacity。
With the exception of batteries, which are “heavy” players, in order to fill up the experience with cars, car companies hate to stuff all their configurations in them。
Not to mention radar cameras, or large-powered couches in refrigerators, each of which is a solid “gravity booster”, causing the whole car to weigh another step unwittingly。
After all, in order to satisfy consumers in terms of continuity, comfort and safety, cars have to keep piling up in their cars, and it is difficult for new energy vehicles to weigh too much。
Fortunately, in the face of the growing weight of cars, the state has adopted policies to curb the trend of “obeseness” of electric cars through more rigorous and systematic design of indicators, such as the national standard for the energy consumption limits of electric cars, part 1: cars。
As well, the acquisition tax technical standards, introduced in 2026, provide for a total of over 2,710 kg of pure motor vehicle type, to benefit from a 50% reduction in acquisition tax, and for cltc to consume no more than 19. 1 degrees per 100 km of electricity, which in part discourages unlimited growth。
The tram broke the road
Now that the new energy truck is overweight, we're gonna have to talk about it -- are they gonna break the road
A lot of internet users believe that the road's broken and the train should be on its back. After all, there's an industry figure: for every 20% increase in the weight of the car, the rate of damage to the road will double. On this basis, a 2. 8-ton electric vehicle with an “kill” on the road equal to approximately 12 1. 5-ton fuel trucks。
But is it true? No。
The account refers to the “four method formula”, known as the “four method formula”, which is the core empirical formula in road engineering and indicates that the damage to the road opposite the vehicle is proportional to the four axle loads。
The physical implication is that a slight increase in the axle would lead to an exponential increase in road damage. For example, the intensity of damage to the asphalt surface increased by approximately 47 per cent per ton of axle and the cost of road maintenance increased by about 23 per cent。
The problem, however, is that the act, which is the theoretical basis for the establishment of road truck weight limits, the calculation of bridge loads and the assessment of road life, is not reasonable, mainly for impact assessments of heavy trucks, which are placed directly in passenger vehicles。
It is also based on the urban road engineering design code, which states in black and white that the road surface design is based on two-wheeled single-axis 100kn。
In conversion, the road is designed according to the standard of 10 tons of axle weight。
And our usual passenger vehicle is a two-axis structure, even a three-ton car, which is distributed around 1. 5 tons per axis, which is far from the design standard of 10 tons and does not mean damage to the road。
It's obvious that breaking the road to this pot should not be carried by a new energy car。
It's a road dispute
Although it can prove that the tram's pressure is not bad, the other controversy is still stuck - the cost of the road。
In other words, the truck is the real “road killer”, but people have strict traffic control and pay for the road, and the road is broken, but the money is paid。
When you look at the trams and the oil tankers, they're both road-driven cars, one enjoying tax relief, one having to pay for it honestly, the owner of the tankers will have to say, "why?"
With regard to the maintenance fee, our country cancelled the separate fee in 2009 and instead incorporated it into the final oil consumption tax, so the workshop said, "a tank of oil, half a box of taxes."。
The core principle of this system is that “more roads, more losses, more contributions” and that the more miles driven, the heavier cars, the higher the fuel, the more taxes paid, it seems reasonable。
However, the implementation of the policy took place in 2009, when new energy vehicles were not widely available, and subsequent reforms were not carried out, creating a gap in the ability of electric cars to drill “system gaps” to date。
But today, unlike in the past, the new energy truck has been running around, and contradictions have followed, and the fuel truck owner is unbalanced: why should i refuel the road and use the tram for free
As a result of the slowdown in fuel vehicle growth, fuel tax revenues are declining, and there are huge gaps in road maintenance funding, which are known to be as high as 50 per cent, or about $30 billion。
From the point of view of the owners of a number of tankers, the money should have been filled in by the tram。
Over the past few years, there have been rumours that tax changes will be introduced, but no substantial progress has been made, in response to the contradictions caused by the “non-payment of road fees by trams”。
It was only during the previous period that more precise news finally came out, and on june 12, when the chief engineer of the chinese automotive industry association, ye shengi, interviewed him, said: “as a result of years of effort, the domestic automobile industry has changed dramatically, and the current overall tax and fee standards for the automobile industry have largely followed the policies of the last century, making it difficult to adapt to the actual development of the industry. Of course, the overall car tax and fee reform cannot be undertaken overnight, and new policies need to be fully researched, integrated and validated.”
At the level of taxes and fees on new energy vehicles, ye shengi mentioned that, in order to support the industrial development of new energy vehicles, the industry had enjoyed a number of tax and tariff exemptions and that the benefits were now declining, such as the restructuring of the 50 per cent vehicle purchase tax policy. In the future, as the new energy automobile market matures, the associated tax and tariff policies may be further adjusted and optimized。
In other words, the relevant departments are already studying policies, the issue of the sharing of road costs, and it is expected that more of the tax regimes associated with the automobile industry will be reformed in order to “get up to date” the system and adapt it to new industrial patterns。
Summary
This is the case with the dispute over the “trafficult road” and the “charter charge”。
It is clear that, while new energy vehicles are becoming heavier, they do not cause damage to urban roads, while acknowledging that they do enjoy more policy dividends than fuel cars。
In the early stages of industrial development, some support and favouritism was the norm, but when industry grew from “baby seedlings” to “trees”, it was time to carefully consider the alignment of rights and obligations。
In short, in the current situation, the entitlement to new energy vehicles is on the decline, and the acquisition tax has been reduced from “total exemption” to “minus half” from this year, and the plug-in/acceleration vehicle is subject to a mandatory ship tax starting next year。
And given that policies are already being studied in the relevant sectors, perhaps in the near future, the oil and trams will achieve parity。
