It's a relatively minor change -- more interesting is that they're offering a higher battery version for the European/Aus markets than what China has
New Energy Vehicles (NEVs) in China
- Thread starter supercat
- Start date
It's a relatively minor change -- more interesting is that they're offering a higher battery version for the European/Aus markets than what China has
It depends. A part of the NCAP tests are typically conducted to test if the vehicle is a hazard to pedestrians in case of a crash or not. From the looks of it they needed to change the front of the vehicle so it won't be as much of a collision hazard to pedestrians. Looks like there was no issue with actual structural strength of the vehicle in terms of passenger protection.
Lethe
Captain
It could be as simple as the shape of the front in relation to pedestrian safety, though if a multitude of SUVs can get cleared for pedestrian safety despite higher and often vertical impact point then the standards can't be too challenging.
"Strength" is one thing. I think USA has higher standards for roof/pillar strength for rollover scenarios than other jurisdictions. I believe Australia was one of the first jurisdictions to require additional side-impact reinforcement in doors which caused issues for folks looking to import Japanese domestic market vehicles that lacked such reinforcement. But often more important and challenging than strength is the absorption and transfer of forces experienced in collision, i.e. "crumple zones". This is where the real advance in vehicle safety over the past few decades (alongside innovations like airbags, ABS brakes, electronic stability control) has occurred. It seems most likely to me that lengthening the vehicle is intended to allow for the inclusion of such "sacrificial" structures that will extend the duration of any crash interaction and therefore reduce peak loads experienced by the occupants.
Last edited:
I think it's less about height and more about the length of the front bumper overall.
That said, I expect that when the BYD dolphin goes on sale in Aus and Europe at a higher equivalent cost than in China, people will assume that the cheaper cost in China is due to "laxer safety standards" despite the modifications being relatively minor, and not look at how the Aus and Europe models will have a bigger battery and how those countries have far less competition in EVs than China does which requires more cutthroat pricing.
Should have gone for the safer version from the start. Now they going to spend time designing another physical version and then maintaining 2 different versions.
Why do double work for (I assume) little savings? Just do it right on the beginning and then have a consistent 1 physical version of the car
Dolphin is overpriced anyway. Why would you get that when yuan+ exists? May as well make Dolphin a better car to justify it. Not to mention how ugly it is. It screams "made in China" but not in a good way like J-20.
Yes, why not make Chinese Dolphin the same?
Some people (like me) dislike SUVs for the comparatively worse handling
I agree that the Dolphin is overpriced, but it's likely because of the high battery prices when it was released.
Imo, they should refresh the China version with the new Europe look and upgrade the battery pack a little and sell it for 11w. The current China version 44kwh is too small while the Europe version 60kwh seems a little too expensive. Maybe something like 52kwh would be good.
Lethe
Captain
Like any other form of regulation, safety regulations must be carefully designed to ensure that they are effective while not creating perverse incentives. It does seem strange to me that there would be pedestrian safety issues with Dolphin as originally designed, with a leading edge low enough that the first (and worst) impact will occur on only lower limbs with much of the rest of the collision forces dissipated via extended interaction with the bonnet and windscreen of the car. If you get hit by even a fairly inoffensive mid-size SUV, let alone the bluff American-style trucks that increasingly populate the roads here, the impact point is going to be higher (i.e. in close proximity to critical organs) and there is a much higher chance of the unfortunate pedestrian going under the vehicle rather than over it. Dolphin may not be the ideal hatch to be hit by, but it would still be better than most vehicles on the road.
It is an unfortunate reality of the automotive industry that different markets receive different vehicles built to different safety standards, according to the combination of income, regulation and culture that exists. The European and Australian markets tend to receive vehicles at the top end of the safety spectrum owing to a combination of high average income and rigorous and widely publicised crash testing protocols. I think most people would agree that there are reasonable compromises to be made in the name of reducing prices to make vehicles more accessible in developing countries. I think most people would also agree that there are some standards that should not be compromised so that all occupants of a vehicle can enjoy a reasonable amount of protection. From the manufacturer's standpoint, it would seem sensible to establish a good baseline through passive safety measures (i.e. the combination of a occupant cell that is designed to resist intrusion with sacrificial "crumple zones" designed to extend crash duration and reduce peak loads) and then enhance that baseline in other markets with add-in features such as ABS brakes, electronic stability control and finally active avoidance features such as automatic emergency braking (AEB).
Perhaps this new version will be deployed for the domestic and other export markets also. Are there particular requirements that would constrain the vehicle to a certain length (as with kei-class in Japan)?
The Atto 3 (Yuan Plus) is the only vehicle BYD currently offers in Australia. Dolphin will arrive in Q3 and Seal in Q4. If they want to create a "big battery" Dolphin then I'm sure there is some market for that. I do wonder if it would be preferable to maintain a clearer distinction between the two vehicles, however. The Atto 3 is offered here with 50.1kWh and 60.4kWh batteries and reportedly the latter makes up the majority of sales. However, Atto 3 has never been the cheapest EV on sale here (SAIC's MG ZS takes that honour) while Dolphin is clearly being pitched on price.
BYD's most direct competitor in the Australian EV space will be SAIC's new MG4 which has been with 64kWh and 77kWh battery options with a 51kWh version also "under consideration" Personally I think BYD Australia (i.e. EVDirect independent distributor) would be better off clearly differentiating on price with a smaller (i.e. 44.9kWh) battery and leaving Atto 3 to compete with MG4 (sure, one is notionally an SUV and one a hatchback, but realistically the differences are minimal). Beyond the challenges of being nascent brand in a fairly conservative market with low EV penetration, I think that the biggest obstacle between Atto 3 and mainstream success here is the polarising interior styling. Reportedly the actual quality of the interior is quite good, but I suspect that the interior styling turns more people off than it attracts. Obviously the Chinese market is very different with many different EV manufacturers competing to attract attention and fill every conceivable niche.
Last edited:
they deliberately increased the size of this so you can be classified differently and sold for higher prices.
Why don't you let BYD figure out how to be competitive. They are clearly trying to get higher margin in Europe.
The version going on sale in Thailand is a lot cheaper. I presume that's for Asia and rest of global south
in my mind, Dolphin right now will be in trouble when Seagull get mass produced. Seagull will overlap with Dolphin buyers a little too much. They basically made Seagull too good at its price
this seems pretty big when ChangAn & Geely are partnering up. Everyone needs to find a way to survive i guess