摘要：As Xiaomi's debut vehicle, the SU7 has dominated headlines with its performance—yet frequently finds itself at the center of contr
As Xiaomi's debut vehicle, the SU7 has dominated headlines with its performance—yet frequently finds itself at the center of controversy. The recent March 30 tragedy, which claimed three lives, has reignited debate over its smart driving system.
Following BYD's push for mass adoption of smart driving, Xiaomi is now forcing the public to confront both the capabilities and limitations of the technology. This duality of progress and setback has intensified national scrutiny on the rollout of autonomous features.
Since its launch, Lei Jun's vocal endorsement has turned the SU7 into a viral sensation in the automotive world. From its Porsche-inspired design and BMW M-series performance to record-breaking sales, the SU7 and Lei Jun seem to effortlessly dominate trends wherever they go.
In 2024 alone, the newly released SU7 delivered 135,000 units for Xiaomi, rivaling Tesla's Model 3 in single-model sales. On March 18, Lei Jun raised the annual sales target from 300,000 to 350,000 vehicles.
With March sales surging to a record 29,000 units—and projections hinting at exceeding 30,000 monthly—the SU7 appears unstoppable.
The SU7's explosive popularity sets a new benchmark for EV startups, while the market's embrace of its sibling model, the YU7, underscores Xiaomi's perceived invincibility.
Despite lacking rivals' gimmicks like oversized fridges or entertainment systems—and even avoiding explicit claims of "high-level autonomy"—the SU7's success defies logic.
Priced like a Toyota Camry but styled and performing like a luxury vehicle, its appeal hinges on Lei Jun's personal brand and Xiaomi's smartphone legacy. This tragedy will test whether that appeal stems from trust, security, or mere hype.
The truth must emerge under public scrutiny—and that's what matters most.
Three lives lost, a high-speed crash, and a fiery explosion tied to the SU7 reveal starkly divergent stakeholder responses.
Rumors of a "nationwide information blackout" clashed with families' demands for accountability from Lei Jun and Xiaomi. The automotive community debated battery safety and autonomous tech, while Xiaomi issued rapid responses based on limited data.
While authorities finalize their investigation and stakeholders jockey for position, ordinary drivers fixate on one question: Can we trust autonomous systems?
Could this collision and its tragic toll have been prevented?
Today's ubiquitous Level 2 driving assistance systems—adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping, etc.—are marketed as safety features. Yet regulators have repeatedly tightened controls, mandating oversight of over-the-air updates and rebranding "autopilot" as "driver assistance."
Yet when every automaker highlights autonomy in ads, users mistakenly assume the technology has matured. Videos of drivers napping in "self-driving" cars flood social media, embodying both fear and overconfidence.
The reality lies in between: Most users find these systems reduce fatigue and enhance safety, but their limitations surface in rare, critical moments.
From BYD to Geely, Chery, and GAC, major automakers are rolling out smart driving strategies, equipping models with varied autonomy levels. While democratizing the tech, this blurs distinctions between capabilities.
For instance, the SU7 offers three tiers: an 84 TOPS chip without lidar (Xiaomi Pilot Pro), a 508 TOPS system with lidar (Xiaomi HAD), and a paid "enhanced" package (temporarily free). Their operational scenarios differ drastically.
Xiaomi's website clearly states: "Smart driving features do not replace driver control. Drivers remain fully responsible for safe operation... Always stay alert and prepared to take over."
Amid the autonomy craze, Huawei's Yu Chengdong warned against conflating basic assistance with high-level autonomy. Great Wall's Zhao Yongpo stressed that true advanced systems must excel in urban scenarios, while academician Ouyang Minggao emphasized that even "high-level" systems are merely marketing jargon.
China's national standards classify autonomy into five levels, with Level 2 requiring constant driver attention and Level 3 allowing limited hands-off driving in specific conditions.
Critically, no mass-market vehicle in China exceeds Level 2. Drivers bear ultimate responsibility—even as autonomy promises to reduce accidents, it demands greater skill from users to handle emergencies like system failures.
Driving is a skill honed through experience. New drivers once learned from mistakes, but smart systems risk depriving them of growth.
The paradox is clear: While autonomy aims to reduce accidents, it requires drivers to be more proficient than ever.
Beyond technical reliability, questions about door locks and emergency exits dominate discussions. Were these factors critical? Only official investigations will tell.
Xiaomi has released a timeline of the SU7's system during the crash, but remains a bystander in the tragedy.
Will this incident derail smart driving adoption? I believe the opposite: Only by acknowledging limitations will automakers adopt realistic messaging and educate consumers rigorously.
A clearer public understanding will foster a healthier environment for autonomy, tempering both fear and overconfidence.
Smart driving is a safety tool, not a replacement for drivers. If you don't want to drive, don't buy a car.
来源：TMC动力一点号