This marks the 148th original article from the Thinking AI Society.

The full text comprises approximately 1434 words, with an estimated reading time of 5 minutes.

Let's begin with some statistics. In the first half of this year, factoring in annual facelifts, configuration derivatives, and limited-edition models, over 600 new car models were introduced in the domestic market, averaging more than three new models rolling off the production line each day.

The accelerating pace of new car releases is unmistakable. But just how rapid is this acceleration? What is the ideal timeframe for car manufacturing? This topic merits a thorough discussion.

What are the steps involved in transforming a car concept into a vehicle available at a 4S dealership?

Traditional automakers typically adhere to four stages in developing a new model.

Stage 1: Concept Definition – This involves translating the broad project direction into specific metrics, such as body dimensions, performance targets, powertrain type, and platform selection. Even when expedited, this stage requires at least six months.

Stage 2: Engineering Development – This encompasses styling design, clay modeling, structural engineering, and component sourcing. Suppliers must be engaged concurrently, with engine and transmission calibration being paramount in the era of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Stage 3: Testing and Verification – This is the most time-intensive phase. It commences with design verification, followed by production verification. Prototype vehicles must undergo testing in high-altitude, high-temperature, and extreme cold conditions, as well as comprehensive seasonal road tests spanning "two winters and two summers"—a process that alone spans two years on the calendar. Even for mid-cycle facelifts, "one winter and one summer" of testing, coupled with 30,000 kilometers of reliability trials, are mandatory. Professor Zhu Xichan from Tongji University underscores that without these, verification is inadequate.

Stage 4: Production Ramp-Up – This involves production line debugging, pilot production, ramp-up, and ultimately, market launch and delivery.

During the ICE vehicle era, this process typically spanned 40 to 50 months for a completely new model. Nissan's standard was 55 months, while Volkswagen's was 54 months. For joint-venture brands, mid-cycle facelifts took roughly four years, and full model changes could extend up to eight years. The industry adage was "a new generation every five years, a facelift every three."

How much faster is the process now? Where has the time been saved?

The current figures are as follows: Nissan, drawing inspiration from Chinese automakers, has reduced the development timeline for new models to 37 months, with the latest Skyline taking only 26 months. Stellantis plans to slash its timeline from over 40 months to 24 months. Some domestic new energy vehicle (NEV) startups take just 18 months, or even less, from project initiation to market launch.

How is this time being conserved? Primarily through four "cuts" that streamline the process.

1. Platform-Based Development – Modular platforms like Toyota's TNGA and Volkswagen's MQB obviate the need to develop new vehicles from scratch. A substantial number of components can be reused across different models, saving 1 to 3 months, as estimated by McKinsey.

2. Electrification – Electric vehicles (EVs) eliminate the intricate engine and transmission calibration required for ICE vehicles, simplifying the structure.

3. Simulation – Crash and durability tests that once necessitated multiple physical prototypes can now be extensively conducted in the digital realm.

4. Parallel Development and OTA Updates – The traditional sequential process, where one stage had to be completed before progressing to the next, has been supplanted by simultaneous advancement across multiple departments. Software is no longer expected to be flawless at launch; hardware is deployed first, with functionality enhanced later via over-the-air (OTA) updates.

Frankly, three of these four "cuts" epitomize technological progress. Volkswagen even accomplished the development and mass production of a new electronic architecture in just 18 months without compromising verification standards. Speed, in itself, is not detrimental.

How to Rationally Perceive "Fast-Tracking"? The Crux Lies in What Is Being Eliminated

The genuine concern is whether what's being eliminated is waiting time and redundancy or the verification process itself.

Investigations by People's Daily have revealed several instances: A certain automaker conducted durability testing on a door handle, claiming 10,000 cycles but only performing 2,000 physically, relying on simulation for the remaining 8,000. Some automakers conduct as little as 20% of tests on actual vehicles.

A researcher from a luxury brand candidly stated: Design time cannot be compressed, so what's being fast-tracked in "fast-tracked cars" is actually the verification stage. The cautious ones use simulation to replace physical testing in minor areas, while the audacious ones expand the scope of substitution.

This is the true apprehension behind "fast-tracked cars." Simulation can detect most issues but cannot foresee a door handle freezing in extreme cold or a brake pedal bracket snapping. OTA updates can enhance the infotainment system but cannot retroactively improve the durability of a chassis already sold to consumers.

The market repercussions are already apparent. J.D. Power's survey data indicates that the number of problems per 100 vehicles in the Chinese auto market rose to 190 in 2024. Li Fenggang, General Manager of Beijing Hyundai, succinctly stated: When verification is compressed, consumers become the test drivers.

So, how should we rationally perceive fast-tracking? My conclusion is threefold.

Firstly, speed is not inherently flawed. Enhancing R&D efficiency is a goal pursued by the entire industry, including Volkswagen and Toyota. The era of taking three to five years to build a single car has concluded.

Secondly, speed must have boundaries. "Two winters and one summer," 30,000 kilometers of testing, and physical testing ratios are safety redundancies, not optional features. This is why four government departments incorporated these requirements into new market access regulations in October.

Thirdly, for consumers, assessing a car's reliability should not rely solely on the specifications announced at press conferences. Pose a simple question: Was verification completed before launch?

Cars can be constructed swiftly, but not "as if verified." The chasm between these two is what distinguishes a high-quality car from a fast-tracked one.

The content of this article is based on publicly available information and represents the author's personal views only.