Is Electric Vehicle Safety Becoming a Joke? A Model Caught Fire, Yet Five People Escaped!
On March 23, a collision involving a new energy vehicle occurred on Tianhuan Road in Chengdu. A NIO ES6 lost control while driving, crashed into a guardrail, and veered into oncoming traffic, colliding violently with a Leapmotor C11. The incident resulted in severe damage to both vehicles: the front of the NIO ES6 caught fire and quickly spread to the entire car, while the front of the Leapmotor C11 was deformed and the door handle failed to pop out. Five people inside the vehicles were injured but were treated at a hospital and are not in life-threatening condition. The driver involved, identified as Luo, has been taken into police custody, and initial investigations have ruled out drunk or drugged driving. The specific cause of the accident is still under investigation.
This incident exploded like a bomb in public discourse, quickly bringing NIO and Leapmotor into the spotlight. Opinions on the cause of the NIO ES6 fire have been sharply divided: some speculate it was ignited by a “small battery theory.” Eyewitnesses reported that the fire began at the front of the car, which does not align with the location of the power battery (under the chassis). Some netizens suggested that the 12V low-voltage battery might have ruptured upon impact, causing electrolyte leakage that could have ignited a short circuit with high-voltage wiring. A similar case occurred on March 18 with a Zeekr 009 that caught fire after a collision, with the fire source also traced back to the front electrical system.
There are also concerns regarding “battery safety.” Despite NIO’s emphasis that “the fire source was not the power battery,” the public remains worried about the stability of battery packs during extreme collisions. Industry experts point out that even if the battery did not ignite directly, secondary risks such as short circuits in high-voltage wiring and failures in the thermal management system must be taken seriously.
In this incident, the passive safety systems of the NIO ES6 played a crucial protective role. After the collision, the vehicle automatically unlocked its doors and opened the door handles, providing an escape route for the occupants. The pre-tensioners for the seat belts and airbags deployed normally, effectively reducing injuries to those inside. The structural integrity of the vehicle was maintained, with the A and B pillars remaining intact, and the cabin space showed no significant compression.
These results validate NIO’s engineering capabilities in body rigidity design and emergency escape mechanisms. However, this statement has not completely quelled public speculation—questions like “Why do high-end models still catch fire?” have become hot topics on social media.
This incident highlights the complex safety design challenges faced by new energy vehicles, particularly the “flammable front area” issue. The front compartments of electric vehicles typically house low-voltage circuits and motor controllers; are the fire protection design standards for traditional fuel vehicles suitable for electric cars? The practical test of escape mechanisms is also in question: the automatic unlocking feature of the NIO ES6 contrasts sharply with the non-deploying door handle of the Leapmotor C11. If the fire spreads faster than the escape window (usually only a few seconds), can passive safety design truly save lives?
There is also a call for data transparency. Netizens urge car manufacturers to disclose the Event Data Recorder (EDR) information from the involved vehicles to reconstruct the incident, relying on data regarding collision speed and battery status rather than just “verbal statements.”
The NIO ES6 involved in this incident is a cornerstone model for the brand, with over 75,000 units delivered since its launch in 2018, boasting a “high-strength aluminum-magnesium alloy body” and a “five-star safety rating.” However, this fire incident may negatively impact its high-end image. In contrast, the Leapmotor C11, priced between 180,000 and 230,000 RMB, has also faced scrutiny regarding its mechanical redundancy design due to the door handle issue.
Both incidents expose common safety vulnerabilities across different price segments of electric vehicles, indicating that the safety logic of new energy vehicles requires a systemic overhaul. This incident further confirms that electric vehicle safety is not just about breakthroughs in battery technology; it necessitates a comprehensive optimization from structural design, circuit protection to rescue systems. For companies like NIO and Leapmotor, addressing concerns, being transparent with data, and iterating on technology are crucial for defending their “premium” and “value for money” image.
As for consumers, it may be time to ponder: as the performance race of electric vehicles intensifies, is safety becoming just a backdrop in promotional rhetoric?
