Zhenqing Zhen: It is not scientific to carry the full load of large and medium-sized buses

On December 31, 2011, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the “Notice on Further Improving the Management of Safety and Technical Performance of Large and Medium-sized Passenger Vans and the Administration of the Vehicles (Bulletin) Management and Registration Administration”. Asked a lot of questions, grumbled and helpless. In particular, the document clearly requires that “the road buses and coaches with a vehicle length greater than 11 meters should be a full load-carrying monolithic frame structure”, which will be a blow to the bus industry that would otherwise be stretched. We believe that this requirement not only has no scientific basis, but it is incompatible with the mainstream policies of the country. It is a typical mode of managing power and it is worth reviewing by relevant departments.

It is impervious to innovation that has impeded innovation. Not long ago, the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee held a meeting to study the deepening of the reform of the science and technology system to speed up the construction of a national innovation system. The conference pointed out that the most critical thing in building an innovative country is to substantially increase the capacity for independent innovation and emphasize that it must be strengthened. The dominant position of technological innovation in enterprises must focus on solving outstanding problems that restrict technological innovation. Since the "Eleventh Five-Year Plan" period, independent innovation has been brought to an unprecedented height by the country. Encouraging and supporting independent innovation has become a consensus.

The essence of independent innovation is to firmly grasp the initiative of the core of innovation, and master the ownership of core technologies. Independent innovation includes original innovation, integrated innovation and reinvention of imported technology.

Obviously, the requirements for “all road carriers and tourist coaches with vehicle lengths greater than 11 meters should be a fully-loaded monolithic frame structure”, which is inconsistent with the spirit of independent innovation highlighted by the state.

First, tying hands and feet deprives the company of its power as a subject of independent innovation. If the basic structure of buses for passenger car companies can only adopt the “full load-bearing monolithic framework structure”, “autonomy” is obviously only a fig leaf. Under the constraint of power, the bus company as the main body of innovation has neither innovation nor innovation. Space will eventually lead to independent innovation in the bus industry as a big picture.

Second, the paintings are in prison and the independent innovation in the passenger car industry has been pushed into a dead end. The basic structure of passenger cars has many forms and is mandatory. The most notable feature is the painting of prisons, the emphasis on power, and the impediments to innovation. What's more, the "all-in-one monolithic framework structure" is only an introduced technology. However, where does the introduction and absorption of the country's advocacy and innovation come from? If Chinese passenger cars can only hide in the shadow of foreign technology, it will be a tragedy for all Chinese bus operators.

Third, set obstacles and restrict innovation. The essence of innovation lies in the breakthrough. We cannot stick to the status quo, nor can we superstition the authority. The full load bearing structure is only a form of the basic structure of a passenger car. It is not a panacea. The government management department blindly believes in carrying the whole load and enforces full load. It has cast a strong barrier in front of innovation, and this barrier cannot be broken by the bus company alone. . What are the outstanding problems that restrict passenger car technology innovation? I think the answer is very clear.

Why is China not Jobs? This is a very popular issue at present. Although everyone has different opinions and understandings, I think that the most important thing that should be reconsidered is that those power organizations are chasing the “sweeping spell”, binding their hands and feet, and constraining their thinking. Can not be the root cause of Jobs.

The waste of resources has shaken the foundation for the development of the industry. If the saying “Impressed and impeded innovation” affects the future of the passenger vehicle industry, then the mandatory “full load bearing” will have greater impact on the status quo of the passenger vehicle industry. Specifically, the focus is on 3 Aspects:

Heavy hit the chassis industry. Bus chassis played a special role in the development of passenger cars in China. Along with the advancement of the passenger car industry, an independent passenger car chassis industry was gradually formed. The structural model of “chassis + car body” laid the foundation for the development of Chinese passenger cars. Currently, passenger cars The annual sales volume of the chassis is still over 70,000 vehicles. At the end of the last century, some passenger car companies introduced full load bearing technology, which changed the traditional "chassis + car body" model in the production of passenger cars, further enriching the connotation of Chinese passenger cars. Since the full-capacity passenger bus no longer needs an independent passenger car chassis, the forced implementation of a “full-load monolithic frame structure” in the entire industry will cause heavy losses in the chassis industry. This type of recreation does not come from the market law of survival of the fittest, but comes from a paper document. .

Impact on production order. In 2011, the annual sales of road passenger coaches and tourist coaches of 11 meters or more were around 30,000, of which full-load passenger cars accounted for about 20%, that is, 80% used the traditional “chassis + car body” structure. Forced full load, bus companies need to face three major changes: First, companies without chassis manufacturing qualifications will no longer be able to enter this area, production companies will be reduced from the current more than 30 to more than a dozen, market demand and production companies need Re-matching; Second, most bus companies have to invest a lot of manpower and material resources to transform the production process. If the demand does not decline, the production capacity will be tested; in addition, by the beginning of 2012, more than 11 meters of road buses and tourism will be included in the list of announcements. There are more than 900 passenger car models, of which only about 30% are full-load passenger cars, and hundreds of product announcements are abolished, and the bus industry will suffer huge losses.

Increase the cost of car purchases. Due to the more complex technology of all-passenger buses, in general, the equivalently configured full-load passenger car is priced about 5% higher than the "chassis + body" structure. For bus users, this means increased operating costs. In the eyes of the final passenger (passengers) of a bus, the bus may have a brand name, but there will be no difference in the specific structure. Therefore, the added cost cannot be completely absorbed by the changes in the fare. The passengers did not feel that the user was not satisfied and there was no sufficient reason to force the full load.

Forced full bearers, wasted chassis resources and bulletin resources, increased process costs and car purchase costs, and contradicted the country’s strategic decision to build a resource-conserving society. As China's economic and social development enters a new historical stage, the CPC Central Committee clearly requires the construction of a resource-saving society, and should obtain the greatest economic and social benefits with the least possible consumption of resources. Obviously, compulsory full-loading is contrary to the basic principle of building a resource-saving society.

There is no need to describe in accordance with the document, as “part of large and medium-sized passenger vehicles have problems with low body structure, imperfect occupant protection facilities, and poor anti-roll stability stability”, the two ministries require “high-level passenger cars with a length of 11 meters or more. The body of a tourist bus should be a full-loaded monolithic frame structure, which will be very far-fetched and its rationality needs to be further verified. I have two questions here:

1. Which structure is safer in the end?

As far as bus products are concerned, what kind of structure is safer? From the point of view of the documents, the two ministries and commissions recognize the full-load bearing structure, but this recognition has no scientific basis and is subjective. Throughout the world, the world’s safest passenger cars are American school buses. American school buses not only have many near-stringy regulatory requirements, but also have some legendary safety stories. In May of this year, six school buses on the Georgia Highway in the US collided and collided. It is a miracle that one person did not die. The American school bus is not a full load bearing structure, but a traditional "chassis + car body" structural model. Do Americans not know that they have the full load of this structure? Even in the birthplace (Europe) of a fully-loaded structure, a variety of structural forms coexist. Not long ago, the Bus Branch of the China Highway Society organized a passenger car company to conduct a frontal crash test for the first time at the Ministry of Transport's automobile testing ground. The result was that the full-capacity passenger car and the traditional “chassis+body” bus had their own strengths and weaknesses. Bo. It can be seen that one-size-fits-all force of the entire carrier is unfair to traditional passenger cars.

2. Why only consider road passenger coaches and tourist coaches of 11 meters or more?

If the “chassis + car body” structure does indeed have potential safety hazards, is it not irresponsible to consider only road and passenger coaches with a height of 11 meters or more? Obviously not, our civil servants are all elites who have been selected. They are all public servants of the people. The sense of responsibility and ownership are almost the minimum conditions for practicing. So why only consider road buses and tourist coaches that are more than 11 meters away? There is only one explanation, that is, the traditional "chassis + body" structure has no obvious security risks, and it is not necessary to replace it entirely with full-load technology.

To sum up, forcing the full load without scientific basis is a false proposition. If you read the “sense spell,” you can only trap the “Sun Wukong”. Showing power is not good for people, it is not good for you, and it is harmful to the progress of society.