Disposal EVs? Xiaomi's "Aluminum Replacement" Isn't What You Think
Viral videos claiming that Xiaomi has "replaced aluminum" with a new metal sound like the start of a materials revolution. The reality is more nuanced and, in some ways, more disruptive than the headline suggests. A close look at the 2026 Xiaomi SU7 and SU7 Ultra shows a blend of genuine engineering innovation, aggressive factory design, and YouTube-friendly exaggeration.
This is the video -
China's INSANE Technology Just Replaced Aluminum! XIAOMI CHASSIS 2026
But -
Where the video comes closer to reality is in its description of Xiaomi's 9100-ton "Hypercasting" cluster. This system replaces roughly 72 stamped and welded components with a single integrated die-cast rear structure. Tesla pioneered this idea with its Gigacasting, but Xiaomi's 2026 implementation uses higher clamping force and a more complex integration of functions into one casting...
On the repair side, the story flips. Because the rear chassis is a single, massive casting, even a moderate rear-end collision can render the car a total loss. The structure cannot be easily straightened, sectioned, or replaced in modules. Insurers in 2026 are already responding with higher premiums for hypercast vehicles, echoing similar concerns seen with Tesla's large castings.
Critics warn that this could distort the used EV market: vehicles that are brilliant when new may have little or no resale value if their structural "spine" is damaged or simply deemed uneconomical to repair.
7 comments:
Did you ever? Design is a matter of trade-offs. Gosh!
Bring back the Ford Cortina!!!
dearieme - I bet there are even trade-offs in Heaven. Will I ever know though?
Mike - I saw an immaculate Mark III the other day, still a nice looking car.
Interesting. Car repairs do seem to evolve over time as car design evolves. Many parts these days are designed to be replaced rather than repaired.
There may be no welds in these cast parts, but if damage occurs, maybe the damaged section can be cut out and replaced using a version of current techniques?
Evs though, still seem to me to be designed as short term use cars that won't be on the roads for decades like traditional cars. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it's because the tech has been pushed to far, too soon because of government interference
As for insurance companies, they seem to be losing their stomach for repairing cars rather than scrapping them, anyway
At the end of the day, I'm with mikebravo. Also bring back the Capri
Bucko - it's as if traditional cars became too reliable, increasingly rust-free and always repairable so something had to be done to keep motorists buying new. EVs seem short term use cars to me too. They shouldn't be, but how do we find out until they have been around for decades? There is no point relying on hype.
Our two best cars were a Mazda 626 and a Mazda MX6, never gave us any problems.
The Rebault 5 I had in the late 70s was showing rust after only three years. The Renault Twingo (original LHD model 1992) I had for 18 years just kept going,
djc - yes, I've seen a number of comments from car enthusiasts who say the cars from 1990s were just about right in terms of not being prone to rust, reliable and reasonably easy to repair. I'm not sure when things changed, but now they generally seem too complex and too dependent on complex electronics.
Post a Comment