For those who have a good take on these Chinese EVs. Please read this article: https://www.zhihu.com/question/639536083/answer/3542708279

If you are unable to read Chinese, here is the translation:
12/26 Update (19):
The new forces in car manufacturing constantly challenge my worldview. One of our COEM (Car Original Equipment Manufacturer) clients requested that the front windshield be polarized, like polarized sunglasses, so the driver can sleep peacefully when autonomous driving is engaged. We earnestly explained that this poses a major danger to the driver and is illegal since traffic police monitoring wouldn’t see the driver. The client insisted, saying, "We want it this way."

11/27 Update (18):
Many people have blind faith in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), thinking they won’t allow things to go unchecked. Strange logic—actions are carried out by individuals, not departments. Whether things are done well depends on the competence of the person in charge. Here’s an example: To rush development timelines for new energy vehicles, some parts don’t even complete the PSW (Part Submission Warrant) process, meaning the EBOM (Engineering Bill of Materials) submitted to MIIT is incomplete. Yet, MIIT still approved it. What does this mean? It shows that MIIT officials lack expertise. It’s understandable—how can you expect a civil servant who passed exams in public policy to outsmart seasoned industry experts?

11/21 Update (17):
None of the COEMs we’ve encountered have implemented DFMEA (Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis). To those claiming that new energy vehicles are safe: do you even know what DFMEA is?

11/6 Update (16):
Today’s shocker: One of our components required an environmental impact assessment report. But since the COEM hadn’t even finalized their design—meaning the product hasn’t been manufactured yet—they asked our environmental team to estimate numbers on paper and submit a report to Chinese authorities. This is outright fabrication. Our environmental team is based in Germany… socialism using money to make capitalism bow its head?

10/20 Update (15):

Client A copied BMW’s design but added a special feature of their own, creating design "a".
Client B copied Client A’s design, added their own special feature, creating design "b".
Client C copied Client B’s design, added their own special feature, creating design "c".
Client D copied Client C’s design, added their own special feature, creating design "d".
Result: Compared to BMW’s design, design "d" has four additional special features. Consequently, Client D’s vehicle costs and development time skyrocketed. They came to us, asking for cost reductions. I said, "Each car has its unique features. Why must you include all the features from A, B, and C?" Client D replied, "If others can achieve it, so must I. Otherwise, how can I compete and have a selling point?" I said, "If you want everything, of course it’ll be expensive. Plus, with four features, you’ll need four types of testing. You won’t make the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) deadline." Client D replied, "Then use BMW’s test experiments."

10/7 Update (14):
To Zhihu users in Hangzhou: Have you seen Geely’s electric car graveyard? A soccer field full of Emgrand models discarded after just 20,000–30,000 kilometers.

8/23 Update (13):
Some outsiders think watching a few videos or reading a few articles makes them experts. Here’s a story for you:
A new car manufacturer somehow got the idea of using a cleanroom. After visiting our machining workshop, they demanded a cleanroom be installed.

8/15 Update (12):
We recently received a serious customer complaint from a new energy vehicle company. A customer’s car caught fire while driving. Our Tier 1 quality team followed protocol to conduct an RA (Root Cause Analysis). The analysis implicated a component from a Tier 2 supplier. When we involved the Tier 2 supplier in writing the report, they leveraged their other business dealings with the carmaker to pinpoint weaknesses in the carmaker’s processes and rejected the complaint. I’ve been monitoring the carmaker’s official channels, curious to see if they can suppress public opinion and avoid exposure.

Other Notes:

A COEM, to save money, bought individual parts from us and had a third-party assembly plant put them together. The assembly plant didn’t even have a barcode scanner, so they asked us to find a way to distinguish between two visually similar parts. Is this progress or regression?

A COEM launched a car model on a specific date. But two months prior, I already knew the components I was responsible for wouldn’t pass PSW in time. This means the cars shown to customers were empty shells—not even PV (Product Validation) tested.

A COEM bypassed Tier 1 suppliers to purchase parts directly from Tier 2 and asked us to provide assembly services. Reviewing their designs, I repeatedly asked, "You just believe whatever Tier 2 tells you? How are you so gullible?"

A COEM originally worked in consumer electronics and thought car standards were the same. They ignored automotive standards and outsourced manufacturing to us but refused to take design risks.

A COEM used non-automotive-grade components. This means when quality issues arise, there’s no accountability.

Most new car manufacturers are products of capital operations. Employees aren’t genuinely trying to build a successful business. Capitalists enjoy policy benefits, while workers inflate their resumes.

6/29 Update (9):
During a COEM collaboration, I asked the client about their equipment’s high-pressure specifications. They said, "Design details are confidential." I asked if they’d conduct high-pressure tests. The client asked, "What’s that?" After explaining it’s an industry standard, they replied, "I don’t understand. Don’t lecture me." I asked if they’d still do it, and they responded, "What do you think?" I said it depends on their design. They replied, "Design details are confidential." How can I work with this? Their response: "You claim to be a top-10 company in the industry and don’t know this? Garbage."

7/18 Update (10):
Many COEMs bypass Tier 1 suppliers and go straight to Tier 2. Lacking knowledge of automotive standards, they place no requirements on Tier 2 suppliers. Tier 2 suppliers are thrilled—they save on quality control costs and don’t even perform MSA (Measurement System Analysis). If you demand standards, they simply terminate business with you.

Regarding Supply Chains (11):
Our clients include joint ventures, traditional Chinese automakers, and new car manufacturers. Joint ventures and traditional automakers take annual forecasts (FC) seriously. I’ve calculated that FC0+12 and FC12+0 differ by only 10%, with fluctuations spread evenly over months. New energy vehicle companies, however, shrink their forecasts by 70% around FC4+8. Since you’ve already invested in production capacity, you’re forced to accept their relentless price cuts.