Some people who are not Mercedes-Benz owners might react with, What is this all about? However, the results can be seen as somewhat expected. After the fire incident involving a Mercedes-Benz EQ in Incheon, it is true that the brand's image took a significant hit. At the same time, it seemed that sales would also drop considerably, but there was an interesting twist: sales actually increased. Beyond just the fluctuations in sales, there are some intriguing points to analyze. So today, I would like to discuss how Mercedes-Benz's sales figures have changed since the fire incident in Incheon, and what impact this has had on the electric vehicle market. 

Mercedes-Benz's sales remained strong. How we interpret this will become clear shortly. The fire in Incheon occurred precisely on August 1st, and the sales figures for August...

You can see the cold without much controversy. First of all, Mercedes-Benz recorded the second highest sales of imported cars in August. Interestingly, the sales of electric vehicles dropped by 50%. However, the sales of internal combustion engine vehicles increased significantly. Looking at the actual sales data, Mercedes-Benz's electric vehicle sales in August were 133 units, which is a remarkable decrease of 50.4% compared to the previous month. On the other hand, the total sales volume was 5,286 units, which shows a 21% increase compared to July. This indicates that while electric vehicle sales have decreased, the sales of internal combustion engine vehicles have increased. This can be seen as a natural outcome. If the Incheon fire had a direct impact, then those who wanted to buy a Mercedes-Benz electric vehicle would have fundamentally wanted to buy a Mercedes-Benz car, so it can be interpreted that they switched to internal combustion engine vehicles instead.

Originally, Mercedes-Benz was a brand known for its internal combustion engine vehicles rather than electric cars. So, how has the domestic electric vehicle sales changed when considering all brands? The media has described the imported electric vehicle market as having frozen, stating that Tesla's sales have dropped by 18%. Upon checking this information, it turns out that the sales figures have indeed decreased by 10.3% compared to July. The media is focusing heavily on Tesla, likely because it is the top brand in the electric vehicle segment and has had the highest sales in the domestic market. Looking at Tesla's sales, it is reported that in May and June, they sold over 5,000 units. However, in August, sales dropped to just 28 units, marking a 17.6% decrease. While the absolute numbers indicate a significant decline,

It's true, but we need to consider various possibilities. This is because the sales volume dropped from July, before the Incheon fire incident, to 280 units. Some people believe this is due to a decrease in supply. Regardless, sales decreased again from July to August, leading others to think this is influenced by the fear of electric vehicle fires. It's not entirely unreasonable to think the latter, as gasoline vehicle sales increased by 1%, diesel vehicle sales rose by 42.5%, and hybrid vehicle sales also increased compared to July. So, interpretations may vary depending on who you ask, but stating it this way seems to be the least controversial. While the sales statistics do not perfectly prove the impact of the fear of electric vehicle fires, it is indeed true that the growth rate in Korea is slow. This raises the question of what will happen to Mercedes-Benz in the future. Of course, it's still too early to tell.

There are still many procedures left. Many people interpreted the video about the cause of the recent fire incident in a very strange way, so it seems necessary to clarify it. Just because the cause has been identified doesn't mean that compensation for the damages will be issued immediately. If you look at traffic accidents, compensation follows only after determining the cause of the accident and the proportion of fault. The same applies to electric vehicle fires; once the cause of the fire is identified, we will then need to determine whether the initial explosion was due to a problem with the Mercedes-Benz or the battery. We will also consider whether, even if an explosion occurred, the absence of a functioning sprinkler system, which could have provided a critical time for fire suppression, is due to negligence on the part of the apartment management. This is what was highlighted in the recent case of the fire involving the Kimsan EV6. The EV6 is...

Has the cause of the battery fire been primarily identified? If so, then we just need to determine whether the liability ratio lies more with the car manufacturer or the battery manufacturer. However, in the case of Mercedes-Benz, the vehicle was completely burned, and the underground parking lot of the apartment has almost entirely been destroyed, making it difficult to find the cause of the fire. This creates a very challenging situation in terms of determining who will be held responsible. Therefore, Mercedes-Benz is likely to remain in a difficult position. 

Now, how can they promote the 26 as being safer? It seems like a video sponsored by Hyundai. There might be comments like that in the comment section of the video. Such comments are often filled with misinformation, and most people only see those comments, leading them to form their perceptions of the video based on that flawed information.

The issue is that, first of all, Mercedes-Benz owners have reportedly applied for damage compensation from the Korean Consumer Agency. This is when the owners have started to take action. The purpose of the compensation application is simple. Last time, we discussed whether Mercedes-Benz misled consumers about the battery brand, which is very important. The owners have also started to focus on this issue. Some people keep saying, Why is the battery pack brand important? Whether it's from China or Korea, the problem is that it caught fire. This is misdirecting the conversation. We need to address electric vehicle fires; this is a common challenge for all automobile manufacturers and battery companies. It is a fundamental premise. The difference with fires in electric vehicles from other brands is, for example, when the cause is identified, the automobile manufacturer is known as A, and the battery manufacturer is already known as B. Then, as they engage in a blame game, they ultimately need to determine liability.

This is the end. However, in the case of the recent Mercedes-Benz fire, it's not just a dispute over the cause and responsibility for the fire; it also involves the fact that Mercedes-Benz misled consumers about a brand of a component that is as crucial as the engine in internal combustion vehicles. If this had happened with an internal combustion vehicle, it would be a significant issue. For instance, if I believed that the engine in my car was from BMW, and the promotion indicated as much, but later a major accident occurred and it turned out that the engine was not from BMW but imported from an unknown Chinese brand, that would be the same situation. Because of this, I also investigated the relationship with Farasis batteries and shared that information. The largest shareholder in Mercedes-Benz is Beijing Automotive Group, and the second largest is Geely Automobile Group. Among these groups, Beijing Automotive is a state-owned enterprise in China, while Geely is a private group. Initially, I thought there was no connection between Geely and Farasis batteries, but it turns out...

Boni has established a joint venture with Geely Group, and among them, Geely Technology, a subsidiary of Geely Group, holds a 65% stake in this joint venture. The problem here is that there is a supply contract between the two, which seems a bit strange. At that time, domestic battery companies were also competing to supply batteries to Mercedes-Benz but were eliminated. I found that there seems to be a valid reason for this, and I would like to quote an article from that time. Geely Technology and its controlling subsidiaries, along with Geely Commercial Vehicle Group, have a priority to purchase EV batteries produced by Parasis or the joint venture, with the annual purchase quantity not falling below 80% of the demand. In other words, no matter how many batteries Geely needs, at least 80% must be purchased from Parasis. This is almost akin to a monopolistic supply agreement. At this point, reasonable suspicion arises.

So, ultimately, this means that the more the Geely Group sells Parasis batteries, the more it becomes a win-win situation. Among the automotive companies in which the Geely Group holds shares, the global company is Mercedes-Benz. If they equip their vehicles with these batteries and sell them, they can ensure sales volume, and if the market response is good, they can promote the Parasis brand as well. From their perspective, it raises the suspicion that they might have intentionally aimed for this dual benefit. 

The lesson we can learn from this incident is simple: there are three main points. First, the fear of electric vehicle fires cannot be alleviated solely by statistical data. As I mentioned in the previous video, people do not make judgments based solely on scientific evidence or statistical numbers. It's similar to how they tend to listen more to politicians' words regarding climate change before making judgments.

It's not that it's bad; it's just a natural situation. The majority of consumers lack specialized knowledge about electric vehicles and have almost no expertise regarding batteries. In this context, there are calls for expert validation, and the news constantly shows images of burning electric cars, which naturally creates a sense of fear. The problem is that there is also a clear responsibility for exacerbating that fear. There are other videos that go into detail about this, so I think you can refer to them. 

The second point is that automotive and battery manufacturers now need to market their products on a new level. What have the manufacturers of cars and batteries been claiming until now? They have said that the fear of electric vehicle fires is exaggerated, that electric vehicle fires actually occur less frequently, and that electric vehicles are safer. They rely on mathematical statistics and scientific proof, and that's understood. However, manufacturers also realize that they cannot dispel the already widespread fear and rejection of electric vehicles solely through data.

You probably know what people want. What did they say? The content is that the performance ratio is lower than that of internal combustion engine cars. I understand that. What we are afraid of is whether it is really more dangerous than internal combustion engine cars when a fire occurs. Is it really easy to extinguish? Even if a fire breaks out, how well does the vehicle prevent the spread? Can we escape safely in case of an accident? These are important factors. If these issues are resolved, there would be no reason not to buy electric cars. This has already been discussed. Since some things are well-known and others are not, I believe that, following these recent accidents, battery manufacturers should focus on marketing the idea that electric cars are safer and more secure after a fire than internal combustion engine cars, as they claim. This needs to be done properly to alleviate the widespread fear and to make government policies clearer.

There are three points to consider. The third is to avoid electric vehicles that use unknown batteries. This is something we should be cautious about. Almost no one is unaware of who makes the engine that goes into their car. In fact, most people know which brand of battery is used in electric vehicles as well. However, the reason Mercedes-Benz has come under scrutiny this time is that they misled consumers about the battery brand. When the EQ was revealed, there was an interview with the head of electric vehicle development at Mercedes-Benz, Stajski. If we quote that interview directly, it goes like this: The battery cells used in this vehicle are supplied by CATL. We have thoroughly studied battery issues through examples from other companies, and consumers do not need to worry at all about the batteries used in the EQE and other models. Mercedes-Benz guarantees all issues, and fundamentally, a warranty of 10 years or 500,000 kilometers is provided for the battery. This was actually stated in an interview with Dong-A Ilbo.

In the content, if you look at the article displayed on the screen, you can still find some information remaining. In this interview, it was clearly mentioned that the batteries are supplied by CATL, and it was stated that all issues are guaranteed by Benz. Since Benz is fundamentally known to collaborate with CATL, people naturally assumed that CATL batteries would be used. However, a completely unfamiliar battery manufacturer's name came up. If there is no major issue, this might not be a problem, but it becomes significant when a major accident occurs. In such cases, it could take a year to receive compensation or even up to ten years. This leads to debates over accountability regarding whether there was deception or not. We are now in an era where information is overflowing, and it has been suggested that individuals receiving information must now filter it properly. How to interpret statistical illusions and who made such statements is crucial, and we need to consider why those individuals made those comments.

In this era, it's important to understand the motivations and thoughts behind what people say, as well as what interests they are involved with. I discussed related topics in detail in a video I posted recently. I believe it's essential to have videos that emphasize the need for expert verification, especially in today's context. I will explain in detail how to discern which articles or videos to filter. Recently, residents of Apartment 2 suffered significant damage, and regardless of the circumstances, it is a major social incident. The way we address this issue may influence the direction of the existing fear surrounding electric vehicles in our country. That's all for today's content. If you found this information helpful, please subscribe, like, and set up notifications. This has been PD Ahn. Thank you.

"이게 뭐하자는 건지.." 벤츠 화재, 한 달 만에 반전결과 떴다

김승현과 안피디의 자동차 전문 지식 채널

이 세상 모든 자동차 이야기를
가장 유익하게 스포일러 해드립니다.

제휴 및 문의 : master@spoilerkorea.com
시승 차량 지원은 위 이메일로 성함 / 차량정보 / 연락처를 적어서 보내주세요!

본 채널의 모든 콘텐츠는 저작권법의 보호를 받은 바, 무단 전재, 복사, 배포 등을 금합니다.
Copyright by A&K MEDIA All Rights Reserved.

Powered by A&K MEDIA


"이게 뭐하자는 건지.." 벤츠 화재, 한 달 만에 반전결과 떴다

"이게 뭐하자는 건지.." 벤츠 화재, 한 달 만에 반전결과 떴다

Scripts