Quantum Architecture shifts current thinking
Quantum Architecture is a game changer for EVs, it was stated on a private tour of the Dongfeng Motor Global Innovation Centre on March 4, 2025.
For, while a 400-volt system has been the platform for traditional EVs to operate on, Quantum Architecture steps that up to 800 volts.
This is likened to turning a narrow pipeline into a freeway and enables a rapid five-minute charge to give an 'average' EV 300km of range.
This was all revealed as Han Yang, director of the Technical Planning Center at Dongfeng Motor Corporation R&D Institute, led the global tour around Dongfeng Motor Global Innovation Centre. He showed advancements in new energy and intelligent vehicle technology and defined Dongfeng's role in the future of mobility.
The tour was part of the China Auto Valley event, which featured auto brands made in Wuhan, China.
Dongfeng has its own range of car, and Dongfeng Renault is an equally owned Chinese joint venture between Dongfeng Motor Group and Renault. It produces and sells Renault-badged cars, including the Renault Kwid / City K-ZE SUV.
Renault and Dongfeng have also co-operated with Nissan on new-generation engines.
Dongfeng has the same 50-50 joint venture arrangement with Honda, making Dongfeng Honda, which is also based in Wuhan. It makes a number of Honda models.
QANTUM ARCHITECTURE
During the tour, Mr Yang used a model to explain that conventional EVs house their battery packs externally, like 'a backpack'.
But with Quantum Architecture, the battery is integrated into the vehicle's floor.
Its thickness has been reduced by 10mm over comparable batteries.
Vertical cabin space is increased by a fist's width.
The vehicle's body rigidity is increased by 30 per cent.
It was stated that Quantum Architecture had been road tested over 500,000km and in extreme conditions, from —30C in Mohe to 50C in Turpan.
It was used in 200 diverse terrains, from bitumen to gravel roads.
THERMAL EFFICIENCY
Dongfeng has also developed a hybrid engine, called the Mach Electric Hybrid DH-i hybrid.
The company claims this is 'an industry-first series-parallel plus power split' configuration.
In other words, it 'creatively applies power splitting to gear shifting', which gives seamless shifting without using a clutch or complex shifting mechanisms.
A spokesperson claims: 'This system can achieve the ultimate balance of fuel consumption, power, NVH (noise, vibration and harshness), and other performance aspects across all road conditions and speeds.'
Engine thermal efficiency is also important to performance and Han Yang explains: 'Traditional gasoline engines typically have a thermal efficiency of around 35 per cent, but our Mach hybrid engine has achieved a global-leading 47.06 per cent.'
The Dongfeng team is clearly focused finding higher thermal efficiency, as in a hybrid this can mean fuel savings and better range. Hybrid models equipped with its i-Control intelligent power management system operate in total electric mode in urban areas with zero fuel consumption, and switch to hybrid mode on non-urban roads.
Dongfeng claims this has resulted in a range of more than 2000km for a hybrid car with a Mach engine.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLES
Can an intelligent vehicle 'understand its driver'?
Mr Yang says: 'If a car were a human body, the engine and wheels would be its limbs, while Tianyuan Architecture serves as its nervous system and brain.'
Tianyuan Architecture is Dongfeng's vehicle communication system, which uses fibre-optic transmission.
Tianyuan Architecture is designed as a solid foundation for AI, intelligent-driving systems, and vehicle-road-cloud integration.
A key feature is that the platform has 'self-evolution capabilities' — meaning it can 'learn' and improve. And I must mention that in September 2024, Dongfeng Motor's R&D Institute announced that it had established a Joint Innovation Center for Intelligent Vehicle Control in conjunction with Huawei's Qiankun Automotive Control unit.
Dongfeng's intelligent cockpit prioritises emotional interaction.
On one hand, if a driver seems tired after work, the system will dims the lights, play relaxing music and release a lavender scent.
On the other, it can handle complex scenarios, such as the night-time glare from oncoming headlights or pedestrians stepping out. If someone steps from a blind spot, the system can detect, decide and brake within 0.02 seconds.
That 'vehicle-road-cloud integration' is focused on interaction between vehicles and infrastructure. For example, it can warn a driver about an accident ahead, and can syncing to traffic signals and pass that information to the driver, to reduce sudden braking. These systems are already being used in some cities in China.
with Changjiang Daily
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
6 hours ago
- The Age
‘China has Apple by the balls': How the rising superpower captured the tech giant
This story is part of the June 14 edition of Good Weekend. See all 14 stories. Investigative journalist Patrick McGee describes it as the biggest untold story of technology in the 21st century: how, over decades of jaw-dropping investment in China, Apple became one of the world's biggest companies – but in the process helped China become a technology and manufacturing superpower. That power is now being used to challenge the West. You've said that Apple wouldn't be Apple today without China. And China wouldn't be China without Apple. How so? By 2015, Apple was investing $55 billion a year into China, and a lot of that was in training people to assemble iPhones, iMacs and other Apple products – by [Apple CEO] Tim Cook's public estimate, 3 million people were trained. Apple sent planeloads of its best engineers – from MIT, Caltech and Stanford – to train the Chinese on how to produce their products. Overall, it has trained 28 million people in its supply chain since 2008. That's bigger than the labour force of California or the population of Australia. It has had more impact on China than the Marshall Plan on Europe after World War II. In 1999, none of Apple's products was made in mainland China; by 2009, virtually all were, and company profits shot into the stratosphere as a result. Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1996 but within a decade became the richest company on Earth, thanks to sales of its iPhone and iPad. What did China offer that no other country could? China has policies and a population base tailor-made for the electronics industry. They created bonded zones [places offering generous tax breaks and streamlined customs procedures to attract foreign investment] in cities like Shenzhen. Back in the 1980s, Shenzhen was a series of fishing villages. Today, it's a city of 18 million people. We in the West don't understand how easy it is to build a factory in an area like Shenzhen. The government provides you with the labour from the western part of the country, where literally millions are leaving backbreaking agricultural jobs to work 12-hour shifts in factories. Businesses get free land and cutting-edge machinery. Local cadres in the political system are incentivised to build factories and get growth from their region. The bureaucracy is shaped to be more like a venture capitalist. China has invented a new form of capitalism, where instead of having dynamism in the private sector, it's on the public side. 'Apple provided China with the Ivy League equivalent of a hardware engineering education.' You write that Apple essentially cracked the code on how to manufacture the world's best products without doing it itself. In the early 2000s, Apple was figuring out how to manufacture their products in China without owning any of the factories. It was about orchestrating the production of the products rather than building them themselves. But the orchestration they've done is just phenomenally obsessive. This isn't normal outsourcing. They're not just saying, 'Here's a blueprint of what we need; let us know when it's ready.' They're inventing the processes, the components. So by bringing all its technological expertise and sophisticated production methods to China, Apple taught the Chinese how to develop high-level manufacturing … Indeed. Jony Ive [instrumental in the design of the iPhone, iPad, iMac and Apple Watch] came up with some spectacular-looking products. But the only way those designs came into large-scale reality was that China was investing massively in supply chains, in infrastructure and in ports. And as one engineer told me, Apple provided China with the Ivy League equivalent of a hardware engineering education. Because Apple is epic, the technology transfer is also epic. Loading US Vice President J.D. Vance has very patronisingly reduced the Chinese competitive advantage to its having 'millions of peasants' available to work in factories. But its economy has moved far beyond just low-cost labour producing cheaper products, hasn't it? Yes and no. China has robotics and automation on a scale we [the United States] completely lack. But hundreds of millions of people still live in impoverishment, and go to cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou to work in factories. China has the capacity to move an entire Western city's worth of people, say, up to 500,000, who are willing to relocate for a few months at a time to assemble iPhones and then go someplace else. We have nothing like that. Even if it could, we in the West wouldn't want that to change, because that's not what anybody really wants to do with their life.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘China has Apple by the balls': How the rising superpower captured the tech giant
This story is part of the June 14 edition of Good Weekend. See all 14 stories. Investigative journalist Patrick McGee describes it as the biggest untold story of technology in the 21st century: how, over decades of jaw-dropping investment in China, Apple became one of the world's biggest companies – but in the process helped China become a technology and manufacturing superpower. That power is now being used to challenge the West. You've said that Apple wouldn't be Apple today without China. And China wouldn't be China without Apple. How so? By 2015, Apple was investing $55 billion a year into China, and a lot of that was in training people to assemble iPhones, iMacs and other Apple products – by [Apple CEO] Tim Cook's public estimate, 3 million people were trained. Apple sent planeloads of its best engineers – from MIT, Caltech and Stanford – to train the Chinese on how to produce their products. Overall, it has trained 28 million people in its supply chain since 2008. That's bigger than the labour force of California or the population of Australia. It has had more impact on China than the Marshall Plan on Europe after World War II. In 1999, none of Apple's products was made in mainland China; by 2009, virtually all were, and company profits shot into the stratosphere as a result. Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1996 but within a decade became the richest company on Earth, thanks to sales of its iPhone and iPad. What did China offer that no other country could? China has policies and a population base tailor-made for the electronics industry. They created bonded zones [places offering generous tax breaks and streamlined customs procedures to attract foreign investment] in cities like Shenzhen. Back in the 1980s, Shenzhen was a series of fishing villages. Today, it's a city of 18 million people. We in the West don't understand how easy it is to build a factory in an area like Shenzhen. The government provides you with the labour from the western part of the country, where literally millions are leaving backbreaking agricultural jobs to work 12-hour shifts in factories. Businesses get free land and cutting-edge machinery. Local cadres in the political system are incentivised to build factories and get growth from their region. The bureaucracy is shaped to be more like a venture capitalist. China has invented a new form of capitalism, where instead of having dynamism in the private sector, it's on the public side. 'Apple provided China with the Ivy League equivalent of a hardware engineering education.' You write that Apple essentially cracked the code on how to manufacture the world's best products without doing it itself. In the early 2000s, Apple was figuring out how to manufacture their products in China without owning any of the factories. It was about orchestrating the production of the products rather than building them themselves. But the orchestration they've done is just phenomenally obsessive. This isn't normal outsourcing. They're not just saying, 'Here's a blueprint of what we need; let us know when it's ready.' They're inventing the processes, the components. So by bringing all its technological expertise and sophisticated production methods to China, Apple taught the Chinese how to develop high-level manufacturing … Indeed. Jony Ive [instrumental in the design of the iPhone, iPad, iMac and Apple Watch] came up with some spectacular-looking products. But the only way those designs came into large-scale reality was that China was investing massively in supply chains, in infrastructure and in ports. And as one engineer told me, Apple provided China with the Ivy League equivalent of a hardware engineering education. Because Apple is epic, the technology transfer is also epic. Loading US Vice President J.D. Vance has very patronisingly reduced the Chinese competitive advantage to its having 'millions of peasants' available to work in factories. But its economy has moved far beyond just low-cost labour producing cheaper products, hasn't it? Yes and no. China has robotics and automation on a scale we [the United States] completely lack. But hundreds of millions of people still live in impoverishment, and go to cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou to work in factories. China has the capacity to move an entire Western city's worth of people, say, up to 500,000, who are willing to relocate for a few months at a time to assemble iPhones and then go someplace else. We have nothing like that. Even if it could, we in the West wouldn't want that to change, because that's not what anybody really wants to do with their life.
Sydney Morning Herald
18 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Crown started as a high rollers' casino and should not become an RSL
After the federal government streamlined visas for Chinese citizens to gamble in Australian casinos, NSW governments were happy to allow casino group Crown Resorts to prey on high rollers from the Mainland so long as they stayed away from the locals. The Herald cautiously supported an invitation-only casino with no poker machines and no access for the general public on the eve of the original Packer-Crown casino being approved in 2013. We considered the high rollers option the best chance to capitalise on gambling tourism without changing the vibe of the city or exploiting Sydneysiders. But the Chinese vanished and in a breach of faith, Crown has gambled irresponsibly on going after our most vulnerable players. In an exclusive story, the Herald's Harriet Alexander this week revealed Crown Resorts executives are lobbying Minns government MPs, the opposition and crossbenchers to support a company proposal to install 500 cashless poker machines at Barangaroo. This time Crown is preying on other NSW gambling venues, hoping to remove 500 cash poker machines and installing a similar number of cashless poker machines under the specious claim of proving the new technology works. There may be an argument that relocating in a highly regulated casino could be a better outcome. But the issue facing NSW is to reduce poker machine numbers, not move them around between venues. Loading Crown's sleight of hand on poker machines treats the people of NSW with contempt and ignores the important principle at stake: the casino was licensed on a promise of no poker machines. Now, behind closed doors Crown has chosen to break that promise. Premier Chris Minns on Friday ruled out changing legislation to permit Crown Resorts to offer poker machines at Barangaroo. Importantly, he did not say how Labor would vote should a crossbencher introduce such a bill. But the revelations emerged the same day as a damning audit of gambling regulations in NSW by the auditor-general found that it would take 55 years for NSW to reduce its poker machine numbers to the national average at the current rate, and that the government had no targets to reduce gambling harm. NSW had 87,749 poker machines operating across 2000 venues in 2023-24, and they generated a profit of $8.4 billion, which the auditor-general took as the best measure of loss to patrons. They accounted for half the machines operating in Australia.
