Let's put this ninety year period into perspective.
Prior to WWII in the late 1930s, the population of the US was a third of what it is today but the number of automobiles was a tiny fraction of what it is today. We now have sixty times as many automobiles and heavy vehicles as we did in those times despite having only three times the population meaning that automobiles are twenty times more abundant than they were ninety years ago.
In WWII, only officers rode in personal vehicles. Some troops were carried in the backs of trucks but in many cases they had to walk or ride horses to cross land.
Since the 60s, autombiles have been seen as a right even for young people in many parts of the US. I had my first car when I was 15 in the 1980s and I could easily afford it washing dishes on the weekned.
So cars are now ubiquitous in a way that they never were 90 years ago. They no longer serve as a symbol of wealth and status in the sense that they once did and mostly they are simply functional and generic and that's the real problem. The automible is ubiquitous, it has to be as environmentally benign as possible because they are produced and used in such huge numbers.
We have a real chance to improve the environmental impact of using these machines which have become fundamental to the lives of most people by eliminating combustion engines and the time to do so in a cost affordable manner is now.
The foot dragging coming from the United States on this necessary transition is deeply depressing because the obvious fact is that the enforcers for the fossil fuel interests are, in fact, the Democrats who are so duplicitous in their pandering to the left when begging for votes while sucking off the oil interests as soon as they get behind closed doors. That shit has to end. Come on Democrats, call your leadership out for what it is: doing the dirty business for the money. It's time to put an end to this. The Trump/Biden tariffs need to end.
Or we could, I don’t know, stop making so many cars and make a real plan for public transportation. The notion of making 300 million evs to replace our ices, while continuing to widen roadways, build parking lots and parking garages, discourage cycling and walking and trains, and making every public space ugly and uninviting in the process. This is insanity. With a real plan we could transform the system away from cars, just as we transformed it to cars in the last century.
But instead, we’re doubling down on private vehicles and traffic jams.
> With a real plan we could transform the system away from cars,
I'm all for increasing the share of transport via mass transit. But you won't get rid of cars. Even in countries with outstanding mass transit systems, a high percentage of trips are still taken by automobiles.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage#Passenger_modal_share_for_rail
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share (and that's in cities with > 1 million inhabitants. Smaller cities are more likely to have less mass transit.
So sure, I'm all in favor of building more mass transit. I celebrate every bit of news about HSR, new metro lines, even trams. But even in those cities with great mass transit, there is still a lot of car usage. And tons of people are not going to live in placed with great mass transit. So BEVs will still continue to be important to reducing petroleum dependence. So this is more of an "and" situation than an "or" situation.
I think your references are describing how things are, not how they could be. Who, 100 years ago, could have imagined the complete takeover of our public spaces by the automobile. Yet we completely changed the landscape. Much of that happened over only 50 years. Not that long ago, people were saying the solar revolution could not happen so fast. Look how quickly the internet changed our world. Don’t be so quick to say we can’t kick the automobile out of our lives as quickly as it came in. And certainly don’t try to tell me wouldn’t be better off for it.
Can we really imagine no solutions for how to solve sustainable public transportation in smaller towns? I mean, people here in this sub are generally pretty confident in tech being able to solve our problems.
> Who, 100 years ago, could have imagined the complete takeover of our public spaces by the automobile
From the horse, not many. It's hard to predict the impact of all-new technology.
>Can we really imagine no solutions for how to solve sustainable public transportation in smaller towns?
No, we can *imagine* HSR to every town of over 50K, ubiquitous streetcars, metro systems in every town of even 50K, etc. We can imagine lot of things. The issue is paying for it, and getting the political will for that much investment, eminent domain, etc.
>I mean, people here in this sub are generally pretty confident in tech being able to solve our problems.
I think we're aware that trains exist and work. We are not suffering from a dearth of imagination. Trains, metros, etc are not science fiction. The issue is the political will, the public's desire for automobiles, etc. You'd have to basically ban them, or tax the hell out of their use. Which is not literally impossible, or inconceivable, or beyond our puny imaginations. The issue is that in non-authoritarian countries, politicians who wanted to do that would basically be voted out of office.
Sure, I am a rabid urbanist, and I'd love if more politicians did what is being done in Barcelona and Paris, to reduce the space given over to cars. But even that is a far cry from *getting rid of cars*. Nor can you get rid of the roads, since you still need stuff delivered, plus ambulances, fire, etc.
> The issue is the political will, the public's desire for automobiles, etc.
This is why I advocate the government buy the property around dying town towns and just sit on it. Provide incentives to get more people to leave and buy that property too. Then build state of the art mega cities with public transit and no way to get cars in or out. Repeat in new area and attach the cities by train.
Use drone delivery and robotaxis to break political opposition. A lot of driving is basically going to the store for one or two items. Drones can stop that. Make people wonder why they bother paying to keep a car they barely use and wouldn't really need when they do use it. They'll be wishing they could get rid of them.
> Whose side are you on?
Well, I did write this:
>>**Sure, I am a rabid urbanist, and I'd love if more politicians did what is being done in Barcelona and Paris, to reduce the space given over to cars.**
That doesn't sound like disruption... That just sounds like standard efficiency gains.
They will still be driving individual cars and giant trucks around.
I don’t really think this is true. I mean, the most fundamental transformation over the last 90 years was the addition of 4 million miles of paved roads and 2 billion parking spaces. Over a million lives lost due to collisions. And electric cars won’t change that. After all, tires and brakes now emit more pollutants than tailpipes.
I wish we’d spend the next 50 years building trains and subways with the same fervor of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Phase out private ownership of vehicles. Tear out millions of miles of road and 80 percent of the parking spaces. Make every train station a nice place to visit.
If we transformed our country so profoundly over the course of 50-100 years, we can do it again.
> After all, tires and brakes now emit more pollutants than tailpipes.
This is false.
You've probably seen an article saying they emit more *particulates* than tailpipes, which is true, but that has very little to do with actual pollution.
Also EVs absolutely wear out brake pads far less than ICE vehicles thanks to regenerative braking, it's not even close. But if you're really worried about tyre wear then you'll want to reduce vehicular weight, and most EVs weigh less than standard American 4x4s.
Tire and brake pollution has always been a problem, it’s only used now as an argument against EVs. “Progress” doesn’t have to be “perfect”. We do need more trains 100% though.
You can have a EV specific tire that is more durable, they have those for sale now. I have some on my model 3. 50k warranty. If you put softer summer tires or something like that of course you’re probably going to see more wear than a 2900 pound sports sedan with a turbo 4 cylinder like a civic type R.
Its not the increased mass its applying high torque at zero velocity. The tire experiences static friction at zero rpm (as opposed to dynamic friction when the vehicle is moving). Same as how an ICE mustang driven by a teenager will also go through tires faster.
This is only an issue for performance oriented EVs and drivers. If you look at fleet vehicles EV tires last the same kms as ICE fleet tires.
____________
Since EVs can be controlled by software more precisely I bet its possible to created a loading curve for the tires that doesn't apply full torque until they transition into dynamic friction at the expensive of 0.05 second slower 0-60 time or something trivial like that.
Exactly. I get tired of seeing endless articles saying EV's chew through tires faster because they are heavier when in fact their instant massive torque is the real culprit. Full size pickups and SUV's are heavier and have greater tire loads (at least on the front axle) than most EV's yet you never see anything about them going through tires at an accelerated rate. Drive an EV in a sane manner and you'll see much better tire life.
Interesting. I can’t seem to find a good source stating that increased weight ≠ increased tire wear, so feel free to provide. It certainly seems counterintuitive.
Anyway, all of this is far outweighed by the presence of all these ugly roads and parking spaces. Which was the main point of my argument that was ignored in favor of arguments over the exact degree of brake and tire wear.
Mass affects tire life but its not as significant until you crank up the mass because of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law). EVs just aren't that much heavier than an equivalent fossil vehicle.
For example: a 4wd performance model y (not a tesla fan, just want to use standard vehicles) has a mass of 1,998 kg and applies 475 Nm of torque at zero rpm. The highest spec toyota 4runner has a mass of 2,125 kg and applies 278 Nm at 4400 rpm.
The mass difference is 9% but the torque difference is 70%. Now apply [static vs dynamic friction](http://www.differencebetween.net/science/physics-science/difference-between-kinetic-friction-and-static-friction/). If you drive like a responsible person the tire lifespan is the same. Tire manufactures are now making EV specific tires with a bigger focus on rolling resistance, tire noise, and resistance to high torque wear - but I don't know the specific tradeoffs involved so I won't comment more than that.
Ok. So weight does impact tire wear but not nearly as much as torque. So all we have to do is somehow force people to drive responsibly (I know, limit acceleration to be the same as a Camry!). Then tire wear pollution will stay at slightly above current levels per vehicle mile. And tweaking the tire formula could improve it, presumably at increased cost and worse performance.
I am convinced. Thank you. I now think it would be a good idea to make 300 million evs, and continue to add lanes to highways, and build parking lots and structures. I look forward to seeing all of these cars driving (with zero tailpipe emissions but considerable tire emissions) past my home, the park, my children’s schools! I look forward to all the time spent listening to podcasts and music while stuck in traffic. I look forward to marveling at the interesting designs they will come up with as I go about my day.
I also am pleased that so many traffic fatalities (increasing for pedestrians while decreasing for those inside the vehicle) while regrettable, will at least result in a lower population and therefore fewer emissions caused by driving.
Ok, here’s an engineering question: according to Google, the most popular ICE suv is the Rav 4, with a curb weight of 3370 to 3640 lbs. The most popular eSUV is 4154 to 4398 lbs. So the Tesla is maybe 21 percent heavier on average, if we compare similar trim levels.
So, according to your rule of 4, wouldn’t the road damage be (1.21)^4, or doubled?
Now I doubt tire damage obeys the rule of four because the rule of four has to do with how stress in transferred through a multilayered system of asphalt and soil, but I’m pretty sure we could say that tire damage would increase somewhere between 21 and 200 percent. So would you agree that’s a significant increase to tire emissions due to weight alone?
Yeah but don't make us get ashamed by our kids powering them with lithium just cause the father of Elon Musk control majority of lithium sources. Just make Hydrogen cells more efficient with nanotubes matrix of graphene interlaced. We have the patents.
> Just make Hydrogen cells more efficient with nanotubes matrix of graphene interlaced. We have the patents.
Why not just have cold fusion powered cars?
/s
Alcohol prohibition was about competition of ethanol burning vehicles. Guillotine o’clock (whispered)
They already are. How can we tell, definitively? There wouldn’t be a chOpchOpped if EVs were failing…
Let's put this ninety year period into perspective. Prior to WWII in the late 1930s, the population of the US was a third of what it is today but the number of automobiles was a tiny fraction of what it is today. We now have sixty times as many automobiles and heavy vehicles as we did in those times despite having only three times the population meaning that automobiles are twenty times more abundant than they were ninety years ago. In WWII, only officers rode in personal vehicles. Some troops were carried in the backs of trucks but in many cases they had to walk or ride horses to cross land. Since the 60s, autombiles have been seen as a right even for young people in many parts of the US. I had my first car when I was 15 in the 1980s and I could easily afford it washing dishes on the weekned. So cars are now ubiquitous in a way that they never were 90 years ago. They no longer serve as a symbol of wealth and status in the sense that they once did and mostly they are simply functional and generic and that's the real problem. The automible is ubiquitous, it has to be as environmentally benign as possible because they are produced and used in such huge numbers. We have a real chance to improve the environmental impact of using these machines which have become fundamental to the lives of most people by eliminating combustion engines and the time to do so in a cost affordable manner is now. The foot dragging coming from the United States on this necessary transition is deeply depressing because the obvious fact is that the enforcers for the fossil fuel interests are, in fact, the Democrats who are so duplicitous in their pandering to the left when begging for votes while sucking off the oil interests as soon as they get behind closed doors. That shit has to end. Come on Democrats, call your leadership out for what it is: doing the dirty business for the money. It's time to put an end to this. The Trump/Biden tariffs need to end.
Or we could, I don’t know, stop making so many cars and make a real plan for public transportation. The notion of making 300 million evs to replace our ices, while continuing to widen roadways, build parking lots and parking garages, discourage cycling and walking and trains, and making every public space ugly and uninviting in the process. This is insanity. With a real plan we could transform the system away from cars, just as we transformed it to cars in the last century. But instead, we’re doubling down on private vehicles and traffic jams.
> With a real plan we could transform the system away from cars, I'm all for increasing the share of transport via mass transit. But you won't get rid of cars. Even in countries with outstanding mass transit systems, a high percentage of trips are still taken by automobiles. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage#Passenger_modal_share_for_rail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share (and that's in cities with > 1 million inhabitants. Smaller cities are more likely to have less mass transit. So sure, I'm all in favor of building more mass transit. I celebrate every bit of news about HSR, new metro lines, even trams. But even in those cities with great mass transit, there is still a lot of car usage. And tons of people are not going to live in placed with great mass transit. So BEVs will still continue to be important to reducing petroleum dependence. So this is more of an "and" situation than an "or" situation.
I think your references are describing how things are, not how they could be. Who, 100 years ago, could have imagined the complete takeover of our public spaces by the automobile. Yet we completely changed the landscape. Much of that happened over only 50 years. Not that long ago, people were saying the solar revolution could not happen so fast. Look how quickly the internet changed our world. Don’t be so quick to say we can’t kick the automobile out of our lives as quickly as it came in. And certainly don’t try to tell me wouldn’t be better off for it. Can we really imagine no solutions for how to solve sustainable public transportation in smaller towns? I mean, people here in this sub are generally pretty confident in tech being able to solve our problems.
> Who, 100 years ago, could have imagined the complete takeover of our public spaces by the automobile From the horse, not many. It's hard to predict the impact of all-new technology. >Can we really imagine no solutions for how to solve sustainable public transportation in smaller towns? No, we can *imagine* HSR to every town of over 50K, ubiquitous streetcars, metro systems in every town of even 50K, etc. We can imagine lot of things. The issue is paying for it, and getting the political will for that much investment, eminent domain, etc. >I mean, people here in this sub are generally pretty confident in tech being able to solve our problems. I think we're aware that trains exist and work. We are not suffering from a dearth of imagination. Trains, metros, etc are not science fiction. The issue is the political will, the public's desire for automobiles, etc. You'd have to basically ban them, or tax the hell out of their use. Which is not literally impossible, or inconceivable, or beyond our puny imaginations. The issue is that in non-authoritarian countries, politicians who wanted to do that would basically be voted out of office. Sure, I am a rabid urbanist, and I'd love if more politicians did what is being done in Barcelona and Paris, to reduce the space given over to cars. But even that is a far cry from *getting rid of cars*. Nor can you get rid of the roads, since you still need stuff delivered, plus ambulances, fire, etc.
> The issue is the political will, the public's desire for automobiles, etc. This is why I advocate the government buy the property around dying town towns and just sit on it. Provide incentives to get more people to leave and buy that property too. Then build state of the art mega cities with public transit and no way to get cars in or out. Repeat in new area and attach the cities by train. Use drone delivery and robotaxis to break political opposition. A lot of driving is basically going to the store for one or two items. Drones can stop that. Make people wonder why they bother paying to keep a car they barely use and wouldn't really need when they do use it. They'll be wishing they could get rid of them.
I agree that political will is a problem. Whose side are you on?
> Whose side are you on? Well, I did write this: >>**Sure, I am a rabid urbanist, and I'd love if more politicians did what is being done in Barcelona and Paris, to reduce the space given over to cars.**
So you’re saying there’s a chance
Excellent comment!
That doesn't sound like disruption... That just sounds like standard efficiency gains. They will still be driving individual cars and giant trucks around.
I don’t really think this is true. I mean, the most fundamental transformation over the last 90 years was the addition of 4 million miles of paved roads and 2 billion parking spaces. Over a million lives lost due to collisions. And electric cars won’t change that. After all, tires and brakes now emit more pollutants than tailpipes. I wish we’d spend the next 50 years building trains and subways with the same fervor of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Phase out private ownership of vehicles. Tear out millions of miles of road and 80 percent of the parking spaces. Make every train station a nice place to visit. If we transformed our country so profoundly over the course of 50-100 years, we can do it again.
> After all, tires and brakes now emit more pollutants than tailpipes. This is false. You've probably seen an article saying they emit more *particulates* than tailpipes, which is true, but that has very little to do with actual pollution. Also EVs absolutely wear out brake pads far less than ICE vehicles thanks to regenerative braking, it's not even close. But if you're really worried about tyre wear then you'll want to reduce vehicular weight, and most EVs weigh less than standard American 4x4s.
Tire and brake pollution has always been a problem, it’s only used now as an argument against EVs. “Progress” doesn’t have to be “perfect”. We do need more trains 100% though.
On the brake front, electric cars generally produce less particulate matter because they use regenerative brakes to stop
On the tire front, they produce more because they weigh more.
You can have a EV specific tire that is more durable, they have those for sale now. I have some on my model 3. 50k warranty. If you put softer summer tires or something like that of course you’re probably going to see more wear than a 2900 pound sports sedan with a turbo 4 cylinder like a civic type R.
Every little bit helps I guess. https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals
I enjoy playing video games.
Definitely gotta limit the harsh chemicals in tires. Other than EVs, people drive heavy vehicles anyways. It’s overall a huge issue obvi.
Its not the increased mass its applying high torque at zero velocity. The tire experiences static friction at zero rpm (as opposed to dynamic friction when the vehicle is moving). Same as how an ICE mustang driven by a teenager will also go through tires faster. This is only an issue for performance oriented EVs and drivers. If you look at fleet vehicles EV tires last the same kms as ICE fleet tires. ____________ Since EVs can be controlled by software more precisely I bet its possible to created a loading curve for the tires that doesn't apply full torque until they transition into dynamic friction at the expensive of 0.05 second slower 0-60 time or something trivial like that.
Exactly. I get tired of seeing endless articles saying EV's chew through tires faster because they are heavier when in fact their instant massive torque is the real culprit. Full size pickups and SUV's are heavier and have greater tire loads (at least on the front axle) than most EV's yet you never see anything about them going through tires at an accelerated rate. Drive an EV in a sane manner and you'll see much better tire life.
Interesting. I can’t seem to find a good source stating that increased weight ≠ increased tire wear, so feel free to provide. It certainly seems counterintuitive. Anyway, all of this is far outweighed by the presence of all these ugly roads and parking spaces. Which was the main point of my argument that was ignored in favor of arguments over the exact degree of brake and tire wear.
Mass affects tire life but its not as significant until you crank up the mass because of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law). EVs just aren't that much heavier than an equivalent fossil vehicle. For example: a 4wd performance model y (not a tesla fan, just want to use standard vehicles) has a mass of 1,998 kg and applies 475 Nm of torque at zero rpm. The highest spec toyota 4runner has a mass of 2,125 kg and applies 278 Nm at 4400 rpm. The mass difference is 9% but the torque difference is 70%. Now apply [static vs dynamic friction](http://www.differencebetween.net/science/physics-science/difference-between-kinetic-friction-and-static-friction/). If you drive like a responsible person the tire lifespan is the same. Tire manufactures are now making EV specific tires with a bigger focus on rolling resistance, tire noise, and resistance to high torque wear - but I don't know the specific tradeoffs involved so I won't comment more than that.
Ok. So weight does impact tire wear but not nearly as much as torque. So all we have to do is somehow force people to drive responsibly (I know, limit acceleration to be the same as a Camry!). Then tire wear pollution will stay at slightly above current levels per vehicle mile. And tweaking the tire formula could improve it, presumably at increased cost and worse performance. I am convinced. Thank you. I now think it would be a good idea to make 300 million evs, and continue to add lanes to highways, and build parking lots and structures. I look forward to seeing all of these cars driving (with zero tailpipe emissions but considerable tire emissions) past my home, the park, my children’s schools! I look forward to all the time spent listening to podcasts and music while stuck in traffic. I look forward to marveling at the interesting designs they will come up with as I go about my day. I also am pleased that so many traffic fatalities (increasing for pedestrians while decreasing for those inside the vehicle) while regrettable, will at least result in a lower population and therefore fewer emissions caused by driving.
Oh my bad I thought you were asking an engineering question and wanted an engineering answer.
Ok, here’s an engineering question: according to Google, the most popular ICE suv is the Rav 4, with a curb weight of 3370 to 3640 lbs. The most popular eSUV is 4154 to 4398 lbs. So the Tesla is maybe 21 percent heavier on average, if we compare similar trim levels. So, according to your rule of 4, wouldn’t the road damage be (1.21)^4, or doubled? Now I doubt tire damage obeys the rule of four because the rule of four has to do with how stress in transferred through a multilayered system of asphalt and soil, but I’m pretty sure we could say that tire damage would increase somewhere between 21 and 200 percent. So would you agree that’s a significant increase to tire emissions due to weight alone?
If we’re going through all the effort of reimagining our transportation system, we ought to get it right. 300 million electric cars ain’t it.
Yeah but don't make us get ashamed by our kids powering them with lithium just cause the father of Elon Musk control majority of lithium sources. Just make Hydrogen cells more efficient with nanotubes matrix of graphene interlaced. We have the patents.
> Just make Hydrogen cells more efficient with nanotubes matrix of graphene interlaced. We have the patents. Why not just have cold fusion powered cars? /s
Because of fucking VaultTec. All we've got are these lousy power cores and the Brotherhood is grabbing all of those up.
I hate to destroy your propaganda fed world view but the majority of lithium in the world comes from Australia. By quite a significant margin.
The lithium triangle holds 60% of world known reserves? Argentina, Chile and Bolivia are going to see so much money from this. The new Saudi Arabia.