Another way electric cars clean the air: study says brake dust reduced by 83%(electrek.co)
electrek.co
Another way electric cars clean the air: study says brake dust reduced by 83%
https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/
17 comments
I recently bought an EV and love it. I barely ever touch the brakes and the wheels stay clean, unlike my old BMW where the front wheels turned gray from brake dust very quickly.
Some comments here are looking for a 100% perfect solution, which doesn't exist. Transportation is polluting. Sorry but even public transportation is polluting, even if it is more efficient when its above a certain utilization. Where I live, some buses are EV and it is a joy to ride them compared to diesel ones.
With an EV there is less local pollution, less noise pollution, more dynamic response when needed and no need for wasteful oil "changes" where the old, dirty, useless oil doesn't just magically disappear.
Some comments here are looking for a 100% perfect solution, which doesn't exist. Transportation is polluting. Sorry but even public transportation is polluting, even if it is more efficient when its above a certain utilization. Where I live, some buses are EV and it is a joy to ride them compared to diesel ones.
With an EV there is less local pollution, less noise pollution, more dynamic response when needed and no need for wasteful oil "changes" where the old, dirty, useless oil doesn't just magically disappear.
Is tire wear worse for aquatic life than brake dust?
There is an additive called 6PPD added to tires to prevent them from degrading in the atmosphere, and it has been found that when this thing reacts with ozone in the air it forms another compound 6PPD-quinone which is highly toxic to some fishes. Weirdly enough it's highly toxic to some species of salmon but not to other salmon species.
Presumably there's work ongoing to find an less damaging replacement, but I haven't heard of any.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD
Presumably there's work ongoing to find an less damaging replacement, but I haven't heard of any.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD
Tire wear right now is worse, because tires contain an anti-oxidant that gets oxidized into a compound that is highly toxic to aquatic life.
The work is underway to standardize on a replacement. This time with even more tests.
The work is underway to standardize on a replacement. This time with even more tests.
[deleted]
So it's even more good news. Yet another way EVs are better.
It's not you, it's definitely me. I cannot tell if there is irony or a 'straight-faced' comment that you wrote.
Either way, like always, time will tell. We (humans) almost never 'get it right the first time'. And perhaps EVs have been around for quite a while now, it's still 'a while'. So I wouldn't be surprised if the lobby for "7PPD" (or whatever replacement) convinces us that "7PDD" is the best and even makes fish taste better, only to find out that it causes terminal cancer (see smoking, sugar, etc.)
Either way, like always, time will tell. We (humans) almost never 'get it right the first time'. And perhaps EVs have been around for quite a while now, it's still 'a while'. So I wouldn't be surprised if the lobby for "7PPD" (or whatever replacement) convinces us that "7PDD" is the best and even makes fish taste better, only to find out that it causes terminal cancer (see smoking, sugar, etc.)
unless you are a salmon
https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s...
https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s...
So putting this aside, the elephant in the room is still the weight of the EVs, tire wear is one thing but the roads are also being worn at a much faster rate due to the weight of the cars. When EVs do have to brake and regenerative is not enough it needs to stop more inertia due to this high weight.
> the elephant in the room is still the weight of the EVs
The elephant in the room for road wear are trucks [1]. Cars are almost negligible.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
The elephant in the room for road wear are trucks [1]. Cars are almost negligible.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
A Tesla 3 is 5% heavier than a BMW 3. First generation ICE conversions were heavy. Cars properly designed from the ground up for EV aren't as much.
Yeah but they should get lighter ideally and not heavier because the BMW 3 ICE has also gotten unreasonably heavy.
I'm a huge proponent of biking and electric bikes but there is too bad infrastructure, storage, safety concerns etc that are not being addressed properly. For instance I wish I could buy a Cargo bike and use that for grocery shopping and most other transportation of my kids but I don't have room in our bike storage (where I've had two bikes stolen) and I don't have room in our storage room and live in an apartment. The cars parking take up more square meters than the squaremeters of the building or close to it while the bike storage is a fraction of that.
I'm a huge proponent of biking and electric bikes but there is too bad infrastructure, storage, safety concerns etc that are not being addressed properly. For instance I wish I could buy a Cargo bike and use that for grocery shopping and most other transportation of my kids but I don't have room in our bike storage (where I've had two bikes stolen) and I don't have room in our storage room and live in an apartment. The cars parking take up more square meters than the squaremeters of the building or close to it while the bike storage is a fraction of that.
> the roads are also being worn at a much faster rate due to the weight of the cars.
Are they actually being worn out at a much faster rate because of more EVs? Do we have any data?
Are they actually being worn out at a much faster rate because of more EVs? Do we have any data?
It is amazing how much concern trolling there is about EVs on a site like this.
One has to wonder who creates a fresh account just to troll against EVs. Fossil bots perhaps.
I'm not a bot but I regret posting that as my first comment and to be honest I didn't read the article before it was just my thoughts from prior knowledge. I've been on Hacker News for many years but decided a week ago to make an account.
Still you have a good point, one should be skeptical of what is written by bots.
Still you have a good point, one should be skeptical of what is written by bots.
Right. So as the other poster mentioned the elephant in the room regarding road damage are trucks. And as a fellow biker I'm completely with you on infrastructure, but still see EVs as a massive improvement on ICEs.
What's even worse is we're seeing some relatively-new accounts basically commenting LLM summaries of the article; it definitely looks like a way to "fake age" accounts.
Can't rule out automated manipulation and bots on any social media site these days.
Same thing happens with renewables. Every single article either positive or negative about solar or wind you'll inevitably see the "But the sun doesn't always shine! Nuclear is the only possible solution!" style comments.
It's a pretty natural response to highlight concerns if something is being shoved down your throat.
> shoved down your throat
This nearly always means "mentioned" rather than any kind of coercion. The ICE phaseout is still something like a decade away at the most optimistic in Europe and much, much further away in the US.
This nearly always means "mentioned" rather than any kind of coercion. The ICE phaseout is still something like a decade away at the most optimistic in Europe and much, much further away in the US.
Depends on the gripe. My state has the largest housing crisis in the nation, but also requires all new homes to have rooftop solar - forcing implementation of the least economic scale and the the least economic installation type. I certainly empathize with people we feel compelled to point out that solar energy policy isn't all sunshine and roses.
Audi had an interesting proposition regarding making electric cars actually clean the air as opposed to just avoiding emissions:
https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-urba...
ICE cars already do that in a way, as they suck a significant amount of air through their intake filters (CADR = displacement x RPM).
Audi's filter was supposed to have been more fine-grained to catch brake dust and tire particles, but sufficient legislation never materialized, so the project was shelved.
https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-urba...
ICE cars already do that in a way, as they suck a significant amount of air through their intake filters (CADR = displacement x RPM).
Audi's filter was supposed to have been more fine-grained to catch brake dust and tire particles, but sufficient legislation never materialized, so the project was shelved.
That reminds me of a Louis de Funès movie ("La Zizanie", film de Claude Zidi de 1978)
Air cleaning scene: https://youtu.be/lpmxrgrbKDc (French)
(He was responsible for first poisoning the air by burning tires, so that he could demonstrate his machine to the potential Japanese investors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Zizanie_(film)
This Audi proposal is somewhat similar in my mind. They want to profit from both parts, providing both the problem and the solution. I'm not against it per se.
Air cleaning scene: https://youtu.be/lpmxrgrbKDc (French)
(He was responsible for first poisoning the air by burning tires, so that he could demonstrate his machine to the potential Japanese investors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Zizanie_(film)
This Audi proposal is somewhat similar in my mind. They want to profit from both parts, providing both the problem and the solution. I'm not against it per se.
You've reminded me that I was taught French early enough to instinctively follow the rhythm of the language, but today that alone won't suffice if the vocabulary isn't there.
I've known Louis de Funès from Les Gendarmes and such classics as La Soupe aux choux or L'aile ou la cuisse.
I didn't know the movie you linked, but now I'm thinking I'll pick up French again - if only to hear the whole body if his work in its original language.
I've known Louis de Funès from Les Gendarmes and such classics as La Soupe aux choux or L'aile ou la cuisse.
I didn't know the movie you linked, but now I'm thinking I'll pick up French again - if only to hear the whole body if his work in its original language.
Wouldn't an electric car with good filtration bringing cabin air in from the outside do this inherently?
The figures are sufficient, but only when the blowers are at full throttle. A room air purifier does around 300m3/h, while the blowers eat through around 150m3/h at max speed. Problem is that hardly anyone uses them like that, considering the noise.
Meanwhile a car with a 1.5l engine turning at an average of 1500RPM will suck through 135m3/h.
There's no data available for Audi's system, but at this size they could easily go way beyond 300m3/h.
Meanwhile a car with a 1.5l engine turning at an average of 1500RPM will suck through 135m3/h.
There's no data available for Audi's system, but at this size they could easily go way beyond 300m3/h.
Sure, so maybe an order of magnitude lower impact than a room air purifier. But it sounds like they could conceivably be a net benefit already. Or perhaps once we change tire formulations to be less toxic.
> It turns out that BEVs (battery electric vehicles) reduce the amount of brake dust by 83%, according to a new analysis by EIT Urban Mobility (a body of the European Union) and Transport for London. The study looked primarily at London, Milan and Barcelona.
> The primary reason for this is the use of regenerative braking, meaning that electric vehicles can slow down without rubbing friction brakes. Other vehicles that use regenerative braking reduced brake emissions too, with Hybrids reducing them by 10-48%, and PHEVs by 66%.
Technically not cleaning the air as the title says, but still a major improvement.
> The primary reason for this is the use of regenerative braking, meaning that electric vehicles can slow down without rubbing friction brakes. Other vehicles that use regenerative braking reduced brake emissions too, with Hybrids reducing them by 10-48%, and PHEVs by 66%.
Technically not cleaning the air as the title says, but still a major improvement.
Cars clean the air because the AC filters capture particles
I clean the air because my lungs capture car particles.
That's why I have an e-bike, so I breathe less when cycling/commuting into the city.
There was a study [0] in Paris that demonstrates a signifiant positive benefit/risk ration of bicycling even in polluted air: the effect on physical and psychic health benefits largely outweighs (sometimes to x30) the risk of accidents and pollution disease.
[0] (2012, french) https://www.ors-idf.org/nos-travaux/publications/les-benefic...
[0] (2012, french) https://www.ors-idf.org/nos-travaux/publications/les-benefic...
My city attempts to promote cycling, but hasn't bothered to first take care of the problem with people heating their homes with solid fuels like coal dust and whatnot.
It's frustrating, because cycling during the heating season is not only unpleasant, but also unhealthy.
It's frustrating, because cycling during the heating season is not only unpleasant, but also unhealthy.
[deleted]
Some diesel engines can clean the air, but only if the air coming in is very polluted. They'll catch and burn particulates, and they'll chemically scrub NOx. This only applies if the air outside is very polluted, though
Once again hybrids capture most of the benefit of electricity, and slide silently under the radar :(
Brake dust is such nasty stuff, yet we place schools and homes right next to the rivers of pollution that we call highways. I'm hopeful that we will legalize the building of less car-dependent housing, but until then at least EVs will help.
Exactly. EVs are a band-aid, but the true cure is simply viable alternatives to driving.
Yep. I’m finally in a place to bike to work and elsewhere and it’s remarkable how much I can get done without a car. But the infrastructure sucks and there’s so much room for improvement.
Moving to a place where I can bike anywhere safely has been one of the best changes to my quality of life.
It's really not even complicated to do the bare minimum: whenever there are 2 or more lanes, fence one off with concrete dividers to make a bike lane. Whenever there's just 1, pave it with stones and add bumps, and cars and bikes can co-exist.
Bang, I just made your city safer, healthier, and the car traffic quicker. You're welcome.
It's really not even complicated to do the bare minimum: whenever there are 2 or more lanes, fence one off with concrete dividers to make a bike lane. Whenever there's just 1, pave it with stones and add bumps, and cars and bikes can co-exist.
Bang, I just made your city safer, healthier, and the car traffic quicker. You're welcome.
Looking forward to your commute is so great. Have you treated yourself to a nice bike?
I have a few nice bikes but I did recently get a 30 year old titanium mountain bike frame and I’ve turned it in to a city and dirt gravel bike. It’s super fun!
I do agree, but I'd like to point out that EVs aren't necessarily car-shaped. E-scooters and e-bikes can do wonders in transporting people without so many of the issues that driving produces (e.g. congestion, tyre pollution, collisions etc).
chneu(2)
It's the inverse. Bikes are a temporary 19-th century fix for the lack of easily available personal cars.
Cars are a 20th century fix for the lack of easily available, comfortable, and fast public transportation. It's a shame the USA got stuck in the mid-20th century on that front.
I look forward to seeing public transportation that begins a few feet from my front door and arrives a few feet from my destination, without changing vehicles partway through, for arbitrary destinations.
Meanwhile I'll enjoy my bicycle that gets me that for 95% of my destinations, does so in reasonable time, is never stuck in traffic, doesn't risk killing or even significantly maiming others, doesn't pollute the environment, and is nice and quiet.
You can take your car if its existence doesn't infringe on everyone else having a nice city where people can walk. For that to happen your convenience of being able to park anywhere close to your final destination will mostly disappear, you will have to find parking in a parking garage, walk up and down stairs (or take an elevator) to get to the street, and walk to your destination.
I don't advocate for the extinction of cars, you can have it, just don't expect whole cities to be catered for your individualistic choice of mode of transportation and we are fine.
I don't advocate for the extinction of cars, you can have it, just don't expect whole cities to be catered for your individualistic choice of mode of transportation and we are fine.
The problem is this: If you try to allow a new dense development near the suburbs and make it affordable by not having minimum parking requirements, people object to it. Not because they want to live there and need somewhere to park their car, but because they don't want local housing to be more affordable or to have a bunch of young people with lower incomes move in and want to send their kids your school district. Developers aren't stupid; the reason they're banned from building housing without parking isn't because they were going to build something nobody wanted to buy.
So then that kind of development can't get built, and the bulk of the housing consists of low density suburbs where you need a car, and then everybody drives everywhere. But instead of solving the actual problem, people start trying to come up with ways to make driving worse because they don't like all the cars. Then it's actually the drivers who object, because you're trying to suppress the thing they're forced to do without letting them do the thing that allows them to avoid it.
So then that kind of development can't get built, and the bulk of the housing consists of low density suburbs where you need a car, and then everybody drives everywhere. But instead of solving the actual problem, people start trying to come up with ways to make driving worse because they don't like all the cars. Then it's actually the drivers who object, because you're trying to suppress the thing they're forced to do without letting them do the thing that allows them to avoid it.
So, not stupid, instead only selfish. Much better.
It changes what you have to do in order to fix it. The problem isn't the parking spaces, the parking spaces are the symptom. The problem is that medium and high density housing construction and mixed use zoning are heavily restricted, and the cause is zoning boards captured by incumbent homeowners who want housing prices to go up instead of becoming more affordable.
You can't win if you're fighting the wrong fight.
You can't win if you're fighting the wrong fight.
To clarify something: I feel the same way about excessive amounts of parking. Taxis are much better on that front, and provide point-to-point transportation. I would love to see a fleet of electric taxis forming part of the public transportation strategy. (In an ideal future world, I'd love to see self-driving electric taxis.)
And I absolutely think that paths for walkers and paths for cars should not intersect; either cars should be underground or walking paths should be raised (which, if built densely enough, is roughly equivalent).
And I absolutely think that paths for walkers and paths for cars should not intersect; either cars should be underground or walking paths should be raised (which, if built densely enough, is roughly equivalent).
Yeah, the thought of having to take a few steps is too horrible to imagine.
The thought of taking twice as long to get somewhere with less convenience is not tenable to convince people they should switch their transportation method. People trying to argue "you should not want that speed and convenience" or "cars should be made less quick or less convenient" are not providing winning arguments for public transit. The solution is that public transit should meet or exceed the bar of speed and convenience set by cars.
Let's make things better, rather than convince people they should settle for worse.
Let's make things better, rather than convince people they should settle for worse.
And I wish for flying cars that are affordable, don't make noise or pollute, are safe, supersonic, and magically disappear into a bag of holding so they don't need space to park.
Meanwhile in the real world, you need to make compromises. Having everyone use a 3000kg vehicle to carry their 70kg selves, spends 95% of its time parked, and is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the developed world, is a terrible compromise, so instead: Bikes for moving in dense cities, trains for intercity travel, cars for rural areas, and bridges between these modes: transport bikes in trains or rent them at station, park+ride at the edges of cities, etc.
Transportation is complicated.
Meanwhile in the real world, you need to make compromises. Having everyone use a 3000kg vehicle to carry their 70kg selves, spends 95% of its time parked, and is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the developed world, is a terrible compromise, so instead: Bikes for moving in dense cities, trains for intercity travel, cars for rural areas, and bridges between these modes: transport bikes in trains or rent them at station, park+ride at the edges of cities, etc.
Transportation is complicated.
It'd be well worth aiming to include some active travel (e.g. walking) in your daily schedule as otherwise you may think that you're saving time by parking so close, but you're really shortening your lifespan with an increased chance of sedentary diseases.
Regular exercise is absolutely important. Mixing it with transportation is a recipe for arriving covered in sweat (and, often, rain).
And still millions of people outside of the USA in advanced economies do it everyday, in the rain, in the snow, it's not a big issue at all except for a society which has no other experience than personal, individual transportation.
Might have something to do with that, no? Americans usually bring up these obstacles that don't materialise in the reality lived by the Dutch, Danes, Belgians, etc., while not even having the means to try it out in reality to verify if those obstacles are actually real. It's a fantasy of fear.
Might have something to do with that, no? Americans usually bring up these obstacles that don't materialise in the reality lived by the Dutch, Danes, Belgians, etc., while not even having the means to try it out in reality to verify if those obstacles are actually real. It's a fantasy of fear.
That's why people only bike in sunny countries, like the Netherlands or Denmark.
I had to check your comment history to figure out if you were being ironic - such is the motornormativity in our culture.
It depends on the nature of the commute, but yes that can be an issue. A big advantage of active travel is that it can be a convenient way for people to find time to do exercise regularly without having to attend a gym etc.
Yep. Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. Definitely a 20-th century thing.
And EVs are from the 21-st century. They are here to fix the utter inhumanity of dense cities, and eventually throw them into a dustbin of history.
And EVs are from the 21-st century. They are here to fix the utter inhumanity of dense cities, and eventually throw them into a dustbin of history.
EVs are just a change in fuel, nothing else changes, it's ludicrous to think they will solve anything related to why cities become denser, I can't even comprehend the logical steps you have to take to think that.
Dense cities exist because there's value in living close by to other amenities provided by dense cities.
There's no way out of denser cities, amenities will pool around where more people live just by sheer economies of scale (serving more people with less infrastructure). You still have the choice to opt out of that, live far away and have more space, the trade-offs with or without EVs will be the exact same.
Dense cities exist because there's value in living close by to other amenities provided by dense cities.
There's no way out of denser cities, amenities will pool around where more people live just by sheer economies of scale (serving more people with less infrastructure). You still have the choice to opt out of that, live far away and have more space, the trade-offs with or without EVs will be the exact same.
No, the combination of densification turning toxic (see: San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Manhattan) and self-driving becoming available will change that.
> There's no way out of denser cities
There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker.
Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
> There's no way out of denser cities
There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker.
Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
I believe you would appreciate living somewhere else than in an American city, many other developed countries do not suffer from the same malaise as American cities, being dense doesn't mean "turning toxic", there are many ways to densify a city while keeping it livable.
> There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker.
> Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
You live online, that's fine if you are happy, many other people actually prefer social interactions, meeting for shared activities, and cities provide these amenities and the population to find your groups around. There's no way around that, living like a hermit in the woods with your own workshops, watching films by yourself (or with your family), etc. is a lifestyle choice and you can do it either way if dense cities exist or not. People will still congregate around the same spots that provide access to the activities they want, they will live in cities that have cultural events (theatres, concerts, museums, art, clubs), that provide gathering places for like-minded individuals: sports, ceramic classes, painting workshops, musicians gathering for jams.
You are wishful thinking that technology will somehow replace a deep social need for many, self-driving is bollocks, distance to activities is what matters, trains already exist in many developed countries and they bring people from far away into cities and still there's a big demand for people to live closer to the cities. I'm not judging you for wanting to live like that but you are extrapolating a very narrow view of how people live into the broader picture which simply doesn't work.
> There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker.
> Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
You live online, that's fine if you are happy, many other people actually prefer social interactions, meeting for shared activities, and cities provide these amenities and the population to find your groups around. There's no way around that, living like a hermit in the woods with your own workshops, watching films by yourself (or with your family), etc. is a lifestyle choice and you can do it either way if dense cities exist or not. People will still congregate around the same spots that provide access to the activities they want, they will live in cities that have cultural events (theatres, concerts, museums, art, clubs), that provide gathering places for like-minded individuals: sports, ceramic classes, painting workshops, musicians gathering for jams.
You are wishful thinking that technology will somehow replace a deep social need for many, self-driving is bollocks, distance to activities is what matters, trains already exist in many developed countries and they bring people from far away into cities and still there's a big demand for people to live closer to the cities. I'm not judging you for wanting to live like that but you are extrapolating a very narrow view of how people live into the broader picture which simply doesn't work.
> Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas.
And you think anything has changed about that? A lot of factory companies hire buses specifically to shuttle their workers back-and-forth.
And you think anything has changed about that? A lot of factory companies hire buses specifically to shuttle their workers back-and-forth.
> Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. Definitely a 20-th century thing.
Early 19th century thing.
Early 19th century thing.
EVs were invented in the 19th century
It took me 15 mins to get home 8km away just now. My colleague has a 500m shorter route and took 55mins. Cars are better?
You're supposed to do something about the traffic. Like build more housing so commutes are shorter distances.
More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.
> More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces.
The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car.
What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination.
> The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.
The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out.
But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.
The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car.
What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination.
> The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.
The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out.
But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.
> The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere
Not true where I live.
Not true where I live.
Wouldn't that imply that there should be less traffic there, and therefore it shouldn't take an hour to travel 5 miles by car?
That's correct and it doesn't.
There was a comment on an anti-car HN thread a few weeks back suggesting city centres get larger, pushing housing further out.
Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.
Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.
Just adding: On highways, there will be less "breaking" vs. (e.g.) highly frequented intersections in cities.
You... definitely don't live in southern California 8-/
How else are the Little Darlings going to get to school if not positioned by a highway?
I was living on the 4th floor next to a main road once. I could wipe a thick layer of gray dust from my balcony furniture eevery two days. This surprised me initially, since it was high up and a big garden separated the road and the house.
The worst thing was the noise. When I lived there I tuned it out, but when I slept for the first night in my new flat it felt like someone lifted a huge rock from my chest.
Cars in cities are a really thing to tolerate from the standpoint of people who bear the cost of them being there, EVs help reducing two of the main issues with cars. Issues like space use remain (housing prices skyrocket while there is a ton of empty space used for storing cars while nobody drives). Who knows, maybe EVs can solve this one too one day.
The worst thing was the noise. When I lived there I tuned it out, but when I slept for the first night in my new flat it felt like someone lifted a huge rock from my chest.
Cars in cities are a really thing to tolerate from the standpoint of people who bear the cost of them being there, EVs help reducing two of the main issues with cars. Issues like space use remain (housing prices skyrocket while there is a ton of empty space used for storing cars while nobody drives). Who knows, maybe EVs can solve this one too one day.
Anybody who ever driven an EV, would have told that the initial scare about brake dust was pure nonsense.
EVs barely use frictional brakes, with regen performing most of the braking action. Frictional brakes only really come into play to slow down from around ~5 mph to a complete stop.
And even that can be eliminated by essentially running the motor backwards, at low torque. This mode of braking is sometimes used on train engines as an emergency braking method.
EVs barely use frictional brakes, with regen performing most of the braking action. Frictional brakes only really come into play to slow down from around ~5 mph to a complete stop.
And even that can be eliminated by essentially running the motor backwards, at low torque. This mode of braking is sometimes used on train engines as an emergency braking method.
How does this generally work wrt brakes needing to be used occasionally to not rust shut? Even with an ICE car if you don't drive a lot, and drive in a fuel efficient way (e.g. coasting towards red lights) this can be an issue resulting in an expensive surprise when you need to replace disks long before they are worn out.
Some EVs (Teslas are ones I know of) have software that occasionally lightly applies the brakes to keep them clean.
Also, on EVs with LFP batteries the brakes do get used a bit more, because a full and/or cold pack usually can only take very limited power from regenerative braking. Depending on the implementation in the vehicle, brakes are either applied automatically to still allow for one-pedal-driving (aka. "brake blending", making the difference unnoticeable to the driver), or throttle-pedal regen is simply capped and the driver has to use the brake pedal when they notice that regen power is not sufficient.
Also, on EVs with LFP batteries the brakes do get used a bit more, because a full and/or cold pack usually can only take very limited power from regenerative braking. Depending on the implementation in the vehicle, brakes are either applied automatically to still allow for one-pedal-driving (aka. "brake blending", making the difference unnoticeable to the driver), or throttle-pedal regen is simply capped and the driver has to use the brake pedal when they notice that regen power is not sufficient.
Have Tesla with badly corroded rear brake discs. Software does clearly not help here. It was very bad at the end of winter. Now it’s getting better in spring. I am curious how does it look in autumn. Trying to use mechanical brakes occasionally. I had same story with corroded rear brakes on BMW. The solution was mechanical handbrake.
Which one do you have? I had the same issues with my '19 M3P, all the brakes were badly corroded a year into the lease. Apparently the software to keep this under control came a bit later into the lifecycle, and is not very effective if the problem is already apparent. Anecdotally, what was _very_ effective at cleaning up the brakes was blasting it for a couple laps around the Nürburgring Nordschleife - the grooves / corrosion went away almost completely :D
Now I have a RWD Model 3 with an LFP pack (SR+/"base model"), and have to use the brakes much more than with the old car (that had an NMC pack and almost never limited regen). Over two years in, brakes seem good as new, hopefully they stay this way.
Now I have a RWD Model 3 with an LFP pack (SR+/"base model"), and have to use the brakes much more than with the old car (that had an NMC pack and almost never limited regen). Over two years in, brakes seem good as new, hopefully they stay this way.
Model Y AWD which saw its first winter recently. So the software should be the recent one. Left side is much worse than right side. Quality problem? Maybe swapping discs before winter could save them. Or replace them before TÜV check, the parts aren’t that expensive.
There were actually cases of that happening with some EVs (Chevy Volt, AFAIR).
They fixed it by having the software to apply frictional brakes once in a while to keep the rotors clean.
I have an EV with 150k miles, and the brake pads are barely worn. They are going to outlast it.
They fixed it by having the software to apply frictional brakes once in a while to keep the rotors clean.
I have an EV with 150k miles, and the brake pads are barely worn. They are going to outlast it.
With my cars I just put them in neutral and brake down a hill once a month.
Never had any issue with rust.
Never had any issue with rust.
Works for modern trains, too. I was watching one of the new electric CALTRAIN multiple units pull into a station. The motors did all the braking except for the last few feet of stopping. The friction brakes normally go on below 5 MPH, and are rather noisy for disk brakes. Emergency braking is friction brakes only.
The brake dust from low-noise train brakes smells so incredibly nasty (burning ABS, pretty much) but the operators and OEMs claim it’s <<safe>>. Bonus points for the Bombardier bi-level coaches, where the AC air intake is right above the wheelsets and takes a healthy gulp of that brake dust and smell and distributes it to the passengers inside (because the smell is just as pungent inside as outside a few seconds after coming to a stop I doubt the filters, if any, are doing much). Frankly I’d not commute with it.
Filters catch particulates, but not gases. Heated ABS releases chemicals like 1,3-Butadiene, a small molecule (4 carbons), gaseous at room temperature, and mildly gasoline-smelling. It's bad for you in high concentrations.
Many people complained when VW "dared" to use drum brakes in the rear of ID.3, but it's a good idea, I think. Drum brakes do not pollute (as much), are cheaper, and easier to maintain. In the front, there are still regular disk brakes, and together with regen (recuperation), the overall use of polluting disk brakes is minimized. I'd be curious to see how much brake dust pollution is produced on average in this setup, compared to a regular ICE car with 4 disk brakes and no regen.
I drive completely in '1 pedal mode' which essentially lets regen do the braking for me. I maybe need to use actual brakes once every few days.
I would say something as well. The less noise from an EV changes people. They'll not look both ways when crossing a road and just walk out right in front of you.
I would say something as well. The less noise from an EV changes people. They'll not look both ways when crossing a road and just walk out right in front of you.
As a driver of a diesel car: Sure thing. But driving style is what is behind this result.
With electric cars, your "engine" (motor) brakes for you. This is something that already happens in ICEs though: you can just let the car roll, don't drive in a rush etc.
However, everyone is in a rush: illegally overtaking, tailgating, honking... The conditions and social behavior on the road push for inefficiencies.
With electric cars, your "engine" (motor) brakes for you. This is something that already happens in ICEs though: you can just let the car roll, don't drive in a rush etc.
However, everyone is in a rush: illegally overtaking, tailgating, honking... The conditions and social behavior on the road push for inefficiencies.
EVs (or many of them) teach you this behavior - because you get regeneration back into the battery, there's a little incentive to taking your foot off the accelerator earlier and letting the car recover energy. There's a reason people are talking about this for electric vehicles and not for anything else.
Yes, but you can do that with an ICE too. I achieve 60mpg//4l/100km with my diesel, also with highway driving. It's doable, but if you let your car roll for a red light, everyone is pissed at you.
The main difference is as you say: EVs brake way more when you are not pressing the throttle, before even needing to touch the brakes. It also helps with mileage.
The main difference is as you say: EVs brake way more when you are not pressing the throttle, before even needing to touch the brakes. It also helps with mileage.
"Can do" isn't really that relevant when you are talking about populations. People can be vegan. They can buy carbon credits. They can live in smaller apartments to reduce their consumption. None of that is relevant, only what they actually do at population scale.
It's not even anywhere near the same. How often do you drive an ice car without touching the brakes ever? That's my normal operating in my model Y. The regen is powerful enough that it's equivalent to a fairly strongly pressing the brakes on a normal car. There is no way anyone can drive an ICE car like that normally.
Also, regenerative braking isn't an intrinsic aspect of an EV, it is a feature.
Also, regenerative braking isn't an intrinsic aspect of an EV, it is a feature.
Is there an explanation why BEVs fare better than hybrids in terms of brake dust? They use the same principle, so I expected similar performances.
The article gives no clues, only these results:
> It turns out that BEVs reduce the amount of brake dust by 83% [...] Other vehicles that use regenerative braking reduced brake emissions too, with Hybrids reducing them by 10-48%, and PHEVs by 66%.
The article gives no clues, only these results:
> It turns out that BEVs reduce the amount of brake dust by 83% [...] Other vehicles that use regenerative braking reduced brake emissions too, with Hybrids reducing them by 10-48%, and PHEVs by 66%.
Hybrids have a smaller battery, so C rate limits maximum regen. For example, a prius can regen at 2 kw, while a model 3 can regen at 76+ kw.
Another way to say the same thing: Electric cars still pollute, just a bit less than regular cars.
Not sure why you are downvoted given that the phrasing of the title is objectively wrong.
_7acn(1)
m101(5)
> As it has become more and more untenable for anti-EV propagandists to deny the air quality benefits of EVs, a common refrain from them has become “but tailpipe emissions aren’t everything, what about brakes and tires, huh?!”
What is this website? Tell me about the story, don't argue with imaginary haters and trolls. The writing is so poor there.
What is this website? Tell me about the story, don't argue with imaginary haters and trolls. The writing is so poor there.
When I tried Threads for a bit I was getting almost entirely this kind of content (not just about EVs but these kind of inaccurate concern-trolling bad-takes about renewable energy etc. also) - I think its algorithm was targeting me with it because it was trying to rage-bait me into responding because that's "engagement".
Used to see a bit of it on Twitter before it went downhill under Musk and I abandoned it, but its algorithm used to be better at keeping that kind of stuff mostly siloed so mostly people who wanted to see it would.
Used to see a bit of it on Twitter before it went downhill under Musk and I abandoned it, but its algorithm used to be better at keeping that kind of stuff mostly siloed so mostly people who wanted to see it would.
There are plenty of these sorts of comments here on this post.
So that nonsense didn't even help? Great.
I can't really tell what you're frustrated about, but how can I help? The statement you just made doesn't follow from what I said. Can you communicate completely about what you want?
I'm glad that they address the increased tyre wear pollution. I'm not entirely(!) convinced that EVs only have slightly increased wear as there seems to be plenty of reports of EVs going through tyres a lot quicker though estimates do seem to vary from about 30% to 50% more wear.
(Also great that the report mentions the importance of walking/cycling for city transport)
(Also great that the report mentions the importance of walking/cycling for city transport)
Do you know where the increased tyre wear comes from? I run a PHEV, and if anything, my tyre wear has improved.
This being said, I’ve noticed that many a “big EV” driver will take off from red lights like they’re driving a dragster.
This being said, I’ve noticed that many a “big EV” driver will take off from red lights like they’re driving a dragster.
> This being said, I’ve noticed that many a “big EV” driver will take off from red lights like they’re driving a dragster.
That would be my guess. Occasionally looking at specs from EV's coming on market, they seem to have very powerful engines, and of course the torque curve of electric motors is fantastic. So if you have such a car, and a heavy foot, I can well imagine you going through tires at a decent clip.
That would be my guess. Occasionally looking at specs from EV's coming on market, they seem to have very powerful engines, and of course the torque curve of electric motors is fantastic. So if you have such a car, and a heavy foot, I can well imagine you going through tires at a decent clip.
All else equal, the higher rate of BEV tire wear is primarily a function of their greater weight relative to comparable vehicles.
>>All else equal
That's equivalent to those high school physics exercises that say "assume zero friction and no gravity". Everything else isn't equal with EVs because they make accelerating from standstill so effortless without any obvious downside that people do it back to back like it's nothing, while in an ICE you'd have to drive like a madman dumping the clutch every time just to get the same torque at the start. If you had two cars accelerating at the same rate then sure, the heavier one would wear out its tyres faster - but that's just not how people drive EVs(broadly speaking).
That's equivalent to those high school physics exercises that say "assume zero friction and no gravity". Everything else isn't equal with EVs because they make accelerating from standstill so effortless without any obvious downside that people do it back to back like it's nothing, while in an ICE you'd have to drive like a madman dumping the clutch every time just to get the same torque at the start. If you had two cars accelerating at the same rate then sure, the heavier one would wear out its tyres faster - but that's just not how people drive EVs(broadly speaking).
There are EVs that aren't overpowered luxury cars. They also burn through tires faster.
Also, if you compare two gasoline cars of different weights, the heavier one burns through tires quicker.
Also, if you compare two gasoline cars of different weights, the heavier one burns through tires quicker.
That's exactly what I'm saying though. I have an EV that's only 1000kg and 80bhp and it goes through tyres like butter.
Extra weight because of the battery, I think. Our EV is light for its size, but still 50% heavier than our previous ICE, of a similar size (Renault Scenic e-tech, 1.8 tonnes vs SEAT Leon ST, 1.2 tonnes).
Though the additional acceleration probably does also make a difference.
Though the additional acceleration probably does also make a difference.
I think most reasonable explanation is likely very much increased torque and rather poor traction control leading to common slipping. Which directly wears tires.
Hybrid vehicles generally have less torque so they have less this type of wear. Unless driven purposefully aggressively.
Clear solution would be to limit acceleration of vehicles and mandate traction control that limits this type of wear.
Hybrid vehicles generally have less torque so they have less this type of wear. Unless driven purposefully aggressively.
Clear solution would be to limit acceleration of vehicles and mandate traction control that limits this type of wear.
I'm surprised EVs don't all have traction control since there's already got to be a computerized control loop for motor drive at that power level. And slipping is an obvious problem when max torque is at zero RPM.
One reason could be to get those low 0-100 rates. When actually from 0 to low speed part of that really isn't important in most scenarios. 60 or 80 to 100 sure. But 0 to 20 not so much.
Increased tire wear comes from the weight of the car and cornering. The tires need to do significantly more work in accelerating (the centrifugal kind) a car around corners at equal speed.
So obviously and logically speaking, an ICE car of equivalent weight should have the same tyre wear, and we know that's not true - there are some very heavy ICEs around which still manage to do 50k miles on a single set of tyres without any issue. EVs have instant torque from 0rpm and people use it and that's the main reason.
Case in point - we have a Volkswagen e-Up, it barely weighs 1000kg, it's pretty much one of the lightest cars on the road. And yet it goes through its front tyres like nothing, and that's despite very modest power output of only 80bhp. But I do accelerate hard as it's so easy to do - so it's reflected in the tyre wear.
Case in point - we have a Volkswagen e-Up, it barely weighs 1000kg, it's pretty much one of the lightest cars on the road. And yet it goes through its front tyres like nothing, and that's despite very modest power output of only 80bhp. But I do accelerate hard as it's so easy to do - so it's reflected in the tyre wear.
I agree there are effects of increased linear acceleration, however I disagree with you because of:
On many roads you accelerate and brake less often than you go around corners.
These two things are equivalent on tire wear given the forces involved:
1 corner at 50kmh with 50m radius.
Accelerating linearly at 0.39g (7 second 0-100kmh) to 77kmh from 0.
On many roads you accelerate and brake less often than you go around corners.
These two things are equivalent on tire wear given the forces involved:
1 corner at 50kmh with 50m radius.
Accelerating linearly at 0.39g (7 second 0-100kmh) to 77kmh from 0.
I don't think that's neccessarily a disagreement? Both things can be true - if you mostly drive on roads with fast corners, the heavier car will wear out its tyres faster. If you drive on roads with lots of start/stop traffic but not many "at speed" corners then the one that consistently accelerates harder will wear out its tyres quicker.
Yes, it depends on how you drive and where, however I would note the above: 50kmh is typical of city driving and 50m isn't exactly a tight radius. 77kmh is actually quite fast, and 0.39g is actually quite high acceleration (this is flooring it in chill mode in a Tesla model y). I am trying to say that the driving circumstances where the linear forces are more important than the horizontal forces are fewer in number.
I mean, I brake and then accelerate every time I go around corners.
I wonder if the uneven torque from ICEs somehow decreases tire wear. Or if like vibrations shake sand loose in starts or something.
That should be easy to fix though with a bit of software.
It'll be the extra weight and greater torque.
The original Tesla Model S went through a set of tires every 15k miles, not because of anything inherent to EVs, but because they came standard with super-soft Michelin Pilot Sport tires which give slightly higher grip than high-mileage tires. You can put harder compound tires on that last 50 or 75k miles.
Yeah the older Pilot Sport tyres wore out quickly. I had PS4 before and now PS5 and they are wearing at something like half to a third as fast? Very happy. Only slightly less grip in cold weather.
Please stop it with the tyre nonsense.
The world is burning. Hundreds of millions people are going to die. We have a solution… and you won’t let us use it because it increases the rubber levels in people who lick tyres. As if that matters. So what if there are more rubber particles in their mouths? We can eliminate vehicle pollution!
The world is burning. Hundreds of millions people are going to die. We have a solution… and you won’t let us use it because it increases the rubber levels in people who lick tyres. As if that matters. So what if there are more rubber particles in their mouths? We can eliminate vehicle pollution!
Rubber particles from tires are one of the main sources of microplastics.
I think the point of the person you replied to is that this stuff is comparably unimportant. Micro plastics are as far as I know not even known to be particularly harmful. It's more of a "this is probably bad" type of thing. And I'm not really sure what we're supposed to do about it, we already have huge plastic islands floating around.
On the other hand, carbon emissions are known to cause global warming which will literally be the end of the world if we don't fix it fast. From what I've read it may already be too late, we may already be on course for runaway climate change that we may not be able to fix.
To me that's a much more pressing matter.
On the other hand, carbon emissions are known to cause global warming which will literally be the end of the world if we don't fix it fast. From what I've read it may already be too late, we may already be on course for runaway climate change that we may not be able to fix.
To me that's a much more pressing matter.
However the 6PPD used in tyres appears to be very toxic to some marine life and the tyre pollution gets washed off from the roads into rivers etc. It's the toxicity that's the issue.
Poisoning the oceans does not seem like a good strategy for the human race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD
Poisoning the oceans does not seem like a good strategy for the human race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD
Probably quite hard to detect the effects of that particular chemical underneath all the over-fishing, which is why the concern only appears when people are talking about EVs rather than back in the 1970s when it was introduced.
The actual issue is not with 6PPD itself, but when it oxidises to quinones. That transformation was only recognised in 2020, which is why people are only starting to measure and quantify its effects.
It's definitely an issue with ICE and EVs, but is often brought up in EV discussions as people get the impression that EVs are "pollution free" due to their lack of exhaust emissions. Also, EVs tend to produce more tyre dust due to their slightly heavier weight and increased torque.
Incidentally, a small Chinese study found 6PPD and 6PPDQ in human urine in low concentrations. We don't currently know what health effects, if any that may have.
It's definitely an issue with ICE and EVs, but is often brought up in EV discussions as people get the impression that EVs are "pollution free" due to their lack of exhaust emissions. Also, EVs tend to produce more tyre dust due to their slightly heavier weight and increased torque.
Incidentally, a small Chinese study found 6PPD and 6PPDQ in human urine in low concentrations. We don't currently know what health effects, if any that may have.
The tires that are "disposed of" in the third world and then burnt?
Exactly. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
"Despite the slightly higher levels of tire wear from EVs, brake dust was found to be more unhealthy, as brake dust is much more likely to become airborne (>40%) than tire wear is (1-5%). So EVs create a lot less of the worse thing, and a little more of the less-bad thing."