Modern engines, much better quality than it was years back.

[rwthomas1]

What are you maintaining on your EV? I've had mine for almost a year and maintenance cost is $0 so far. I don't expect any maintenance until I need tires at maybe 25k? I haven't barely touched the brake pedal so far so brake pads will likely last the lifetime of the car.

Around here with road salt and moisture the brakes on Tesla's, etc. need regular attention simply due to disuse. They get frozen up and corroded as they are rarely needed. Apparently this is something that needs to be done every two years or so. IT wouldn't surprise me if "friction" brakes are done away with entirely in a few years with EV's. The tech certainly exists to use the electronics alone to handle braking needs.

 

[tpasco1995]

Study: EVs Release More Toxic Emissions and Are Worse for the Environment than Gas-Powered Cars

Electric vehicles including EVs produced by Elon Musk's Tesla release more toxic emissions into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than gas-powered vehicles, a resurfaced study from 2022 revealed.

www.breitbart.com

Chris

Back when I was in school for chemical engineering, Tesla was still relatively new and so EVs were being scrutinized really closely. My pathway was realistically toward fuel/battery production at that point, so it was entirely in my day-to-day.

One of the big topical points was this: the environmental impact of battery production. Papers were being released breaking out the carbon release for the manufacture of batteries in EVs, and comparing them to the equivalent amount of gas you'd have to burn in your car to recreate it. Papers that were, 100% of the time, funded by oil companies in their research. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it means the data should be scrutinized heavily.

And as part of my coursework, I had to. They were laying out the carbon release from mining the lithium, copper, and cobalt, transporting them, and the manufacture of the batteries and motor units themselves. They came up with a measure for how many tons of carbon dioxide would be released, and then measured to gallons of gas.

To the astute, you may be asking yourself "wait; doesn't it take the same resources to produce a gas-burning vehicle?" And to that, you're pretty spot-on.

The production of an 80 kWh lithium ion battery pack releases about 3.2 tons of CO2. That's a lot; I'm not arguing that. The production of a sufficient electric motor is another 0.4 tons, so the carbon load for the drivetrain for a decent EV is sitting at about 3.6 tons.

The cradle-to-grave carbon use for the production of a 2.0L Honda I4 engine is about 1.8 tons. The CVT transmission standard in most of their cars is an additional 0.65 tons, and on average a 5-speed automatic is about 0.72 tons. The drivetrain of an ICE vehicle is sitting at about 2.5 tons.

Let's rewind a bit. Gasoline releases a little under 20 pounds of CO2 when burned, but there's also the carbon cost of extraction, refinement, and transportation. Conservative estimates are about 12 kg of carbon dioxide per gallon burned, or 26 pounds. If our EV driver is using electricity with a near-zero carbon cost (solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear), then that excess carbon in production is balanced by 85 gallons of gas. Only about 2500 miles of driving. Two months for the average American.

If they're powering their car entirely from the dirtiest coal power plant currently operating in the country, it bumps up to about 9,000 miles to offset the carbon. Eight months of driving for the average American.

Short and sweet summary

Yes, the production of an electric drivetrain releases the same carbon as burning 280 gallons of gas. But the production of a gas drivetrain takes 192, and then the gas car is always by necessity going to burn gas.

 

[Daboo]

@tpasco1995 I like the broader perspective you bring into the "green" discussion. Most people think their EV is green because it uses electricity and never look to see where the electricity comes from. Well, it comes from that outlet in the wall...yes, but where does that come from?

I just read this, this morning. I thought it was an eye opener.

Watch: ‘Juice’ debunks claims that solar & wind power as ‘green’: To make one wind turbine, ‘we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, & 45 tons of non-renewable plastic’

Juice: Why Wind and Solar Make Our Power Grid Less Reliable: Excerpt: “Just to produce one turbine, we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, and 45 tons of non-renewable …

www.climatedepot.com

To make one wind turbine, ‘we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, & 45 tons of non-renewable plastic’

Chris

 

[mortenk]

Around here with road salt and moisture the brakes on Tesla's, etc. need regular attention simply due to disuse. They get frozen up and corroded as they are rarely needed. Apparently this is something that needs to be done every two years or so. IT wouldn't surprise me if "friction" brakes are done away with entirely in a few years with EV's. The tech certainly exists to use the electronics alone to handle braking needs.

I clean my caliper/pistons myself - like on my MC, so free for me. The newer Tesla ones come with a special coating that will keep the brakes clean for life. And pads will last the life of the car. I think it'll be a while until physical brakes will be eliminated as you may need them in an emergency.

 

[tpasco1995]

@tpasco1995 I like the broader perspective you bring into the "green" discussion. Most people think their EV is green because it uses electricity and never look to see where the electricity comes from. Well, it comes from that outlet in the wall...yes, but where does that come from?

I just read this, this morning. I thought it was an eye opener.

Watch: ‘Juice’ debunks claims that solar & wind power as ‘green’: To make one wind turbine, ‘we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, & 45 tons of non-renewable plastic’

Juice: Why Wind and Solar Make Our Power Grid Less Reliable: Excerpt: “Just to produce one turbine, we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, and 45 tons of non-renewable …

www.climatedepot.com

Chris

But that's up the line in every direction.

How much steel and concrete goes into the construction of a coal or natural gas turbine? The reality is that megawatt for megawatt, natural gas power plants actually use more steel than wind turbines at a factor of about 4 to 1 because not just is there the infrastructure of the steam turbine itself, but the miles of steel pipe for gas distribution. Similarly, coal plants use about twice as much steel for the steam cooling distribution, and over twenty times the concrete for stacks and cooling towers. Not per plant, but per megawatt.

Which means the only spot where wind turbines are using more of a material is plastic. And when you say "45 tons of plastic", it sounds like a lot sure, but the raw material is either natural gas byproducts (ethane through cracker plants) or coal gas liquid. For every ton of plastic, you need about 1.8 tons of ethane or 1.2 tons of coal. I'll use ethane for the example to give myself the worst outcome.

45 tons of plastic is 81 tons of natural gas.

3 megawatts from one turbine, lifetime plastic use of 81 tons of natural gas. Let's say only ten years of operation, 12 hours a day of sufficient wind on average. That's 131 million kilowatt-hours from 81 tons of natural gas. Run the same 81 tons of natural gas through a gas power plant, and you get 15,000 kilowatt-hours.

Before pointing out that wind turbines need petroleum lubricants for maintenance, so do natural gas turbines. That's a fixed environmental cost, and using oil as a lubricant doesn't put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (Secondarily, using natural gas byproducts for plastic rather than just burning it also reduces atmospheric carbon.)

 

[Daboo]

Whatever you or I think, the gov't is moving out their mandates and the manufacturers are drastically cutting back on production. Why? Because public isn't buying them.

 

[mortenk]

Watch: ‘Juice’ debunks claims that solar & wind power as ‘green’: To make one wind turbine, ‘we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, & 45 tons of non-renewable plastic’

Juice: Why Wind and Solar Make Our Power Grid Less Reliable: Excerpt: “Just to produce one turbine, we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, and 45 tons of non-renewable …

www.climatedepot.com

These numbers don't mean much unless you can provide some context. What do you get in return? How much emissions etc. will be spared due to this turbine? Building an airport runway costs $20 million per mile. But what does that mean?

 

[Daboo]

These numbers don't mean much unless you can provide some context. What do you get in return? How much emissions etc. will be spared due to this turbine? Building an airport runway costs $20 million per mile. But what does that mean?

"But what does it mean?" I doubt I could come up with any answer that you would accept.

We don't realize how large those wind turbines are. I came across several trucks moving them last summer and I couldn't believe what I saw. The smallest blades are over 100 feet long. Many are 200 feet. The largest are 370 feet long. They have a limited lifespan, and when they reach the end of that lifespan...they are discarded. Not recycled. No one has come up with a way to recycle them, so they are just waste buried beneath the dirt. 45 tons of non-renewable plastic seems very reasonable.

Chris

 

[drbuzzard]

i've had a lot of ford econoline and club wagons over the years, back in the mid 80's i bought a brown econoline from a friend, he used it for hauling his band equiptment around. he thought it was getting old with 125,000 miles on it so i bought it from him. knowing it had the plastic timing gear set in it i changed them. at 388,868 the drive shaft for the oil pump wore out and fell in the oil pan

 

[rwthomas1]

Back when I was in school for chemical engineering, Tesla was still relatively new and so EVs were being scrutinized really closely. My pathway was realistically toward fuel/battery production at that point, so it was entirely in my day-to-day.

One of the big topical points was this: the environmental impact of battery production. Papers were being released breaking out the carbon release for the manufacture of batteries in EVs, and comparing them to the equivalent amount of gas you'd have to burn in your car to recreate it. Papers that were, 100% of the time, funded by oil companies in their research. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it means the data should be scrutinized heavily.

And as part of my coursework, I had to. They were laying out the carbon release from mining the lithium, copper, and cobalt, transporting them, and the manufacture of the batteries and motor units themselves. They came up with a measure for how many tons of carbon dioxide would be released, and then measured to gallons of gas.

To the astute, you may be asking yourself "wait; doesn't it take the same resources to produce a gas-burning vehicle?" And to that, you're pretty spot-on.

The production of an 80 kWh lithium ion battery pack releases about 3.2 tons of CO2. That's a lot; I'm not arguing that. The production of a sufficient electric motor is another 0.4 tons, so the carbon load for the drivetrain for a decent EV is sitting at about 3.6 tons.

The cradle-to-grave carbon use for the production of a 2.0L Honda I4 engine is about 1.8 tons. The CVT transmission standard in most of their cars is an additional 0.65 tons, and on average a 5-speed automatic is about 0.72 tons. The drivetrain of an ICE vehicle is sitting at about 2.5 tons.

Let's rewind a bit. Gasoline releases a little under 20 pounds of CO2 when burned, but there's also the carbon cost of extraction, refinement, and transportation. Conservative estimates are about 12 kg of carbon dioxide per gallon burned, or 26 pounds. If our EV driver is using electricity with a near-zero carbon cost (solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear), then that excess carbon in production is balanced by 85 gallons of gas. Only about 2500 miles of driving. Two months for the average American.

If they're powering their car entirely from the dirtiest coal power plant currently operating in the country, it bumps up to about 9,000 miles to offset the carbon. Eight months of driving for the average American.

Short and sweet summary

Yes, the production of an electric drivetrain releases the same carbon as burning 280 gallons of gas. But the production of a gas drivetrain takes 192, and then the gas car is always by necessity going to burn gas.

Was the cost of production of the electricity, or the gasoline for that matter factored into the equation?

While I don't have much against the EV, it doesn't make sense to me financially or otherwise at this point to consider. In future, maybe. But that would probably be a hybrid....

 

[tpasco1995]

These numbers don't mean much unless you can provide some context. What do you get in return? How much emissions etc. will be spared due to this turbine? Building an airport runway costs $20 million per mile. But what does that mean?

The math goes both ways. "It takes XXX amount of diesel to move the turbine to its destination!"

And? It takes the same amount of diesel to move the same weight/production turbine to a gas or coal power plant. The difference is that it doesn't continue to burn tens of thousands of tons of fuel per month once it's up.

The construction to build a megawatt of wind production is measurably less carbon emitted than a megawatt of gas production, and then it isn't emitting anything once it's up.

 

[tpasco1995]

Was the cost of production of the electricity, or the gasoline for that matter factored into the equation?

While I don't have much against the EV, it doesn't make sense to me financially or otherwise at this point to consider. In future, maybe. But that would probably be a hybrid....

Yes. That's what I just broke out.

Even if the coal is the dirtiest coal in the country, and you have the highest electric rates in the country, an EV costs less per mile and causes less carbon emission per mile than a gasoline vehicle.

Sure, electricity costs more in California. So does gasoline. Where gasoline is cheap, so is electric; see Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, etc.

Electric cars aren't for everyone. There's not enough charging infrastructure in place to make it work. For people who live in apartments, they're not really viable at all. Towing with an EV isn't really a choice with any manufacturer at the time being, and I don't see that radically changing any time soon.

But on the side of "is it more environmentally costly to produce electric cars than gasoline cars", the answer is yes until the cars have driven a couple thousand miles. Similarly, electric cars are more costly to purchase but regularly more affordable to operate. (There are exceptions, but all the same, there are giant Chevy Suburbans with V8 engines that act as outliers.)

For someone that owns or rents a home where they can charge a vehicle, and who is already in the market for a $35,000-$50,000 vehicle, EVs are viable options that don't carry an increase in environmental impact over their ICE counterparts. It doesn't mean that they should be the car purchased, but that they're not inherently a bad purchase.

 

[Al st1100]

22-23 model year
22V-753 / VW: 13i4, Audi: 13i5 Recall SummaryThe engine connecting rod bearings may become damaged, which can result in engine failure. This would cause the engine to stall while driving. dealers will inspect and as needed replace affected engines free of charge to resolve the concern.

 

[Al st1100]

Yes. That's what I just broke out.

Even if the coal is the dirtiest coal in the country, and you have the highest electric rates in the country, an EV costs less per mile and causes less carbon emission per mile than a gasoline vehicle.

Sure, electricity costs more in California. So does gasoline. Where gasoline is cheap, so is electric; see Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, etc.

Electric cars aren't for everyone. There's not enough charging infrastructure in place to make it work. For people who live in apartments, they're not really viable at all. Towing with an EV isn't really a choice with any manufacturer at the time being, and I don't see that radically changing any time soon.

But on the side of "is it more environmentally costly to produce electric cars than gasoline cars", the answer is yes until the cars have driven a couple thousand miles. Similarly, electric cars are more costly to purchase but regularly more affordable to operate. (There are exceptions, but all the same, there are giant Chevy Suburbans with V8 engines that act as outliers.)

For someone that owns or rents a home where they can charge a vehicle, and who is already in the market for a $35,000-$50,000 vehicle, EVs are viable options that don't carry an increase in environmental impact over their ICE counterparts. It doesn't mean that they should be the car purchased, but that they're not inherently a bad purchase.

If you want to talk enviorment impact read this recent study, ev polute more!

https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxic-emissions-are-worse-for-the-environment-study/

 

[rwthomas1]

Yes. That's what I just broke out.

Even if the coal is the dirtiest coal in the country, and you have the highest electric rates in the country, an EV costs less per mile and causes less carbon emission per mile than a gasoline vehicle.

Sure, electricity costs more in California. So does gasoline. Where gasoline is cheap, so is electric; see Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, etc.

Electric cars aren't for everyone. There's not enough charging infrastructure in place to make it work. For people who live in apartments, they're not really viable at all. Towing with an EV isn't really a choice with any manufacturer at the time being, and I don't see that radically changing any time soon.

But on the side of "is it more environmentally costly to produce electric cars than gasoline cars", the answer is yes until the cars have driven a couple thousand miles. Similarly, electric cars are more costly to purchase but regularly more affordable to operate. (There are exceptions, but all the same, there are giant Chevy Suburbans with V8 engines that act as outliers.)

For someone that owns or rents a home where they can charge a vehicle, and who is already in the market for a $35,000-$50,000 vehicle, EVs are viable options that don't carry an increase in environmental impact over their ICE counterparts. It doesn't mean that they should be the car purchased, but that they're not inherently a bad purchase.

Yes, that makes sense. A Model3 would be perfect for my 84mile round trip commute. However I have two 4cylinder ICE vehicles that are in good repair and paid off. When both those options retire, I may consider it again. However I'm not a "new" car buyer, a 15K used car is more like it. I also happen to have a giant Chevy Suburban. But that's because I have 3 kids, a dog, trailers to haul and things to move. Thus far I can't find a better solution, and certainly not for the $12K I paid for it. Since it only averages 7K per year I'm not concerned about the cost of fuel.

I have a friend that installed a 15Kw solar array, whole house battery system and bought a Model3 all at the same time. His investment after all the incentives, etc. was $84K. By his math, if the car/panels/battery last 10yrs, then that is $8400+/yr that covers the car and the electric bill for his house. Thats pretty good considering 90% of this driving is "free" recharging from solar energy. $84K is a significant investment, on top of the fact that I can't cut my neighbors trees down to make the solar work at my home.

I have no issue with the alternative energy ideas. I have a problem with the proselytizing and sometimes very ill informed legislation that results from it. It all has its place. But there isn't a one size fits all solution either.

 

[tpasco1995]

If you want to talk enviorment impact read this recent study, ev polute more!

https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxic-emissions-are-worse-for-the-environment-study/

"It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes"

That's the foregone conclusion of the study. That brakes and tires, per mile, add 1,850 times as many particulates to the environment as the exhaust pipe of a gasoline car.

It's doing the same thing, though. It's acting like gasoline cars don't have brakes or tires.

Diving deeper, the "study" is by a company called "Emissions Analytics". The CEO and founder is a man whose degree from Oxford is in business with a focus in corporate consulting. They are a privately-owned for-profit company that doesn't have to publicly disclose their funding sources. So interesting ground for conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean the actual method of the study is fla... Oh. It's flawed.

"Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions with about 1,100 pounds of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. Most EV batteries weigh around 1,800 pounds."

Okay. Where's the comparison to tire wear in gasoline vehicles? "Because EVs are on average 30% heavier, brakes and tires on the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars." I mean, hey. That's testable.

Again, brakes aren't a contributor. Here is a manufacturer of brake pads pointing out that brakes on EVs last about two to four times as long as their combustion counterparts. The study data estimates that since EVs weigh 30-50% more than non-EVs, that a "conservative" estimate is that they go through brakes twice as fast. Putting it to real numbers, a standard sedan is going to average about 30,000 miles on a set of brake pads. A Tesla Model S that weighs 30% more than a Camry is seeing its brake pads last upward of 100,000 miles in real-world driving. The study claims they are only lasting 15,000 miles because hypothetically the car weighs more.

So maybe tire rubber?

Maybe. The next assumption made is the wrong one too and breaks the data. "As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air, according to Emission Analytics."

I underlined the issue here. Heavy cars aren't driving on light-duty tires. They're getting tires with higher speed ratings, made from harder rubber, that degrades less, because they're heavier.

When you get into the data on it, it's very simply the company making an assumption (not using any actual data) that the 30% heavier car will go through the tire about 2.5 times as fast because it creates more heat. (I'm not going to get too deep into the math on kinetic energy, but let's be clear that energy is linear to weight, so a car 30% heavier can't be expending 100% more energy.)

Well, what do we see from actual real-world data? KBB actually tracks this to a degree, as does CarFax in better depth. What they're seeing from vehicle maintenance history is that entry-level (not performance trims, or else we have to compare to sports cars and nobody wants to do that) Teslas are getting about 40,000 miles from a set of tires, while a Camry is getting about 45,000. 5,000 miles shy of 45,000 miles is 11%. The tires wear out 11% faster, despite the weight being 30% higher, because they're using different tires on heavier cars.

"As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires"

These aren't "assumptions" being used in a study. It's raw data. Data that was accessible for the study, and decided against. It's intentionally lying because there's a profit motive to do so.

The study itself is bad. But it didn't get accelerated into the spotlight until an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Michael Buschbacher and Taylor Myers. I'm sure they have nothing to...

Yeah, it's predictable. Buschbacher is a member contributor to the Federalist Society, and through his legal firm represents Shell and Chevron, also being a paid public speaker and registering as a lobbyist in Congress on the facet of reducing fines for petrochemical spills into public waterways. His job is to make people scared to switch from gasoline. Taylor Myers, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. The only citation on this person on the internet is this article. No LinkedIn match to relevant policy, no mention from Michael as to who the contributor was or what their background is. Just... a person.

The New York Post journalist who wrote the article you linked to boosting this story? Her most recent contribution was an article arguing that Medicare should not be able to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for drug prices; they should just owe the shelf price. Prior to the New York Post, she was with the Daily Mail. Not really the bastions of truthful journalism one may hope for in a career.

My point is this: You can do the math yourself. It isn't actually hard. When you get a bunch of people lining up and telling you that the new technology uses materials that are bad so it shouldn't be adopted, check and see if the old technology also does those things. 95% of the time, it does.

 

[red one]

22-23 model year
22V-753 / VW: 13i4, Audi: 13i5 Recall SummaryThe engine connecting rod bearings may become damaged, which can result in engine failure. This would cause the engine to stall while driving. dealers will inspect and as needed replace affected engines free of charge to resolve the concern.

I just shake my head when I hear about stuff like this. The internal combustible engine made for cars have a 125 plus year history and we still can't get it right. Imho I don't know why people can't be satisfied with a proven bullet proof design. Instead that design has to be improved again at the detriment of the manufacturer.

 

[tpasco1995]

Yes, that makes sense. A Model3 would be perfect for my 84mile round trip commute. However I have two 4cylinder ICE vehicles that are in good repair and paid off. When both those options retire, I may consider it again. However I'm not a "new" car buyer, a 15K used car is more like it. I also happen to have a giant Chevy Suburban. But that's because I have 3 kids, a dog, trailers to haul and things to move. Thus far I can't find a better solution, and certainly not for the $12K I paid for it. Since it only averages 7K per year I'm not concerned about the cost of fuel.

I have a friend that installed a 15Kw solar array, whole house battery system and bought a Model3 all at the same time. His investment after all the incentives, etc. was $84K. By his math, if the car/panels/battery last 10yrs, then that is $8400+/yr that covers the car and the electric bill for his house. Thats pretty good considering 90% of this driving is "free" recharging from solar energy. $84K is a significant investment, on top of the fact that I can't cut my neighbors trees down to make the solar work at my home.

I have no issue with the alternative energy ideas. I have a problem with the proselytizing and sometimes very ill informed legislation that results from it. It all has its place. But there isn't a one size fits all solution either.

That's my thing with it. There's no "one size fits all" approach. Someone where electric is cheap that doesn't have kids and just needs to get to work and back? They can probably make do with a $7,000 Nissan Leaf as a daily driver and have another car for longer trips; I'd say most people prefer not to just own one car anyway.

My daily driver is a Prius Prime (PHEV). The secondary is a Civic. Eventually the primary will be a full EV, and I'll probably swap the Prime for a hybrid SUV because the fuel savings on longer drives are cost-effective and I'd like something to be able to tow the bike with.

It's sensible for my use cases. It's not sensible for a lot of people. And the cost is still an issue for most. Mandates are the wrong answer for consumers, but there's definitely also a benefit to incentives for industry to get them more affordable sooner.

 

[Al st1100]

"It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes"

That's the foregone conclusion of the study. That brakes and tires, per mile, add 1,850 times as many particulates to the environment as the exhaust pipe of a gasoline car.

It's doing the same thing, though. It's acting like gasoline cars don't have brakes or tires.

Diving deeper, the "study" is by a company called "Emissions Analytics". The CEO and founder is a man whose degree from Oxford is in business with a focus in corporate consulting. They are a privately-owned for-profit company that doesn't have to publicly disclose their funding sources. So interesting ground for conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean the actual method of the study is fla... Oh. It's flawed.

"Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions with about 1,100 pounds of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. Most EV batteries weigh around 1,800 pounds."

Okay. Where's the comparison to tire wear in gasoline vehicles? "Because EVs are on average 30% heavier, brakes and tires on the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars." I mean, hey. That's testable.

Again, brakes aren't a contributor. Here is a manufacturer of brake pads pointing out that brakes on EVs last about two to four times as long as their combustion counterparts. The study data estimates that since EVs weigh 30-50% more than non-EVs, that a "conservative" estimate is that they go through brakes twice as fast. Putting it to real numbers, a standard sedan is going to average about 30,000 miles on a set of brake pads. A Tesla Model S that weighs 30% more than a Camry is seeing its brake pads last upward of 100,000 miles in real-world driving. The study claims they are only lasting 15,000 miles because hypothetically the car weighs more.

So maybe tire rubber?

Maybe. The next assumption made is the wrong one too and breaks the data. "As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air, according to Emission Analytics."

I underlined the issue here. Heavy cars aren't driving on light-duty tires. They're getting tires with higher speed ratings, made from harder rubber, that degrades less, because they're heavier.

When you get into the data on it, it's very simply the company making an assumption (not using any actual data) that the 30% heavier car will go through the tire about 2.5 times as fast because it creates more heat. (I'm not going to get too deep into the math on kinetic energy, but let's be clear that energy is linear to weight, so a car 30% heavier can't be expending 100% more energy.)

Well, what do we see from actual real-world data? KBB actually tracks this to a degree, as does CarFax in better depth. What they're seeing from vehicle maintenance history is that entry-level (not performance trims, or else we have to compare to sports cars and nobody wants to do that) Teslas are getting about 40,000 miles from a set of tires, while a Camry is getting about 45,000. 5,000 miles shy of 45,000 miles is 11%. The tires wear out 11% faster, despite the weight being 30% higher, because they're using different tires on heavier cars.

"As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires"



My point is this: You can do the math yourself. It isn't actually hard. When you get a bunch of people lining up and telling you that the new technology uses materials that are bad so it shouldn't be adopted, check and see if the old technology also does those things. 95% of the time, it does.

"study" is by a company called "Emissions Analytics". Last time I looked up one of these enviormental companies it was run by a guy who stated the ice age was coming back in the 70s so a lot of people make assumtions. Sooner or later the truth comes out. It's not the only study that pointed out that it's not as green as the say it is so quit shoving it down our throats. Be honest about it. Let the technology grow and when it's good it will sell but it's not there yet.

 

[Valker]

Lots of good discussion about motors, but how about some more on engines.