Yeah, make them out of metal, that rolls on metal roads. And those metal tires can carry a ton more weight, so put a lot of people in them who are going the same way.
Oh right, we already have those.
Noooo, you don’t get it, bro. Just one more lane, please. I promise, it will be better than last time. One more lane, that’s all we need. I’m begging you, please.
I’m on my knees here. One more lane, just one more! This time it will be different, I swear. We won’t have traffic jams, I promise! Just one more lane and we’ll be free.
Come on, man, think of the children. Just one more lane. I’m begging you. For the love of liberty, just one more lane!
Though “those” are wildly inaccessible and/or unrealistic in parts of the world.
Edit: I was trying to say “unrealistic to use for most people today,” I wasn’t trying to brush off public transportation as something we shouldn’t do at all
That’s a policy issue, not one of engineering or physical constraints.
No, there are definitely physical and engineering issues, like massive rolling mountains and valleys, or island chains or deserts whose sand is unsuitable to durable railways.
You know that Switzerland, a country in the literal Alps, has one of the best train infrastructures on Earth?
As the other comment said, of course there are fringe cases. There shouldn’t even be a city in Dubai, let alone trains getting there, but fortunately, most cities on earth are in accessible places because, well, otherwise why would thousands upon thousands of people go there.
Those are Edge Case. There will almost always be edge cases where we have engineering or physical constraints, but we have solutions for almost all individual trips.
deleted by creator
Agreed, I updated my comment for clarity.
Definitely realistic, just not as profitable for rich billionaires.
Agreed, I edited my comment for clarity.
Adam, is that you? 😉
Hah!
¿Por qué no los dos?
Any economical ways to run farms on rail? A lot of the roads where I have lived were just built and paid for by famers to move equipment between pay dirt and make their way to town occasionally
Do we? Sounds too futuristic. Not as futuristic as linking these megacars together.
Did tech bros just reinvent the concept of trains?
Hot take: tire particulates are a conservative anti-EV talking point. “My V8 mustang weighs less than an EV, therefore its better on pollution than a EV because tire particulates”. Totally disregarding the impact of tailpipe emissions.
deleted by creator
!fuckcars@lemmy.world material
I think it’s just reminding people that EVs aren’t a panacea to all our issues with transportation, and they actually exacerbates at least one of those issues. This is while we know there are better solutions for >90% of our personal transportation with public transportation, bicycling, walking, micro-mobility, etc. Moving one or two people around with a multi-tonne machine is insanely inefficient!
Exacerbate = the rare minerals issue?
No it’s not, because conservatives don’t think micro plastics are a problem. Pretty soon there will be truck bros making tiktoks competing to see how quickly they can destroy a set of tires just to “trigger the libs”.
Anecdotally, so far I’ve noticed cars getting louder
I saw a thing on some US people welding fucking whistles in their car’s exhausts so that they could annoy as many people as possible. Apparently it’s legal in some places there.
The whistles go woooooo!
They’re loud because of safety reasons!! /s
One person I know claimed to have run calculations, and found that the tire dust alone was putting out more pollution than the tires and tailpipe of the average gas car. Idk where they got their numbers or how that could work out, since the average gas car in America is a large truck.
It could be true. Catalytic converters do a pretty good job of filtering out most pollutants. They also increase CO2 emissions in a variety of direct and indirect ways. Everything else is lower, though.
The way to make EV tires pollute less is to not chase 600+ mile range. Keep them around 300-400 miles, and use further battery improvements to reduce weight. There’s no reason EVs have to be heavier forever. With better charging infrastructure, 400 miles is more than enough.
The way to fix everything else wrong with them is to not make cars the default mode of transportation.
The way to fix everything else wrong with them is to not make cars the default mode of transportation.
Say it again louder for the folks in the back!
The “everything else” wrong with cars dwarfs the issue of pollution. Cars being the default mode of transportation is ultimately responsible for everything from obesity to the housing crisis!
There’s no reason EVs have to be heavier forever
That’s a bit of a stretch, unfortunately. The energy density of batteries is nowhere close to that of gasoline - joule for joule, gasoline weighs about 100 times less than batteries. Also, a fuel tank big enough to give its vehicle a 400 mile range will get lighter over the course of the trip, as the liquid fuel gets converted into polluting gas and exhausted into the atmosphere - batteries don’t get appreciably lighter as you discharge them.
Agree that 400 miles range with charging stations as ubiquitous as today’s gas stations would help EV adoption. I do worry about the rollout of charging stations being slowed down by competition with expensive and fragile hydrogen tech (keep the hydrogen on boats and trains pls).
Hardly a stretch. The comparison isn’t to the power density of gas, but overall curb weight. EVs are roughly 10% heavier than an ICE equivalent. Batteries are the main reason for that (electric motors and the electronics to support them aren’t that much). Batteries have also been improving Wh/kg by 5-8% per year. It only takes a few years of improvements to get there.
In fact, since the 10% number has been the case since around 2020 or so, the battery tech might already be there and we just need to get them into new models.
Edit: another way to think about it is what’s been taken out of an ICE and replaced with something else. It’s not just the engine, but an entire engine life support system. Coolant radiator, oil, transmission, gas tank, and ignition system. Possibly differentials, as well, depending on the electric drive train. It’s replaced with motors (which don’t weigh much for the power they output compared to ICEs), some electronics (which do need to be beefy to handle the current involved, but also don’t weigh that much, relatively speaking), the battery (major source of weight), and the battery does usually need a cooling system, as well. So you don’t need to compare it to the energy density of gas, but of all the stuff you replaced.
expensive and fragile hydrogen tech (keep the hydrogen on boats and trains pls).
Frankly, I’m skeptical that hydrogen belongs anywhere.
Also, trains have no excuse to be anything other than electric! If you’re spending the money building the track in the first place, it’s really not that much extra cost to put up overheard wires too.
Hydrogen is probably going to get pushed out of every niche where it might be viable. Batteries tend to get better by 5-8% per year, and there’s every reason to believe that will continue to be the case. Run that forward for another decade or so, and even things like heavy construction equipment and transpacific airplanes are viable on battery power.
It’s a waste of time and money at this point.
Considering that the vast majority of hydrogen isn’t even “green hydrogen” (produced from electrolysis) but rather “grey” or “blue” (produced from cracking hydrocarbons), I don’t think it was anything more than a straight-up greenwashing scam in the first place. Even the niches where people claim hydrogen is suitable (long-haul trips without battery charging infrastructure) would be better off just burning the damn hydrocarbon as-is to begin with!
Even in the best-case scenario – “green hydrogen” produced from electrolysis – I think it would be better to immediately (at the point of production) combine it with CO2 pulled from the atmosphere to make synthetic gasoline and then handle that with our existing ICE vehicles and infrastructure. It’s just so impractical to store hydrogen (since it’s so small it leaks through everything, yet so low-density that it requires either extremely high pressures or cryogenic temperatures to fit enough of it in a reasonable amount of space) that it’s simply not worth the effort.
It seems pretty obvious, but also, it would be nice to see improvements in this area.
What kind of backhanded EV misinformation bullshit is this?
Electric, gas, petrol, hydrogen, diesel, cooking oil or vodka; what you put in your car to make it go makes no difference to the tires or the wear.
From the article:
In an EV era, tires are becoming the greatest emitters of particulate matter
The point being that electric drops tailpipe emissions to zero, making tires the next target for reducing emissions.
That sentence and headline are completely wrong though. Tires already are one of the greatest emitters of particulate matter even with ICE cars in mind, because this is a general car issue and cannot really be directly resolved. An improvement would be less weight. If cars were smaller and consequently lighter, then they’d pollute less. But unfortunately we are still going the opposite direction and cars are still getting fatter and fatter, just like the people driving them.
tires need to be made of non-toxic materials. like mushroom/algae, etc.
then brake dust is next.
Brake dust is pretty well-mitigated by EVs too, on account of regenerative breaking.
That explanation is fair enough but the headline is red meat the the EV disinformation brigade.
That explanation is fair enough but the headline is red meat the the EV disinformation brigade.
It’s funny how words affect people differently.
Not long ago, I posted a short, precisely-stated comment mentioning an observed fact that I had verified with a relevant authority. When I later checked in, I was surprised to find someone accusing me of spreading misinformation, and my comment removed by a moderator. It was clear that my accuser had badly misinterpreted my words. He refused to admit it or accept clarification. (And the mod had already acted, rashly.)
I re-checked what I had written about twenty times over the course of the day. There was nothing there to support the accusation. My best guess is that my phrasing or the subject matter might have touched on rough emotions from a bad experience, leading him to see what he expected to see instead of what I wrote, and triggering attack mode.
Communicating well really is complicated. It takes work on both sides, and can quickly turn into a bad time if it goes off the rails.
Because of this, I’ve been making an effort to read (and re-read) charitably, especially with people I don’t know well.
That’s a terrible thing to say!
…Only joking.
I tried to buy an EV for my parents a couple of weeks ago and the dealer had the EV misinformation playbook memorised and tried to convince us that EVs were a fad and that should get a hybrid until Hydrogen takes over.
I’ve decided that whenever I see these common myths, I’m not going to just let the misinformation go unquestioned.
In this case I think specifically focusing on EVs will generate more clicks for article writers, but it does also feed a common anti-EV narrative that they are somehow worse than ICE cars because of tire wear, which is not true.
I do see the other side that the tires being developed are specifically looking at EV owners, so this is a tough one to get the balance right on, but I do still think the headline is written to stir trouble and generate clicks.
One thing is certain, America needs to stop buying so many trucks!
It does. EVs are much heavier due to battery weight and have more power and torque. Which all results in more tire wear.
2023 top 5 vehicles sold in USA and weight:
1 - Ford F-150 4069-5697lbs
2 - Chevrolet Silverado 4400-6947lbs
3 - Ram pickup 4765-6440lbs
4 - Toyota RAV4 3370lbs
5 - Tesla Model Y 4416lbs
Looks like the only electric on the list is below the average weight. We don’t have these conversations about the trucks.
That’s a list of a bunch of trucks compared to a midsized SUV, so you’re kind of proving yourself wrong. Cars are split into weight classes, so a comparison that doesn’t acknowledge that isn’t very useful. A EV Sedan is on average much heavier than an ICE sedan.
No one’s saying ICE vehicles are better for the environment than EVs
Those are the most sold vehicles in the US, when you have heavy EV’s in the top slots you can say that heavy ev’s are a problem… until then it’s what you are buying is causing the problem.
Just because something isn’t the biggest problem doesn’t mean it’s not a problem worth talking about.
I agree entirely, but the title of this post suggests that EVs are the problem, but actually it’s heavy vehicles.
Additionally when we say “problem”, particulate pollution from vehicles is 99.9% a diesel problem, and 0.1% a tire problem. (Not actual statistics but let me know how wrong I am with the actual stat)
No one’s saying ICE vehicles are better for the environment than EVs
I think it’s possible for a diesel vehicle running on 100% biodiesel made from waste oil to be. The problem there is that there isn’t enough of that sort of fuel to go around as long as cities keep getting designed to keep people car-dependent.
Trucks are a whole other issue into themselves, though. Not just the tire wear, but their terrible fuel economy.
7,000 lbs, fucking hell. Who needs such a massive vehicle??
Fragile egoes
Well there are contractors who need to tow heavy machinery around, so about 0.01% of the people that buy them need them.
Wow, that’s an impressive list of amateur tanks. Do they also sell real cars in the US? (Rhetorical question)
Jesus christ that is appaling. What stupid fucking vehicles.
This is false. They aren’t really that much heavier, 1k lb or so. It’s not the weight that tears up tires it’s the instant and 100% torque when you hit the accelerator. If you go easy on the launches your tires will last longer.
Hey man, it’s got nothing to do with them being heavier, it IS about how that weight is distributed differently. You’ve mispoken and now everyone is latched on to something that isn’t true about something that is true.
EV tires are made from different compounds then truck and car tires which causes them to wear ~20% faster.
-
EVs have instant torque delivery, which can put more strain on the tires during acceleration. Therefore, they need EV tires that can handle the increased force and extra weight.
-
Electric vehicles have heavy battery packs, affecting the overall weight distribution. This can impact tire wear, so EV tires are designed to carry and distribute the extra weight effectively.
-
EV tires are engineered to have lower rolling resistance. These tires reduce the energy required to move the vehicle, resulting in better range and longer battery life.
-
Most EVs use regenerative braking systems, which recover energy during braking. EV tires offer better traction and grip, enhancing the effectiveness of regenerative braking.
-
Electric vehicles are generally quieter than traditional ICE vehicles. To complement this characteristic, EV tires are built to reduce road noise and vibrations, providing a quieter and more comfortable ride
-
You’re getting down voted but you’re right. I don’t think people realize that most tires are now made from synthetic rubber, AKA plastic.
Also someone tried to disprove you by posting a list with ICE trucks being as heavy as EV cars. Like what? Of course trucks are heavier. EV Trucks are even heavier than that and an EV subcompact will be much heavier than an ICE compact. Also everyone is talking about how trucks and SUVs are getting heavier and bigger. So not sure what they mean by “we never talk about this with trucks!”
That is a list of the most sold vehicles in the US. Where are the people lining up to say the ICE trucks that are so popular are causing all this tire pollution?
but you’re right. I don’t think people realize that most tires are now made from synthetic rubber, AKA plastic.
This is not what was said. Nobody said they aren’t.
posting a list with ICE trucks being as heavy as EV cars
Link? Here there is only list of most sold cars.
It’s dumb, but I think the author was trying to say, “we have an emissions solution for the motor, and now it’s worth exploring where else we need to address emissions for motor vehicles.”
deleted by creator
Now how about using iron tires on iron road? And using public transport?
Fuck yeah, public transit - Right in my veins, lets go.
But for right now, there is ZERO public transit infrastructure where I live, which is only about 20-30 minutes to a medium-sized city’s downtown. And when I say ZERO, I mean ZERO. We don’t even have busses here. No trains. NOTHING. We don’t even have sidewalks on most roads - if you want to walk, you’re literally walking in the road. I used to ride a bike to work a long time ago - I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had shit thrown at me by shitbag rednecks as they zoomed past in their lifted pickup trucks.
The local governments’ answer to all this is “If you don’t have a car, fuck you.” Cars are literally the only option. If you don’t have a car or a driver’s license, you better find somebody who does and give them gas money, or consign yourself to paying for Uber/Lyft anytime you want to go anywhere. It’s straight-up dangerous to travel any other way around here.
I hope it will get better for you.
Although I agree that using cars on pointless journeys is a waste and not good for the planet, but using public transport isn’t always an option.
If I’m travelling 6 miles in to town then I’m taking the tram, but it really isn’t feasible when travelling 40 miles to work and back 3 times a week. Sure there are trains, but I would have to get up an hour earlier, set off an hour earlier, wait 50 minutes for the train home, and get home two hours later. As I would also have to take the tram 40 minutes to the train station and walk 20 mins before that.
I have a car that I use for work. Outside of that I’m walking or taking public transport.
If I’m travelling 6 miles in to town then I’m taking the tram, but it really isn’t feasible when travelling 40 miles to work and back 3 times a week.
“My city is fucking designed wrong so the public transport sucks” isn’t really the rebuttal you think it is. Obviously, the real problem there is your city is fucking designed wrong and the vast majority of people shouldn’t have to be living 40 miles away from work to begin with!
I live in Manchester. Which is an amazing city for public transport. I work in Cheshire which isn’t.
As I said. To take the train. I must walk from my town 20 minutes to the Metrolink, then take that 35-40 minutes into Manchester, then take the train 45 minutes to Cheshire, and then finally walk another 20 minutes to the office. That’s without counting any waiting periods in between. VS 75 minute drive.
We haven’t even factored in it rains 70% of days here. Or even the cost.
You can moan at my boss for not allowing fully WFH. But my point was some people can’t just commute everywhere. Perhaps when I’m more experienced I can find a job closer to home or more remote, but for now this is all I can do.
Edit: I have nothing to rebut to people online. I was merely giving an example. Get off your high horse mate.
You can moan at my boss for not allowing fully WFH.
IDGAF about your boss. If I were gonna moan about something, it’d be about the shitty state of British Rail or some other macro/policy issue, not anything specific to your situation.
That said, I live in fucking Atlanta – the poster child of terrible American sprawl and traffic – and have figured out how to make cycling for most trips work. I have no doubt that you can do better. Get yourself a damn Brompton (so you can easily take it on the train) and turn that 40 minutes of walking + 35 minutes of Metrolink into however many minutes of biking, for example.
I live in Manchester. Which is an amazing city for public transport. I work in Cheshire which isn’t. … Perhaps when I’m more experienced I can find a job closer to home or more remote, but for now this is all I can do.
Nothing you could say will convince me that there isn’t even a single suitable job for you right now in Manchester. Or that there isn’t a single suitable residence for you right now in whichever town in Cheshire you work in, for that matter.
Why are you so angry bro, can’t we just talk without the anger.
I clearly stated that Manchester has incredible public transport, sure the train prices could be improved as they’re some of the most expensive in Europe, but it isn’t a case of poor infrastructure. It’s just the nature of having to take multiple modes of transport to get to work. Do you want us to build train stations in every shitty little town? What are the implications of that undertaking for the very few people that have a commute like mine.
Imma say if you live in the US then you’re in no position to lecture me about our infrastructure.
As for the job. No there wasn’t a more suitable job for me. I’m a new software developer and I had 60+ interviews with many companies in Manchester and several in London and none of them would hire me, due to the unorthodox method I entered the trade.
Also, no I will not relocate away from my family to spend three days in the office.
You have unrealistic expectations on someone who is vastly in the minority with commutes like this.
Do you shop on Amazon? As I don’t, I don’t support businesses like that. What’s the carbon footprint I’m saving here.
Do you purchase from fast food places like McDonalds? Because I don’t. I don’t support businesses like.
In fact I rarely buy new things and if I do I am supporting my local businesses, even if it means I am paying more.
Do you consume alcohol and all the carbon footprint that that entails? As I don’t.
I’m a simple guy. I drive to work and i rarely leave my home town outside of that. I walk everywhere, 3.6 million steps a year, and on weekends I walk around the woods and just chill out. My commute leaves me driving 12k miles a year and that’s my largest carbon footprint. I don’t go on airplanes, I don’t take taxis as I can go anywhere in Britain on train, heck I can go across Europe on train.
Hey you are doing your best and actually thinking of ways to be better. Don’t let critics keep you down. (Just throwing my support your way)
Thanks for taking the time, you really didn’t have to.
The other person just seems unreasonable to me. All we can do is our best and try to make conscientious choices and hope we leave this place better than before we got here.
You have unrealistic expectations on someone who is vastly in the minority with commutes like this.
If you admit you’re vastly in the minority, then why did you feel the need to chime in in the first place? If you actually aren’t a reactionary concern troll, you need to realize that making the perfect the enemy of the good like that adds nothing to the conversation and only discourages people from embracing alternatives.
And if I’m angry, by the way, it’s because the sort of shit you just did happens every single goddamn time and is THE major impediment to actually getting shit changed. It’s not some small-but-loud minority of coal-roller (or “Chelsea tractor” in your case, I guess) blatant right-wing assholes who are stopping improvements from happening; it’s all the allegedly-well-meaning moderates quibbling everything to death for not being perfect who are the real problem!
I’ll admit it was a reactionary comment as I see the sentiment a lot without any nuance and it kinda annoys me, considering I make conscientious choices all the time and people like you (maybe not you in this instance) will pass judgement and make me question myself.
It was also a little strange shitting on a places public transport infrastructure when my city likely has the second best in the whole of Britain, so it seemed like you’re coming from a place of ignorance rather than passion. Pretty easy to go online and check out the public transport in Manchester, and realise yeah they’ve got it good there. Although, the buses in smaller towns leave something to be desired.
wait 50 minutes for the train home
Same was in Moscow until Moscow Central Ring was opened and people said “wait, so trains can arrive at 2 minutes interval? Why suburban trains doesn’t do same?”. And that is how D1-D4 were born with 5m peak hours interval instead of few hours of lunch break.
a fancy new startup will start calling them decentralised pods for personal transportation. Promise to be revolutionary.
Preforms worse than all know forms of transport so farPromise to be revolutionary.
Revolution:
Preforms worse than all know forms of transport so far
Pretty low bar
I support public transport but I really don’t know how to convince people. I live in North America.
whispering more trains
Trains are the best electric vehicles
So this big breakthrough in tire technology is . . . making them harder and reducing their grip?
And now to make lighter EVs that don’t wear on the road so much.
And now to make lighter EVs that don’t wear on the road so much.
Tesla Model 3 Long Range (as an example) weighs in at 4,034 lbs, while the Ford F150 is 4,391 to 5,863 lbs.
Shouldn’t we start with the majority of ICE vehicles which already weigh the same or more than EVs?
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
The cars might be, but their weights are their weights and that is an apples to apples comparison in the context of
And now to make lighter EVs that don’t wear on the road so much.
Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.
And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.
Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.
And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.
They’re designed for different things. While I’ll agree that the many F-150 drivers are using them for their appropriate grade of work or towing, I’m guessing there are more F-150s that are used as grocery-getting-pavement-princesses than all the Tesla Model 3s ever sold.
In that way, F-150 is identical to Tesla Model 3 as far as use case.
Alternatively, the model 3 is ~700 lb heavier than a Toyota Camery (which is actually a vehicle with the same use case as the Tesla)
Seriously. We are talking about tire tread compared to weight. Both use multiple sizes of tire depending on the year/model. There are a few that overlap in diameter to get the closest to comparison but they still have a very different width. We are talking about a 235/35R18 vs a 235/75R18. That is a huge difference in wall height/aspect ratio and changes how the tire gives under power. Those numbers massively change depending on model as well. Something like an f150 raptor could have a 315/70R17, almost a foot wide. So comparing just the weight and saying they are close enough is far from a fair comparison.
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
Seriously. We are talking about tire tread compared to weight.
Are we? I thought we were talking about tire particulate pollution. Why have I never heard the conversation raised that truck tire pollution is a problem? Why is it only EVs that its suddenly an issue?
Just because a Ford truck weighs a lot doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address EV tire wear.
Do a lot of people own trucks that shouldn’t because they don’t use them as trucks? Yes. I’d argue that’s a completely different argument.
This isn’t an EV only issue, but it is highlighted for EVs because they go through tires faster than equivalent sized (not weight) vehicles.
In the end I would hope all vehicles would be equipped with tires that don’t kill aquatic life!
Just because a Ford truck weighs a lot doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address EV tire wear.
I agree. However, this started with a highlighting of EV tire pollution. Arguably mainstream EVs entered production in 2012. F-150 and other trucks of equal or more weight have been on the road since about the late 1970s. Why is it this is an EV tire pollution discussion only?
Do a lot of people own trucks that shouldn’t because they don’t use them as trucks? Yes.
We agree.
I’d argue that’s a completely different argument.
How so? Are you arguing that a truck that weighs the same the produces equal tire pollution is okay, but an EV that weighs the same with equal tire pollution isn’t okay?
This isn’t an EV only issue, but it is highlighted for EVs because they go through tires faster than equivalent sized (not weight) vehicles.
Isn’t this following the same flawed logic that trucks shouldn’t have to get high MPG efficiency because they are trucks, while ICE cars are held to higher efficiency standards? Your logic seems to suggest we could solve this EV tire pollution problem by simply eliminating EV cars and only driving EV trucks because then they’d get a pass on tire pollution like current ICE trucks do.
In the end I would hope all vehicles would be equipped with tires that don’t kill aquatic life!
I agree, but your other statements prior seem to give a pass to ICE (or EV trucks).
Done:
I keep fingers crossed for wireless charging built in road 🤷♂️
Wireless charging is very inefficient, I don’t see that happening unless some new tech gets invented.
Sure, it’s not ideal but in the grand scheme it might be the future as it’d change many aspects starting with battery sizes. It might be a failure as well, due to politics and economics, who knows.
Wireless charging: The roads where electric vehicles never need to plug in
Yeah, could be nice. You should check out Aptera, it’s kinda sorta almost the same thing. Up to 40 miles of charge per day from solar.
Pls don’t make them soy-based or some human food based, rodents and other small critters with teeth will gnaw at them like what happens with engine hoses…
Make tires out of ground up bureaucrats, they’re organic and biodegradable, and there’s an endless supply of them.
It’s going to be all about the price.
My hybrid recommends “eco” style tires to get the best gas mileage. Those were $100 more, per tire, than the standard low-profiles. At the time, I commuted about 110 miles/day, so tires typically only lasted me about a year before they were either officially worn out or too worn to be safe to drive in winter.
I only noticed about a 1-2 MPG loss with the “standard” tires versus the “eco” ones that came with it. Over the course of a year, I doubt that 1-2 MPG added up to the $400 difference.
So, these cleaner tires are a good thing, assuming they’re not more expensive than current-style tires. Depending on use-case, 35% longer life (if that holds true) may be able to tempt price-conscious buyers.
All that said, I could definitely see these becoming the “factory” tires for new EVs, though.
Price is definitely important, but so is traction. If stopping distance increases because eco materials grip less, that would be a concern.
My criteria are performance results, wear rating, and price.
I wouldn’t think stopping distance would be noticeably impacted by less rolling resistance. My original “eco” tires stopped the same as the standard ones. They’re “eco” because they have less rolling resistance and are slightly lighter.
Plus, with ABS, you’re not likely to lock the wheels up such that the decreased resistance would be significant.
On slick roads would be my only concern, but a good and season appropriate tread should mitigate that.
In a car with ABS, two sets of tyres with different grip will have a different point at which tyres lock up, with grippier tires locking up later and ABS letting the brakes bite harder before acting.
Now a harder question is whether a tyre with less rolling resistance will be less grippy. All things equal, yes, it will. Tyres grip by deforming and creating friction in the contact patch, and the point of these tyres is to reduce friction.
To make up for this, manufacturers use clever designs (e.g. where tyres can deform more under certain conditions) so that they can retain characteristics similar to tyres with more rolling resistance. Of course, everything in engineering is a compromise, which means that A) these tyres are more expensive because of the additional complexity and B) the design and materials science can only go so far and they have indeed slightly less grip; otherwise all the tyres would be like this.
As an anecdote, Toyota sold the GR86 with Michelin Energy Saver tyres fitted as standard (in Europe at least) for “grip” reasons: they allowed the car to drift at really low speeds (some car journalists commented that it was remarkably easy to take roundabouts sideways at legal speeds).
Yeah, that closing point is likely gonna be screwed by economies of scale. You need more adoption for the price to fall and with the price high you won’t see that large adoption. So, I suspect we won’t see those prices until many more EVs are on the road.
Please do the rest of the math and put a number on the actual comparison.
28,600mi/yr (wow, BTW) - 110mi x 260 working days a year
What were the actual mpg’s and costs for the eco and regular tires?
And how heavy is your hybrid?
It’s going to be all about the price.
EV or not, price the pollution into the cost of buying the tire. Then the economics of a non-polluting tire would be the primary driver for adoption because they would be cheaper than polluting tires.
Thus preventing those who can’t afford it from getting to work.
Is this an ad?
yes
go back to wooden cart wheels
Iron
I’d like to see recycable bike tires, too! Bike tires suffer similar problems. And my bikes go through tires fairly quick.
Schwalbe at least takes old tires back to recycle them. I can hand mine in at my bike shop. Maybe other brands have something similar.
Bike tires suffer similar problems.
But at a much smaller scale, since the tires are made out of so much less material each.
And my bikes go through tires fairly quick.
Quit doing whip skid stops all the time, ya hoodlum!
