I think they've got the units wrong and it's milligrams as they've given for the exhaust.

My understanding is that this release compound is an urban myth.
Even if not it would be gone in a mile or so.
New tyres do tend to have those little spikes from the moulding process that can take a few miles to rub off; but they probably only make up 5 grams max in total.

 

I think they've got the units wrong and it's milligrams as they've given for the exhaust.

I did wonder if the units were wrong...

My understanding is that this release compound is an urban myth.
Even if not it would be gone in a mile or so.
New tyres do tend to have those little spikes from the moulding process that can take a few miles to rub off; but they probably only make up 5 grams max in total.

Release compound coating new tyres is not a myth.

New tyres definitely have less grip for about the first 50 miles or so, in fact last time I got new tyres on my Ion they felt downright squirrelly under acceleration to the point where I thought something was wrong - until the surface layer had worn off and you could see fresh rubber exposed - approximately 50 miles. Then they felt fine. I've noticed the same effect on other tyres on other cars although not quite as pronounced.

I don't think the little spikes have that much effect - they tend to last for many hundreds of miles (well over 500 miles on my last new tyres) before they finally wear off, but the grip of the tyre normalises long before the spikes wear off.

 

There are people out there unfortunately that just love any reason to whinge, moan and complain about anything. If it wasn’t the tyre particles it would be something else. Perhaps we should send them all to an island somewhere so that we don’t have to put up with them.
I for one am totally happy with the way electric cars are doing their bit to clean up the environment. Nothing is perfect, and a microscopic amount of rubber or brake dust isn’t going to create an environmental disaster.

 

Nothing is perfect, and a microscopic amount of rubber or brake dust isn’t going to create an environmental disaster.

It’s actually the opposite, tyre and brake particulates from all vehicles end up in our watercourses and ultimately the oceans.

They are then ingested by all sorts of life into our food chain.

Just because you can’t see it or aren’t worried about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, or isn’t an environmental disaster.

EVs are better than ICE vehicles from a emissions point of view (although gawd knows that continues to be argued by all and sundry), but they aren’t the answer to everything and are only part of the solution.

The only green motoring is no motoring at all...

 

I can't see anything particularly wrong in the general message from that link - it's merely flagging up particulates from tyres causes pollution, meaning that a switch to EV won't mean no air pollution. As stated above - reduce all forms of motoring to reduce pollution. It's not rocket science!

 

The way the article is written is clearly sensationalist misleading click bait. I thought that much was obvious. (Especially if it turns out they have a factor of 1000 error in their figures due to a units mix up...)

 

This is a fairly sensible article about the tyre particle issue:
Particulate matter: Emissions not all about exhausts

It talks a bit about where all the bits go to as well, though the real numbers seem to be arguable.

 

Debates such as this always remind me of ancient theologians arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

From my experience so far my Leafs tyres will last just as long as i would expect any ICE i have owned to last so the wear rate with my driving style is no different from what i can see,hence no extra particulates being released, and brake pads are easily going to outlast any pads i have on an ICE so again less pollution.
So IMHO the concern is bullshit.

 

The front tyres on my Ion have done nearly 30k miles and still have plenty of tread left to pass the MOT - and they're soft(ish) all Season tyres that wear a bit more in summer than a summer tyre would do. Rears probably would have done the same (RWD with larger size on the rear) but hard to be sure as both sides at the rear have had replacements due to punctures part way through their expected lifetime.

I regard "EV's are heavier so must wear their tyres faster (and therefore produce more tyre PM)" as theoretical at best and not borne out in practice since driving style and smoothness (or not) of torque delivery have as much effect if not more on tyre wear than a small weight increase alone.

 

Yes i think driving style is everything here along with drivers running tyres under inflated etc. With so many variables to consider , its just laughable to suggest an EV will burn thru its tyres quicker.Lets take a Ford Focus for example, does every Focus on the road wear its tyres at the same rate like for like brand? Should do its the same car after all

 

Heavier vehicles have tyres with higher load ratings. Would they necessarily lose surface at the same rate as a lighter car with lighter load ratings?

 

Anyone worried that I'm creating excessive rubbery particle is most welcome to donate to my Flying EV-drone fund. This will be solar-charged, and will deffo have zero exhaust/tyre/brake-lining emissions. And it will help reduce congestion on the roads, and won't need expensive smart motorway modifications. Boris, where are you?

 

When they understand this - https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.....ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online final version 2.pdf - they may be able to make educated comments. Its all about respirable harmful particulates, not the weight of rubber worn off the tyres.

Brakes are, as we all know less polluting for EV's and if there is a large loss of rubber in the first days of use of a tyre, it is the is ammount of respirable particulates created over the life of the tyre that is important. See report above.

 

Good post @EdH. Thank you. You might be interested in this all. Early stage I agree but might lead to something:

World’s first device to capture harmful tyre particles invented by students | Imperial News | Imperial College London

A group of Imperial students have invented a device to collect tyre particles from vehicles, a major contributor to the world’s air pollution.

www.imperial.ac.uk

 

Interesting and good luck to anybody who can make money out of the prototype, but we need to know which 60% of the particles are collected, the larger sizes or the smaller respirable ones. Only 10% ot tyre wear produces respirable particulates, the rest just fall onto the road surface. It is true that these are washed away and may impact on other aspects of the environment but in reallity we are trying to improve air quality in town centres where most people are exposed so it's ICE emmissions that are the greatest concern. That and domestic heating using coal and wood.

 

It's amazing to me how the mainstream media (the dailly express in this case) seems to be trying to find the most tenuous of reasons to bash EV ownership. It's obvious that EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICE cars. I've only just gone electric (since Feb 2020) but I'm already seeing huge benefits - I changed my electricity provider to an all-green supplier (Octopus) as they're the cheapest for charging - I hardly use my brakes at all due to regen, so no pad wear, the car will last 500,000 miles so much less waste polution at end of life, not to mention hugely reduced running and ownership costs! - the tire thing is pure hype - tyres produce DRAMATICALLY less particulate polution than diesel fuel (which my previous car ran on) so this article can only be seen as a desperate attempt to slow the decline in readership of this (and most) newspapers, or maybe a sponsored article by the motor industry, which we must remember, are for the most part VERY scared of EVs and are doing everything they can to slow down EV take-up.... (and I'm not an activist - I'm a fifty-something "silent majority" keep my head down type - I was just riled by this particular misleading article).

 

Except the article linked in the first post isn't bashing EVs at all, or making out EVs create more tyre particles then ICE. It's just flagging up that EVs aren't the holy grail, as being a car, the tyres will shred particles.

 

But the article is spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Specifically Uncertainty and Doubt. This is exactly the playbook used by the tobacco industry. By exaggerating the grey in an argument they can make it seem that the science is not settled and continue the debate. Something similar occurred with global warming, enough doubt has been sowed even though 97% scientists are in agreement. This slows down regulation allowing the tobacco companies or polluters to continue BAU for longer.

The legacy automakers are doing exactly the same.

 

Hit a decent February-style pothole and that thing will break loose, will fall on the street (hazard), your rear bumper will be damaged and your tire will spew particulates galore. Back to the drawing board, everyone gets an F.

On some cars the bumpers do go very low and you can potentially put that filter in the wheel arch. But it has to be replaced by specialised technicians at the dealerships, will cost money and people will complain. They'll just do the same as they do with AdBlue; do I have to maintain it?!

 

Probably not beyond the wit of the tyre makers to create a tyre that doesn't wear at all.
But why would they do that?

 

I really can't get myself too worked up over tyre wear as it's one of those aspects of motoring that just has to be lived with. Physics dictates that a high coefficient of friction is desirable between the tyre and the road in the interests of safety. It could be that a compound could be developed that would last twice as long as others but cause many more deaths as cars using them spoiled their drivers day by failing to go around corners too well. This is a balance of wear v grip that is price v safety driven. A difficult balance. But the side issue of particulates is unavoidable. So why stress about it so much.

 

But the side issue of particulates is unavoidable. So why stress about it so much

I imagine that was the feeling about diesels not so long ago.

(I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it will almost certainly get inflated into an issue.)
(Avoidable deaths as a statistic makes me smile a bit - it's less avoidable than taxes.)

 

Natural rubber has a coefficient of friction greater than 1 and its because of this we have the modern motor car. I am not sure there are any other products >1

 

True to an extent. But when 99 people have avoided that A6 junction house (and so price has dropped like a stone), and all the Acacia Avenue starter-houses & up have been taken and prices risen as a result, you end up with someone's going to be living in that hell-hole spot. On average.

 

If only it was that easy.
We've made the car the transport of choice, regardless of it's powertrain.
Far too many people have seen their once quiet road become a main thoroughfare in the name of progress as the car has swept all before it.
At the time, coming out of a divorce while living close to work and my kids, as cheaply as possible, it was the only viable choice for me, while many of my neighbours had lived there for many years and seen a once quiet road become a constant stream of traffic 24/7.
However, I do agree that it is possible to live away from the pollution that is found especially near our major roads, but should it be expected that this is a by product of a successful society.
Perhaps, after Covid-19 we should look to see what is really important, say a decent quality of life for everyone, or allowing some people to get to work 10 minutes quicker than the rest because they can afford to buy and maintain a car.

 

If only it was that easy.
We've made the car the transport of choice, regardless of it's powertrain.
Far too many people have seen their once quiet road become a main thoroughfare in the name of progress as the car has swept all before it.

Would a continous stream of large, noisy double decker Diesel buses past your house be any better than a stream of cars though ?

Certainly not from a noise pollution perspective. If all car travel was replaced with buses that's an awful lot of buses...

 

@Swagman - Whilst there is something in what you say the problem is not caused by "selfish" use of cars. Tyre particulates may enter a house and be a nuissance to clean up so it might be wise to install airtight double glazing to the front of the house and filtered mechanical ventillation. This is what I had when I lived in a house on a busy road in London.

ETA - re the busses. In the same location, we had busses passing and, as it happened, going over a bump in the road. The whole house vibrated so in the end we moved.

 

The units are wrong. Half a kilo of tyre in 100 km. pfffttt..

But as for the most polluting emission from NEW EURO 6d cars, yes, of course it is. Euro 6d is difficult to even measure needs extremely specialist kit, it is virtually fresh air, as I have often mentioned. For some reason folks here are extremely reluctant to believe it.

But for sure tyres are now the bigger particulate emitter of any type of new car. Whether those particulates are harmful or drop out of the air earlier, the research just doesn't exist on that. It can't. We don't live in a world only of Euro 6d cars.

 

Euro 6d cars have smaller particulate emissions from their engines than brakes and tyres? Where is the research that backs that claim.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Even the Tories think that car use needs to be diminished.

Climate change: 'Gob-smacking' vision for future UK transport

Public transport and active travel will be the "natural first choice", the Transport Secretary says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whatever next? The earth is round?

 

Would that be the public transport network that everyone is currently told to avoid as it's a vector for disease?