Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

21 - 40 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
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.
 

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
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?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
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.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
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.
I used to live on a major arterial route in Derby and the of crap that covered the inside of the house within a couple of days of a good cleaning was noticeable. I'd never noticed it anywhere else I'd lived before, due to never living next to a major road. While I realise that the stuff that alarms some is far smaller than what is visible it still shows what is chucked up into the air from both tyre and asphalt degredation.
Sure, tucked away in the confines of your car this might not be a problem to you, but these issues obviously affect others.
Anecdotally, having moved out into the sticks my own health has improved dramatically, a winter cold in Autumn doesn't sit on my chest throughout the rest of the winter.
I wonder how much of that is down to being away from a major road and the combined effects of diesel, PM2.5 and road degradation particulates.
Not everyone gets to live where they would like,. Why should they have to put up with a lower quality of life and reduced lifespan just so that motorists can continue their own selfish living?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
I used to live on a major arterial route in Derby and the of crap that covered the inside of the house within a couple of days of a good cleaning was noticeable...............................................................Not everyone gets to live where they would like. Why should they have to put up with a lower quality of life and reduced lifespan just so that motorists can continue their own selfish living?
I disagree. You admit that you chose to live on a main road in the full knowledge that it could reduce your lifespan. And feel able to claim that somehow selfish motorists inflicted that onto you.

Some years ago when I was forced to relocate back to the Manchester area by work promotion I went through the usual house search based on affordability.

One property appeared to be excellent value, but on inspection it was at a busy junction of the A6 near Stockport. Traffic and road noise was horrendous. It would be a ten-minute frustration every morning simply trying to exit my own driveway due to rush-hour congestion. I knew ( like you ) that my quality of life would be poor if I lived there, from noise and particulate pollution, so I gave it a swerve even though it was half the price of a similar house a few miles away in leafy Acacia Avenue.

You can choose where to live. If you choose somewhere offering great accommodation in undesirable surroundings, rather than a smaller or more remote space that gives peace and tranquillity then that is such a choice.

And please don't come back with the knee jerk reaction of 'some people have no choice' because it simply isn't true. They may well be forced to accept a choice that wasn't the house of their dreams but that doesn't mean they had no choice. They just chose the best of a poor selection of choices bearing in mind their own criteria. But for sure, they weren't forced to buy or rent a house which filled with tyre particulates daily. They just prioritised their life choices differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,433 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,944 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
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...
All depends on how full the buses are, the ratio of buses to cars. Double deckers can seat upto 80 passengers, so even at only half full that's 40 people, say 20 to 30 cars. At peak time when the bus is close to capacity the reduction in cars is even greater.

I'd prefer the buses driving past my house and a lot fewer cars, particularly as buses are getting cleaner with many switching to gas, hydrogen or electric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
@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.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
27,672 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,590 Posts
Euro 6d cars have smaller particulate emissions from their engines than brakes and tyres? Where is the research that backs that claim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
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...
Or how about some more radical thinking? Why not encourage people to live nearer to their work, so that they can walk or cycle rather than endure a car journey?

Hopefully the current lockdown with large numbers working from home will make a certain percentage reassess their work/life balance, and decide that an hour long commute each way just isn't worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Or how about some more radical thinking? Why not encourage people to live nearer to their work, so that they can walk or cycle rather than endure a car journey?

Hopefully the current lockdown with large numbers working from home will make a certain percentage reassess their work/life balance, and decide that an hour long commute each way just isn't worth it.
Have a personal 1000 likes for that.
Without wanting to appear hypocritical considering I'm driving up to 20,000 miles a year presently, I find it quite puzzling that people can't wait for the present crisis to be over so that we can get back to normal, with millions of cars clogging up the roads, little Johnny being driven half a mile to school, travelling to the same workplace daily just so the boss can keep an eye on employees productivity, our lazy, indolent routine of walking out of our house to a car parked 10 metres away before sitting in traffic moving at snails pace, before walking into our air conditioned offices for a day of slouching at our desks before once more returning home to be anaethetised by Netflix, Sky Sports or whatever other crap we are expected to watch as we "live life to the max".
Is that really what we want?
 
21 - 40 of 82 Posts
Top