[AndyG]

Re the particulates clearly BEV are better in relation to brakes becuase they do wear their brakes far less, so the question is how much worse are they down to weight 10% 20% we are not told only that weight is understandably an issue leaning to higher levels of wear of tyres.

How do we know the weight is worse in a BEV where it is evenly split between front and back. You cant just add 500kg to the passenger compartment of an ICE with a heavy engine at the front and then guess the result. Sure added weight is worse in a C Class Merc.... so that information tells us front engine, rear drive heavier cars are worse. Does it tell us a heavy long car like a S class is worse than say a lighter shorter but much higher centre of gravity SUV or what effect it has if the weight is even split front to back? The answer is no it doesn't......

 

[Parkwood]

Particles >23 micron are on the "larger" size and many would get trapped in the nose and throat - these do not appear to be a focus of concern. Those of us who live in cities are routinely reminded of PM2.5 (particle matter less than 2.5 microns) as being seriously bad for health.

I took a look at the Govt web site. Interestingly, that includes "around half of UK concentrations of PM comes from anthropogenic sources in the UK such as domestic wood burning and tyre and brake wear from vehicles" so the wearing tyres



Sounds plausible. Or, how about copying the Spanish (and no doubt others) in charging for maximum demand (in kW) ? The Spanish domestic default is 3.3 kW (which covers much domestic living) but more can be purchased, nicely catching EV drivers. Somehow we are going to have to pay for the declining tax revenue from fuel duty.

In France you also pay according to the Kva supply to your house the range starts at 6kva and goes up to 12kva for single phase and the standing charge on my tariff for example changes from 11.94 ttc per month to 16.32 ttc per month. Exceed the limit you pay for and the disjoncteur goes so you have to reset that and juggle your usage and this is why I think many Brits think the french electricity supply system is flaky, they have stayed in a gîte or rental where the proprietor is skimping on the electricity bill by choosing a lower supply level which renters then exceed unknowingly by switching on everything at the same time😉

 

[freddym]

I guess people have never looked at their tyres and wondered where all the tread that used to be there has gone, so I suppose the research that Emissions Analytics have been pushing for the last few years around this at least might make people think about it.

However, what we can actually do about it as consumers is debatable, and it will also be seized upon by certain agenda pushers as a good news story for ICE vehicles and another stick to hit BEVs with.

It’s correct to highlight the issue, and if there are toxic compounds that can be changed to make tyre particulates less impactful then manufacturers should do so.

What’s not talked about are road surfaces. The poorer the quality of the road surface, the faster tyres wear, again not something the general public have control over. Proper road maintenance would help this and many other areas.

Subjectively speaking, my own feeling is that tyres on my BEV vehicles wear at a similar rate to my old ICE ones, brakes last noticeably longer on BEVs.

If vehicles could get lighter then it would certainly help in all sorts of areas though.

There is nothing in any of these stories to suggest EVs are in worse than ICE. Obviously toxic precursor chemicals in water runoff is an issue that needs tackling. That's a tyre manufacturing/regulatory problem. Note also how the article is bouncing around between airborne particulates ( ie cause if respiratory illness) and runoff to watercourses which is a specific fish toxicity problem and if course a problem for the greater biosphere us included. What can be done? Drive a bit slower, drive gently ( acceleration, cornering and braking). Keep your steering aligned. All things that driving an EV naturally encourage - Tesla's excepted.

 

[donald]

interesting article here

Car tyres produce vastly more particle pollution than exhausts, tests show

Toxic particles from tyre wear almost 2,000 times worse than from exhausts as weight of cars increases

www.theguardian.com

the TL;DR is car tyres can emit 20 time more ultra fine particles than a car exhaust.

Drive it hard / the amount increased by a factor of 5.

BEV’s are heavier - but are often driven more gently.

new tyres were 2-4 times worse than used tyres (they didn’t define what a used tyre was)

final point (important one) that the chemicals in the tyres and thus particles are pretty much unregulated. The toxicity of a ‘bad’ tyre can make it much much worse

S'funny how I have been 'shouted down' here for mentioning this in the past, now it gets likes for you mentioning it.

I don't understand people, guess I never will.

 

[EdH]

The article is full of nonsense and confusion.
Tyre wear particulate emissions are by weight mostly non respirable an of little or no danger to humans. Run off of larger particles into rivers may be an issue for aquatic life. More research needed here. Respiration of particulate matter is an area I have some experience in. Particles below 0.5 micron (500nm) are most likely to reach the alveoli where exchange of gasses into the blood takes place. 23nm (.023 micron) particles will mostly be breathed out without transfer to the blood, but some tiny percentage of the mass of the particulate matter in the respirable range may possibly reach the bloodstream.
I will try to get hold of the original research and see quite what the real position is. The Graun, however, have really made a muddle of the data and deliberately made obtuse and irrelevant statements about tons of matter produced by driving 1km.

 

[Hitstirrer]

My Ioniq tyres have shed a load of particles of various sizes over the last 21,000 miles and both of the fronts are now down to 4mm tread. The rears are still fairly meaty. Can I divert slightly to ask a question?

Ioniq is front wheel drive of course. There are mixed opinions on rotating the wheels/tyres. The main idea is to even out wear, and to diagonally swap the rears to the front, and to swap the fronts to the rear but keep them to the same sides.

But others ( some are pros ) have told me to not swap at this stage but to wait until the fronts are down to 3mm, or 2mm at worst, and then fit the halfway decent rears to the front and buy two new ones for the rear.

In the past, I have always rotated to protect the fronts a bit and wear the rears down to a similar limit and then buy four new tyres. As per the main opinion. But is there some merit in opting for the second opinion? Apart from not shelling out for four tyres at once. As I intend to change cars in the next year or so that appeals to me.

Whilst on this subject, will the car automatically adjust the TPMS units to show which wheel is on which corner after swaps/ renewals take place or will it need reconfiguring at a tyre fitters?

Sorry for the diversion from emissions but its not worth starting a new thread.

 

[GavJ]

Interesting it was a Mercedes’ c class they used for testing as Mercedes’ were talking about this issue a few years back when the anti diesel talk started. For me there are 2 types of pollution the one killing the planet ie CO2 and that killing animals (inc us) with particulate emissions. I drive electric because of the first as I worry that the move from diesel back to petrol is going to cause more issues than it saves and indeed this article indicates that with ref to the fact tailpipe emissions are fall8ng drastically.
Re the particulates clearly BEV are better in relation to brakes becuase they do wear their brakes far less, so the question is how much worse are they down to weight 10% 20% we are not told only that weight is understandably an issue leaning to higher levels of wear of tyres.
I am concerned about the chemical issues as it occurs to me the cheaper tyres will probably have less latest technology in them ie cheaper chemicals blended in cheaper ways and with poorer technology for wear. I think the use of cheap Chinese tyres now so prevalent everywhere is a real cause for concern and should be a starting point for any controls with pressure on the big names to explain how they manufacture their tyres and what they are thinking re wear rates etc. Considering the role tyres play the safety of a vehicle it never ceases to amaze me people buy anything other than the tyre used by the vehicle manufacturer but thatis just me but it does seem some of the cheap tyres wear more quickly from a friends experience.
Finally road surface it would be interesting to know if the smooth tarmac so prevalent here where I live is better than the surface dressed road or the concrete carriageways loved by the U.K. and the US. If that is the case then govs have to readdress how they maintain their road systems and you can be sure that some countries that idea will not fly at all as maintaining infrastructure is something they are just not interested in naming no names.

Percentage wise your BEV looks great on brake pad usage. You do 100k between pads and my ice car I have to do them every 40k miles.
But in absolute terms there is little in it.
The pads on your EQC 400 are 142x96x18 the ones on my ICE are 123x47x18. So yours are nearly 2.5 times bigger but last 2.5 times as long.
So from that point of view there is nothing in it.

From a tyre point of view irrespective of weight (your car is three times the weight) your massive tyres have far more to wear down.

Obviously I get spanked on tailpipe emissions.

 

[Parkwood]

The article is full of nonsense and confusion.
Tyre wear particulate emissions are by weight mostly non respirable an of little or no danger to humans. Run off of larger particles into rivers may be an issue for aquatic life. More research needed here. Respiration of particulate matter is an area I have some experience in. Particles below 0.5 micron (500nm) are most likely to reach the alveoli where exchange of gasses into the blood takes place. 23nm (.023 micron) particles will mostly be breathed out without transfer to the blood, but some tiny percentage of the mass of the particulate matter in the respirable range may possibly reach the bloodstream.
I will try to get hold of the original research and see quite what the real position is. The Graun, however, have really made a muddle of the data and deliberately made obtuse and irrelevant statements about tons of matter produced by driving 1km.

I am always happy to listen to cogent scientific evidence based experts and unlike a certain politician I am not fed up with experts far from it we need more experts helping us understand our world and how to navigate it.
The article seemed fairly ok of its type and chimed with other material I had read which stuck with me ie Mercedes’ own publicity about the particulate emission issue to which I also had a dose of scepticism and well you would say that….but they were just trying to point out particulates were not just produced by engine emissions but also tyres and brakes.
What is highlighted here I think is how so many of us make many of our decisions not on scientific papers but on media reports inc social media and advertising media. Critical thinking then becomes very important to help one sort the wheat from the chaff a reason why forums like this appeal, even though they can be a bit of an echo chamber at times, as they throw up challenges and debates and make one think or at least they do me😉

 

[Parkwood]

Percentage wise your BEV looks great on brake pad usage. You do 100k between pads and my ice car I have to do them every 40k miles.
But in absolute terms there is little in it.
The pads on your EQC 400 are 142x96x18 the ones on my ICE are 123x47x18. So yours are nearly 2.5 times bigger but last 2.5 times as long.
So from that point of view there is nothing in it.

From a tyre point of view irrespective of weight (your car is three times the weight) your massive tyres have far more to wear down.

Obviously I get spanked on tailpipe emissions.

Not sure where the 100k change figure comes from but fully accept the car is a brute in the weight dept weighing in at 2550kg. The car came shod with Michelin Primacy 4 which are actually made with less tread on the basis they can be worn to the legal limit and still perform to the same standard as when new, thereby stopping tyres being disposed of too early ie with 3mm to 4mm of tread as users like me try to maintain max performance and saving resources🤔
I hear your arguments but of course some cars, my 2015 c class for example just wore out the side of the tyres long before the rest of the tread due to the design of the steering geometry and it is well known for this so it was not just my car. So does that produce more or less, ie does wearing one portion more quickly produce X grams compared to a wide big tyre like mine wearing evenly ( not sure it is but have not checked for awhile) . There are so many variables it is really difficult to know what is the real position but the basic premise a heavier car wears its tyres more due to its weight seems sound and logical and somehow in tune with one’s intuition BUT intuition based on lack of good education is not necessarily a good thing nor is it always right……
An area we will probably see discussion develop more in the future.

 

[donald]

My Ioniq tyres have shed a load of particles of various sizes over the last 21,000 miles and both of the fronts are now down to 4mm tread. The rears are still fairly meaty. Can I divert slightly to ask a question?

Ioniq is front wheel drive of course. There are mixed opinions on rotating the wheels/tyres. The main idea is to even out wear, and to diagonally swap the rears to the front, and to swap the fronts to the rear but keep them to the same sides.

But others ( some are pros ) have told me to not swap at this stage but to wait until the fronts are down to 3mm, or 2mm at worst, and then fit the halfway decent rears to the front and buy two new ones for the rear.

In the past, I have always rotated to protect the fronts a bit and wear the rears down to a similar limit and then buy four new tyres. As per the main opinion. But is there some merit in opting for the second opinion? Apart from not shelling out for four tyres at once. As I intend to change cars in the next year or so that appeals to me.

Whilst on this subject, will the car automatically adjust the TPMS units to show which wheel is on which corner after swaps/ renewals take place or will it need reconfiguring at a tyre fitters?

Sorry for the diversion from emissions but its not worth starting a new thread.

I think, no net benefit. The advantage in rotating F-R is that the tyres wear together and they remain better matched for the stability control and the laws of physics to do their job. The advantage to not rotating is what you just said, you don't fork out for 4 at once, which might be a big deal if you are leasing a car and might get away with replacing only 2 (or 6) tyres rather than 4 (or 8). It is a bit of a gamble sometimes, if you have a 2 year lease and you rotate after 1 year then you might not have to buy any tyres at all, or you risk buying 4. Do the arithmetic.

Buy remoulds if you can find them, and if you have a concern about the environment.

 

[pilotwoo]

So, time to tax tyres not fuel?

It would make more sense for car tax to include an element reflecting the cars weight.

 

[Chiny]

It would make more sense for car tax to include an element reflecting the cars weight.

I'd be prepared to pay more, say 100% more car tax

 

[motmot]

I wonder if making roads of rubber and tyres of stone would make any difference? 😁

 

[Parkwood]

It would make more sense for car tax to include an element reflecting the cars weight.

The French do levy a purchase tax on heavier vehicles so a big engined SUV like a Mercedes’ GLE is penalised for high CO2 emissions but also its weight thereby making it a car for the rich as the tax is paid at the time of registration and not included in any finance or lease deals. Fortunately fully electric vehicles are currently excluded but that will probably change as we seek more efficiencies.

 

[artyman]

If tyre particles were so hazardous then F1 would be banned, when you see the marbles from their tyres. Driving gently will give the best longevity. I'd frankly be more concerned at the amount of plastic we are putting in the environment, and some folks total inability to dispose of their rubbish properly, don't just toss it aside.

 

[motmot]

If tyre particles were so hazardous then F1 would be banned, when you see the marbles from their tyres. Driving gently will give the best longevity. I'd frankly be more concerned at the amount of plastic we are putting in the environment, and some folks total inability to dispose of their rubbish properly, don't just toss it aside.

F1 has carbon footprint issues anyway without worrying about tyres…

your last line is apposite though - because we are just tossing away all the material that wears off tyres…

 

[Briggo]

However, what we can actually do about it as consumers is debatable, and it will also be seized upon by certain agenda pushers as a good news story for ICE vehicles and another stick to hit BEVs with.

www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1619735/electric-cars-drivers-rejoice-electric-vehicle-tax-claim/amp

 

[Briggo]

The pads on your EQC 400 are 142x96x18 the ones on my ICE are 123x47x18. So yours are nearly 2.5 times bigger but last 2.5 times as long.
So from that point of view there is nothing in it.

Comparing like for like in cars? Yours an equivalent sized and as powerful car as the EQC?

 

[6652]

www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1619735/electric-cars-drivers-rejoice-electric-vehicle-tax-claim/amp

It would be hard to cram in any more erroneous statements into that one wouldn’t it! A dirt rag of a newspaper that hides behind the comments of many of its readers.

 

[alistair763]

FUD, watch this.

Cheers