| ▲ | throwawaypath 3 days ago |
| How do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster. |
|
| ▲ | jgeada 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency? |
| |
| ▲ | Angostura 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase? | | |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I say this as someone who owns an electric scooter and whose next car will be an EV—the sales pitch for EVs right now is basically pay more (especially now that the tax credit is gone) to have a worse time and maybe eventually claw some of it back over the lifetime of the car in fuel savings. The environmental impact is the pro in the pro con list. So if that doesn't pan out, or doesn't pan out enough it's going to be a tough sell. Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV. | | |
| ▲ | kevstev 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What do you mean by a worse time? The advantages are substantial- No oil changes ever again, performance that is on par with high end sports cars, less moving parts which should lead to higher reliability, in my state you don't even need to do an annual inspection. Those types of unexpected appointments are what really aggravate me when they are unexpectedly needed and eat up weekend time. Depending on your commute length, you may be able to just use your regular plug to top up over night. Infra upgrades to support the future are unfortunate, but it should be a one and done kind of thing. It was probably time to update the panel and get 200 Amp service- you will recoup a portion of that if you ever sell the house. The best part is batteries get signficantly (for some values of signficant) cheaper and better each year. Gen 1 Nissan Leaf owners can now actually replace their batteries for about 1/5th the initial pack cost and increase their range. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >What do you mean by a worse time? Inconvenience when taking long trips. When operating beyond your comfortable range you have to strategically plan charging the way shitbox owners have to stop and top up fluids. If it's your only car it's absolutely a degradation in the ~monthly ownership experience though you (in my opinion) make it back not doing oil changes and the like. Even without the tax credit I still think that EVs are a great buy for most though. Charging shenanigans is simple and a "known known" whereas ICE maintenance is far more unclear at the time of purchase | | |
| ▲ | kevstev 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So I was actually looking at it yesterday, and the top end ranges of todays EVs are actually the same range as my 2007 Honda Accord. Maybe I am unique, but I have never taken a road trip so long that I needed to get gas midway going one way, maybe this is more common out west. I have done some round trips for sure though that would require a top up on more than a charge. I was surprised though that ranges, at least on the top end and very expensive EVs, are now comparable to ICE cars. This will continue to improve and hopefully alleviate any form of range anxiety in the future, especially as chargers just become more ubiquitous. I feel people really fail to realize they can just essentially top up each night and start out with a full "tank." I don't know, it all just feels very overblown with today's EVs. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not the overall range that gets you. It's when all the chargers in the work parking lot are taken and you need to go somewhere that doesn't have chargers after work and it's also winter that results in an inconvenient stop or cutting it uncomfortably close. It's absolutely surmountable but it requires planning you didn't have to do before. IMO what you save by not going to the gas station is a wash if you have to habitually charge more than just at home. You're replacing one habit with another. I still think they're worth it since you basically never get hit with an exorbitant repair bill for the engine/trans. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fullstop 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV. You likely don't need to replace the panel, as load management options exist. Wallbox, in particular, has an option where you can add a modbus doo-dad (carlo gavazzi energy management module) to your panel and it will monitor the overall usage and drop the EVSE current to keep it at a safe level. It's more expensive than if you had a modern panel, but less expensive than replacing the panel itself. | | |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm probably just going to bite the bullet and replace the panel but this is really good to know. | | |
| ▲ | theluketaylor 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Another option is just stick to a smaller circuit. 80% of 15A x 120V = 1.4 kW 80% of 20A x 240V = 3.8 kW Just going from a standard 15A outlet to a 20A/240V nearly triples the amount of power, and many homes that would need a new panel for a 50A charger have room for one more 20A circuit. Cars typically spend 8-16 hrs per day stationary in their own driveway, so 3.8 kW translates into tons of range. While 40A or 50A is nice to have, it's far from necessary. | |
| ▲ | fullstop 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How many amps is your current service? I have 200A service where I live, but the house is 100% electric -- water heater, range, heat pump, washer, dryer, etc. All electric. There's even a little medallion on the front of the house about it: https://i.imgur.com/BrHj1XQ.jpeg The 70s were weird. And when you say that your panel is old, just how old are we talking? |
|
| |
| ▲ | lkbm 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You likely don't need to install a special charger or breaker panel. A regular 120V wall outlet will give probably give you 30+ miles of range just charging overnight. If your commute is longer, you might want a better charger, but don't let someone upsell you on a high-speed charger if your average daily travel is under 30mi and 90%ile under 100mi. | |
| ▲ | jibe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Watch out for electricians who try to rip off new EV owners. Make sure you get a few estimates. When we added a charger, bids were $2000, $2000, and $500. | | |
| ▲ | fullstop 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Mine was about $1,100 which included a $250 permit / inspection fee from my township. |
| |
| ▲ | doug_durham 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My EV is the best most fun car I've ever owned. I had a V8 Mercedes E430 and my EV is faster and more fun to drive. You have it backwards. Having and ICE car is accepting a worse time in exchange for government subsidies on Oil. | |
| ▲ | eunoia 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > to have a worse time I have a much better time in my EV than my ICE car but to each their own. | |
| ▲ | mikestew 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | …to have a worse time Says the person who has never owned an EV. Fifteen years of EV ownership, I’m never going back. Environmental factors aside, an EV is the overall better vehicle. You can keep your rattling ICE vehicles that need special fluid from specific vendors. | | |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I guess I should have said "a more inconvenient time" where owning an EV kinda revolves around your charging setup/schedule in a way that you don't have to think about with ICE cars. I know some people swear by them being more fun to drive but that's the last thing on my list of requirements for a car. I will say I think you're giving ICE cars a bad rap, my little Honda Fit that will be replaced by the EV is at 150k miles with nothing other than like three oil changes (yes i know) and a new set of tires. | | |
| ▲ | mikestew 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I guess I should have said "a more inconvenient time" where owning an EV kinda revolves around your charging setup/schedule in a way that you don't have to think about with ICE cars. I plug it in when I get home, and when I get in it again the "tank" is always full. I think about the EV a lot less than I do our ICE car, which seems to need gas at the most inconvenient times. You might have an argument for road trips, but even that's almost a no-brainer these days. Sure, I can't just get off at some random exit in the Utah desert and expect to find a charger, but my experience says this whole "charging on a road trip" is way overblown, as if even the slightest bit of look-ahead planning is just too much for people to handle. | | |
| ▲ | duskdozer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't constant charging to 100% wreck the battery longevity? | | |
| ▲ | mikestew 2 days ago | parent [-] | | “Full” meaning 80%. With a 300 mile range, that’s plenty for day-to-day. But to your question: I don’t know, does it still? Seems BMS has gotten a lot better from the early Nissan Leaf days, so I don’t if it yet time to retire that along with “discharge batteries all the way so they don’t get ‘memory’”. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fullstop 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wait, you changed your oil every 50,000 miles? |
|
| |
| ▲ | aeronaut80 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | One of the biggest bonuses for me is never needing to go to a gas station. So much more pleasant to charge at home overnight, or at charge stations if I’m on a road trip. I can’t imagine buying an ICE car ever again. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Alternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business. Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf... And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind... | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs. If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd... That's not shocking to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) > Friends of the Earth U.S. was founded in California in 1969 by environmentalist David Brower after he left the Sierra Club. The organization was launched with the help of Donald Aitken, Jerry Mander and a $200,000 donation from the personal funds of Robert O. Anderson. One of its first major campaigns was the protest of nuclear power, particularly in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson > Robert Orville Anderson (April 12, 1917 – December 2, 2007) was an American businessman, art collector, and philanthropist who founded [the United States' sixth-largest oil company] Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Consumers like SUVs. They are convenient, easy to get in and out of, flexible for hauling large items, many can pull trailers, offer good visibility for the driver, and do well in the snow. | | |
| ▲ | doug_durham 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which is why car companies push them. In their current ICE form they also benefit from massive government subsidies of the Oil companies. If you took those away it is unlikely that the convenience would be worth the additional cost. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which... Look in the mirror, that's who's responsible for this. You people levied regulations. You levied them in half baked ways that resulted in the demise of sedans and station wagons. And now you complain that SUVs are "subsidized". Get out of here with that nonsense and take your stupid regulations with you so the rest of us can have diversity of vehicle choice back. None of this stuff is a subsidy, construing "exempt from the screwing some other product category gets" is just a lie. | | |
| ▲ | doug_durham 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I take a less libertarian view on this. It because trucks and truck-like vehicles are under-regulated. The result being excess pollution and pedestrian fatalities. We need to remove the loop hole. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wagons can do all of that too | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They can, the main difference being they ride lower (like a sedan) and tend to have less headroom in the cargo area so might not be quite as good at transporting "stuff." I had a Ford Focus wagon for quite some time, loved it. Cheap to buy, cheap to own, nothing exciting but very dependable and useful. With a small 4-cylinder engine it could not tow (at least not much) and rust eventually claimed it. Still ran like new with over 200K miles. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hamdingers 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People want a solution to this problem that requires them to make approximately zero compromises. The auto industry has positioned EVs as that solution, even though it's mostly not. | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because when you're talking about particulates in the air, one of the main local environmental harms from cars, EVs aren't the 100% clean people expect them to be. | |
| ▲ | nonethewiser 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because EVs are the proposed solution | |
| ▲ | unreal6 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | acdha 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | EVs are heavier than equivalent-sized ICE vehicles, but they do enjoy regenerative braking. The answer is to make smaller-sized cars but the auto industry has been pushing the farmer cosplay for decades because the profit margins are a lot higher on a $75k truck or SUV than $30k sedan. | | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | fullstop 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a tough area, honestly, and will be until public charging is better. You need a bigger battery to get the range that people need (want?) to be able to reach the next charging station. Realistically, though, most people don't really venture far from home but they don't like the idea that they can't venture far from home without finding a place to charge. EV charging availability has drastically improved over the last few years, so maybe there is hope for smaller EVs. |
| |
| ▲ | looknee 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Chevy Suburban: ~ 5,700–6,100lbs Model 3: ~ 3,860–3,900+ lbs Suburban is about 1.5–1.6× heavier than a Tesla Model 3. | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Chevy Suburban has been one of the largest vehicles on the market since 1934. [1] If you wanted an EV to match the Suburban it would probably be that Cadillac Escalade IQ in terms of size, comfort, and towing capacity -- that's got a curb weight of 9,100 pounds which is 1.5x heavier than the Suburban. I'd think the BMW 3 Series has a similar vibe to the Model 3 and that has a base curb weight of 3536 which is about 10% less than the Model 3. [1] it's the oldest nameplate that's been made continuously | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pqtyw 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A a bus is over 40,000lbs. More than 10x heavier than a Tesla Model 3. |
| |
| ▲ | 46218725 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "A Tesla Model 3 has a greater curb weight than a Chevy Suburban" -- what? Source? Suburban - 6,051 lbs
Model 3 - 3,891 lbs https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/suburban/2025/features-spe...
https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2025/features-specs/ | |
| ▲ | fullstop 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tires yes, brakes no. Friction brakes are barely used on EVs outside of specific scenarios. Mine will engage in three situations: 1. The brake pedal is pressed hard
2. The battery is 100% charged and the energy from braking can not be used
3. I am backing up
For #3, the only reason why the brakes are used when backing up is to ensure that they are used even the tiniest amount and to clear any rust from the rotors. | |
| ▲ | citrin_ru 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tire wear - yet, but in theory they should emit less brake dust thanks to regenerative breaking. > A Tesla Model 3 has a greater curb weight than a Chevy Suburban Google AI tells me that Tesla model 3 (heaviest modification - AWD) is 1851 kg and Chevy Suburban 4WD is 2640 kg. Is it wrong? | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tire wear is probably a thing - although I suspect the per-wheel control allows them to better respond to slips and sudden acceleration. I've noticed test driving a Tesla that it accelerates rapidly much more smoothly with no tire slippage than a combustion car. Brake wear is likely nulled out by regenerative braking. And you're probably not driving highway speeds through Manhattan, either. | |
| ▲ | dripton 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is wrong. Exact weights vary with trim levels, but Model are around 4000 lbs. and Suburbans are around 6000 lbs. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Tire, yes. But not brakes. With an EV most of the kinetic energy is converted back to electricity thanks to regenerative braking instead of being turned into heat through friction. Overall the EV emit fewer airborne particles even without counting the exhaust. |
| |
| ▲ | throwawaypath 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why does everyone immediately pivot to SUVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan Tesla Model Ys that weigh as much as a Ford Bronco and EV trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US consumer habits and the demand for huge vehicles to pick up groceries? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| EV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles. https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle... non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust. |
| |
|
| ▲ | a_paddy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tire wear on EVs has more to do with the weight of your right foot than the curb weight of the vehicle. The high torque of EVs results in frequent wheel slippage for those eager to pull away from traffic lights quickly. Just like with high BHP ICE vehincles, smooth and gentle acceleration/deceleration will result in long tire life. |
|
| ▲ | lkbm 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not sure, and I assume it will vary a lot by speed. EVs do also have higher torque, so that may increase tire-based particles, but you're right that it avoids the brake pads for the most part. Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though. |
| |
| ▲ | tart-lemonade 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though. And lower VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) is also a win for the planet, it's probably the best weapon the average person has access to in the fight against climate change. Transit usage begets transit usage; more fares paid to the agency enables better frequencies and more routes, leading to more people opting to take transit instead of driving... In a well-run system, it's a positive feedback loop (and the inverse, where people stop taking transit, can also lead to a death spiral, as happened across America in the mid-20th century). | | |
| ▲ | oasisbob 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If we're speaking about individual actions, isn't avoiding air travel more effective than any other form of individual vehicle travel choice? | | |
| ▲ | sokoloff 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It depends on what you substitute it with. If you substitute with “don’t travel far [or at all]”, it’s a big savings. If you substitute flying 1000 miles on an airliner with “drive 1000 miles instead”, or flying US to Europe with a cruise ship trip to Europe, you’ve probably made it worse; in that regards, it’s less the mode of travel and more the total distance in these trades. | | |
| ▲ | oasisbob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The observation that stuck with me is how much of my county's total carbon emissions are due to air travel which begins/ends at our regional airports (~3%), vs what percentage of the population flies in a given year. The distribution of air-travel emissions, to me, seem pretty gross when juxtaposed with the number of people who are doing this travel. The incentives for business travel, in particular, seem misaligned. | | |
| ▲ | sokoloff 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you can just look at the "number of people who are doing this travel", as those same planes are also carrying air cargo and US mail. Not everyone flies, but almost everyone in the county receives mail, cargo, or benefits from same. (It would be easier to replace cargo than passenger transport with a more efficient and comparable total trip time mode of transport if such was available.) The reason you get asked whether your USPS parcel contains hazardous substances X, Y, and Z and why the fines for violations are so stiff is partly because of passenger airline safety concerns. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pqtyw 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is it? Planes still pollute a lot less than cars per same distance (unless you have 4-5 people in them) | |
| ▲ | treyd 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, and the northeast has the best rail transit in the US, which NYC sits right in the middle of. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Rail transit in the north east is the best in the US. But it is terrible in many ways. As someone who lives in an area that would be marginal for rail even in the great rail countries of Europe of Asia I really need the north east to develop great rail - only by bringing great rail to places where it is easy can we possibly get it good enough that it would be worth bringing to me. Instead I just get examples of why we shouldn't bother with transit at all here: when all we can see is the stupid things New York is constantly doing to transit (where the density is so high they can get by with it) there isn't an example I can point to of that would be worth doing here. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A bit worse on tires because they are heavier (for comparable vehicle size, but obviously not if you compare a small EV with a ICE truck), and much better on brakes because of regenerative braking. Overall they are better. |
|
| ▲ | nabla9 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier. EV SUV worse than gas SUV. |
|
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd gonna guess "worse" Brake dust is mostly some iron, carbon, silica. Not great to ingest but very much recyclable by the environment, unlike rubber. And possibly much easier to greatly reduce (just build some shielding around the brake to catch most of the dust) than the tyre |
| |
| ▲ | coryrc 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately it's also copper and asbestos :(. (Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads...) But tire dust is definitely now the worst of the two, by far. 6-PPD alone. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads.. On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm> |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kyleee 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And unfortunately there is some nasty stuff in tires |
| |
| ▲ | HPsquared 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There never seems to be much discussion on reducing the harm from tire (and I suppose road surface) particulates. Maybe that's the next frontier? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction. For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather. | | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I was thinking more from the perspective "make them out of materials that aren't too bad to inhale/ingest" | | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What material is strong, malleable, dirt fucking cheap, has a high coefficient of friction, easy to work with, amenable to additives, meets all the suspension properties we expect out of a tire, etc, and isn't bad to breathe a lot of the dust of? Modern tires are works of material science miracle, working with dirt cheap inputs. Even iron dust from steel on steel friction like with trains is bad for your health. The human lungs just have bad filtration. | | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, that's great too. But the rubber lasting longer means less of those bad things to inhale floating around at any given time. |
| |
| ▲ | selimthegrim 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How would you recommend them based on winter performance? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I live in a snowy area and am quite happy with them. | | |
| ▲ | selimthegrim 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I believe they are directional tires so it would make it hard to operate with a full size spare otherwise I’ll definitely consider them |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | EU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022): https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv... > Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide. | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mikestew 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| “Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago? I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves. |