| ▲ | fpoling a day ago |
| EVs are still heavier than ICE vehicles and will for the next 10-20 years unless one is OK with a tiny battery. And heavy weight means more pollution from wheels that produce particles that ends up in lungs. Note brakes also pollutes with asbestos but EVs typically have regenerative braking so I think brakes pollutes roughly the same in a heavier EV as in ICE car. |
|
| ▲ | rickydroll a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I compared the weights of EVs versus ICE, and they were surprisingly close. Most of time, the differences were in the 15% range, and then you find exceptions like the Hummer, which is 30% heavier. I'm sure it comes as no surprise That the heavier the vehicle, the bigger the difference in ICE versus EV weight. While I think lighter weight vehicles of all types would be a big win, I fear that ship has sailed. I think we have an opportunity to reset vehicle size both from a desire for cheaper and simpler vehicles. Look at cost and weight of the BYD EVs and the new pickup trucks from Slate and Telos. Overall, I find the slightly increased weight for an EV to be an acceptable trade-off. Brakes last longer, tires, depending on make, are about 10% shorter life at most and overall maintenance is much less. Since I keep my cars until the body goes toes up, I have a much lower carbon footprint. than the 3yr lease route |
| |
| ▲ | bee_rider 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you give the difference in weight as a percentage, it is sort of surprising that the percentage is higher for heavier vehicles, right? Or at least I don’t get it. I’d expect the EV to be a constant factor heavier, a total weight of combustion_vehicle*1.1 or something. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wonder if it's sorta like the rocket equation. A heavier vehicle requires larger batteries to move the extra weight with a comparable range as a smaller vehicle, but the batteries are heavy too, so you need even more battery to move the heavier batteries. | | |
| ▲ | 20after4 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's exactly that. Battery = heavy, heavy vehicle = short range. I wonder if ICE vehicle weight is calculated with a full fuel tank? Gas / Diesel is also pretty heavy and large vehicles have large empty spaces to be filled with fuel. |
|
| |
| ▲ | b40d-48b2-979e 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I had a 2010s Civic and moved to a Model 3. The curb weight difference was only ~3-400 lbs (about 10%), but the larger battery capacity, large SUV offerings are significantly heavier than ICE options (the F150 Lightning is about 2,000 pounds heavier than an ICE F150, for example, 5,000 -> 7,000 lbs.). |
|
|
| ▲ | avidiax a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The tire pollution is true, but the brakes hardly get used on an EV. They are almost for emergency use only. Mine has a special mode to disable regeneration for a while so you can use the brake pads to clean the rotors. |
|
| ▲ | nl 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Modern car brakes don't have asbestos. The difference in tyre wear is so marginal it's probably unmeasurable - less than the difference between running at the correct pressure and forgetting to check your tyre pressure. ICE vehicles also have exhaust pipes which pollute some too... |
|
| ▲ | vincnetas a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| My EV is lighter than your ICE. Volkswagen eUP. 1183kg. 250km range in summer conditions. |
| |
| ▲ | torginus a day ago | parent [-] | | I love the idea of these tiny EVs. Apparently the EU's making some legislation for them so that they can go without much of the expensive 'safety' equipment such as driver tracking. Parking cars in cities not designed for them is a nightmare, but getting around with a car is so much faster than public transport, even if your city's is fairly decent. | | |
| ▲ | smaudet 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Hybrids are even better, super tiny batteries with an ICE on standby. If you scale size as well (like a motorcycle but e.g. as a tricycle for safety), you can realize some major efficiency improvements (doubling or tripling energy efficiency). Which is why, bicycles should be the focus of transportation improvement. | |
| ▲ | immibis a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | tangential: people also underestimate the convenience of public transport being a one-way trip, meaning you can go from A>B>C>D>A and never have to go back to a previous spot to pick up a part of your luggage that you left behind. | | |
| ▲ | torginus 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Personally, when not being a tourist, almost all my trips are home to some place and back again. Public transport is great, but if you're going to a less good part of the city, or even just a place that's unfamiliar, and less frequented, it might be a bit more difficult to get around. And public transport travel distances can be patchy based on where the stops are, especially if you're going to the outskirts of your city. Also when having to be present in the office, that extra 15-25 mins (x2) it takes to get to and from the office adds up quickly. |
| |
| ▲ | peregrinus1 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | 20after4 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Replying to the entirely wrong thread? I'm not sure how this ended up here. | | |
|
|
|
