71–80 of 783 posts
An an EV owner, I can testify that the tyre wear more than makes up for the reduction in brake dust. I’ve had to change tyres every 10K miles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public EV chargers are pretty widespread nowadays. Not as much as gas chargers obviously, but for most people in the country if you don't have a way to charge at home it's not fundamentally that different from not having a gas pump at your house. Plus, most people can charge at home with an extension cord. It's not particularly fast, but you should be able to get 4-5 miles an hour. In the worst case scenario where yo…
Popularity has costs, some are waiting in line for 45 minutes to use a fast charger. EV is not for everyone, but those Rivian are nice though. =3
An an EV owner, I can testify that the tyre wear more than makes up for the reduction in brake dust. I’ve had to change tyres every 10K miles.
- evs have a reputation for fast acceleration, and many drivers use it. More wear.
- evs are heavy due to large batteries trying to match ICE range. More wear.
- evs often come with low friction tires to improve range, they wear faster
The second two issues should gradually go away as battery (and charging) tech improves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to have gone electric (bought a car in September) but I rent and don't have any way to charge at my residence. How do we solve the renters-that-cant-charge-their-cars problem?
Well if you have a Tesla, I believe you can sit in it and it offers games to play on its iPad to kill the time.
An an EV owner, I can testify that the tyre wear more than makes up for the reduction in brake dust. I’ve had to change tyres every 10K miles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is tire wear related to the method of power? It could be a steam engine for all it mattered. Accelerating and decelerating, in regards to the tire, don't care what is causing the force.
Mass. Electric cars are much heavier. F=ma.
We should obviously ban combustion engine cars, at least starting with cities. I can’t think of a single clearer win for air quality.
I’m against a ban. That sort of pollution is an externality and we could price it in.
We should obviously ban combustion engine cars, at least starting with cities. I can’t think of a single clearer win for air quality.
Sure, first we spend a trillion dollars for over capacity electrical distribution grids and generation plants. B100 is almost carbon neutral, and has the energy density necessary for commercial logistics. Finding responsible manufacturing methods is far more feasible. EV only make sense with distributed generation like home solar. =3
We should obviously ban combustion engine cars, at least starting with cities. I can’t think of a single clearer win for air quality.
Well, I like that the people that think like this also probably live I places where you are actually driving a coal powered car.
Like the clowns in Hawaii that have extra subsidies for EVs… their power comes directly from burning crude oil.
I’m an automotive EE, and and the truth about EVs is in a rush to push them out the door, the media and politicians have set the tech back at least a decade by pretending it is something it’s not.
EVs for most people outside of California. Make a great town vehicle or second vehicle.
A ban on ICE… wow.
I suppose the same should apply to hybrid cars, which outnumber pure EVs significantly [1]. The effect comes from converting the kinetic energy back to the battery charge via generation instead of wasting it via friction, which is the whole point of hybrids. [1]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-electric...