Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

modernengineeringmarvels.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 783 posts

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#431

Post by eldaisfish »

pmg101 wrote: post #349
mort96 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, you can make much lighter and lower range electric cars without all those heavy batteries, and boost the range with diesel when needed. Very attractive in principle. Most cars are not using their full range all the time, for a lot of people a 50 mile range car would be more than enough 98% of the time, but that remaining 2% means that people end up buying 200 mile range cars instead. But then, do you end up remo…

I thought about PHEV but in the end went full EV simply because it seemed to me with two whole power trains that's 2x the components to go wrong/need maintenance.

Toyota's success with the Prius proves that this fear is unfounded. You will regularly find second hand prius models for sale with 500,000 km on the odometer.

Just think - if two drivetrains were less reliable, wouldn't you see that with the Prius?

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#432

Post by eldaisfish »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #308
mort96 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, you can make much lighter and lower range electric cars without all those heavy batteries, and boost the range with diesel when needed. Very attractive in principle. Most cars are not using their full range all the time, for a lot of people a 50 mile range car would be more than enough 98% of the time, but that remaining 2% means that people end up buying 200 mile range cars instead. But then, do you end up remo…

Smaller cars have always been available, but people have shown a preference for bigger cars where they can sit higher up, even though it costs them more.

does "preference" equate to endless, manipulative advertising from car manufacturers? Or, perhaps, the "preference" of higher profit margins from larger cars, pushing manufacturers to entirely abandon reasonably sized cars?

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#433

Post by nottorp »

esperent wrote: post #373
nottorp wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, especially on the 6th floor :)

Well, that's an apartment. We're talking about house owners.

No the OP was talking about owners without qualifiers.

Make EVs chargeable for those who choose to live in the urban jungle and then talk about their merits.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#434

Post by infecto »

brtkwr wrote: post #4

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.

I am firmly in the camp that problems like these have less to do with being an EV and more to do with one of the following:

1) Aggressive driving which is easier to do in a number of EVs due to instant torque. 2) tire compound, a lot of oem tires are soft 3) something wrong with the cars drivetrain or suspension.

10k is comically low, my model y oem tires lasted to 30k before tread depth passed the safety threshold. I also keep it in chill mode.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#435

Post by infecto »

labster wrote: post #188
reissbaker wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that even including tire and road wear, EVs generate 38% less particulate pollution than ICE cars before considering the lack of tailpipe emissions.

But tires are black, and black carbon has additional climate effects — even once the aerosol lands, it can still have effects like black carbon on snow.

Guess what comes out of petrol and diesel exhaust? Guess what color brake dust is. I guarantee the EV is going to be a lot cleaner.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#436

Post by infecto »

sjducb wrote: post #317
jillesvangurp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switch tire brand and type or get some advice. Whatever you are currently getting isn't the right tire for your car, obviously. You should be seeing much longer lives for your tires. Even with an EV. So, something is off. And tires of course aren't created equally. There are many different types of tires and they are optimized for different circumstances. If you mismatch your tires to e.g. weather conditions, you are…

Agreed parent needs to get advice from 2/3 different tyre shops. Changing tyres every 10k means something is wrong.

That or just slow down. I swear 90% of the people that complain of tire wear drive oblivious and are flooring it after every stop. Even a Kia Beri which what the parent has, has more kick than a ICE.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#437

Post by darkwater »

cjrp wrote: post #393
throw0101d wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] but there can also be a significant benefit from allowing the ICE to remain in the RPM "sweet spot" rather than moving around a larger range. Which is why I'm surprised electric cars with range extenders aren't a bigger thing: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_extender Have the powertrain be all-electric, and have a battery pack, but for those with range anxiety have a small generator as an option that woul…

The newer London black cabs do that > The LEVC TX is powered by a full-electric hybrid drivetrain. It drives in full-electric mode all the time, but is recharged by an 81-horsepower (60 kW; 82 PS) Volvo-sourced 1.5-litre turbocharged three-cylinder petrol engine.

This does not make any sense. It's a cab, it's going to stay 100% of the time in a city or really near, moving around. If it ignites a petrol engine to recharge the battery, what's the point? Surely a cab driver can pause 20 minutes every 4 hours to go to the restroom and fast charge their EV, no?

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#438

Post by eldaisfish »

stavros wrote: post #370
apelapan wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two aspect I don't like: 1. It is inconsistent, especially during winter and when fully charged. 2. Crossings with shrubbery/objects that hides approaching pedestrians/cars/bikes and it is rare that there is anyone actually crossing. I encounter these several times per day. My preferred way of approaching #2 is to reduce speed well ahead, start gliding and put my foot on the break pedal to be ready for a co…

Hmm, I don't really understand what you mean. If I want to reduce speed far ahead, I just ease up on the throttle pedal a little, and the car slows down a little. If I ease up a lot, it slows down a lot. I'm not sure what you mean...

regenerative braking can be uncomfortable for passengers as the car is constantly alternating between accelerating (or constant speed) and braking. It isn't even light braking, it is significant braking.

I generally turn off the auto regen braking because i find it uncomfortable.

Importantly, regenerative braking is a danger on icy roads. I disable it entirely in the winter in eastern Canada because it often causes the tires to lose grip.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#439

Post by potato3732842 »

jaggederest wrote: post #76
ccc3 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass. Electric cars are much heavier. F=ma.

For tire degradation I believe it's actually something like the 4th power of the mass, same as for roads.

The tire isn't constant like a road is though. Tires intended for bigger heavier vehicles get harder rubbers.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#440

Post by phire »

masklinn wrote: post #264
cperciva wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which is the whole point of hybrids Part of the point, not the whole point. Regenerative breaking is absolutely a win; but there can also be a significant benefit from allowing the ICE to remain in the RPM "sweet spot" rather than moving around a larger range.

Afaik that’s pure series hybrid and that’s almost non-existent in cars (outside of range extenders, not that there are that many of those). There are a handful but most hybrids are either parallel or series-parallel. I assume because the power range is so low that the conversion losses are way too noticeable compared to a mechanical drivetrain.

No, the entire point of a series-parallel hybrid is that it can offer the advantage of a series hybrid.

The Toyota Prius powerchain has two motor generators, and can take part of the ICE power from one and transfer it electrically to the other, remapping the engine RPM into more efficient power bands at the same time. It has a mode that can do this even when no power is being used from the battery.

It’s kind of a best of both worlds. They can avoid the extra weight of a full series hybrid, because they don’t need a motor generator pair that handles the full engine power.

Actually, power bands remapping is essential for the Prius to operate.

There is no clutch, there is no neutral gear, there is no torque converter. The ICE is always connected directly to the wheels with a fixed gear ratio on a planetary gear set. (Which improves transmission efficiency over a automatic/CVT gearbox, and actually reduces maintenance costs)

One of the motor-generators is on the 3rd input of the planetary gear. For the ICE to idle (during warm up, or when you have the heater on), the motor-generator much be spinning backwards at the exact same speed so that the wheels stay stationary.

Power band remapping can also be used for reversing when the battery is empty.

Post reply on HN