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

461–470 of 783 posts

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

#461

Post by recursive »

throw0101d wrote: post #363
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.

> […] 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…

Range anxiety seems to go away after your first week of EV driving.

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

#462

Post by baq »

jajko wrote: post #284
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am just excited because the more EVs mean fewer idiots in hot rods running without mufflers.

Well there are new classes of idiots I see pretty frequently - a typical tesla driver going 90 in 120 region of highway without any reason, presumably saving last bits of battery (that has at least some rationale, if they do it due to ie fear then they should not be driving or having license). Over say 50km part of highway, maybe 2000 cars need to overtake such almost stationary object (to regular traffic which gener…

> 90 in 120 region of highway

so just like any truck.

if you think it's a problem, you're the problem. sorry.

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

#463

Post by potato3732842 »

pkolaczk wrote: post #277
Helmut10001 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first changed the brakes on my Mitsubishi Space Star (combustion) after 13 years. It is a small car, less than 1000kg, so there is little for the brakes to do. If we produced more percentage of small cars, many environmental risks would be reduced. And btw.: The tires are now 19 years old and still good (less weight, less abrasion!).

Seriously, you should not use tires older than 10 years. They degrade over time.

Time based degradation is mostly a factor of exposure to the sun and the weather.

I just trashed some 15yo Firestones last month, after wearing them completely bald of course.

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

#464

Post by sgarland »

sokoloff wrote: post #443
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…

For a Honda 2.2kW to aid with range anxiety, you'd have to split range anxiety into two categories and I think it only addresses the second/lesser of the two. Assume the car gets 4 miles per kWh delivered and the charging cycle is 90% efficient (measured from generator output). The 2.2kW generator can add 8 miles/hour of generator runtime (2.2 kW * 0.9 * 4 miles/kWh). For range anxiety of the form "we're driving to a…

Posted something very similar above. It’s worse than 2200 watts: that’s the allowable overload draw, not sustained. After about 5 minutes, it warns you to reduce power to Also, something I didn’t mention in my post; at full power they’ll suck their tank dry in a little over 3 hours. You’ll get about 20 miles of range (using your assumptions above) from one. Tbf you can also parallel two of them, or buy a slightly larger model (EU3200i), but either way, it’s still not going to be anything other than an emergency backup where you have a lot of time to kill.

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

#465

Post by usrusr »

xxs wrote: post #400
usrusr wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On paper, yes, but did that ever happen? Sorry for being sarcastic, but where I live the frugal hybrid is exceptionally rare and the "same big engine, but driving a much heavier car" hybrid is omnipresent. The kind of people who might buy the frugal one buy second or third hand while almost all buyers of factory new pick the "same big engine" option, and those are the ones who decide what's available on the second ha…

>On paper, yes, but did that ever happen? Like absolutely, unless you consider 1.4L petrol engine large for something with over 170KW (over 220hp). Such kind of offerings are quite common at the East side of the pond.

I'd consider engines with HP in the two digits range not big. Few ICE cars (hybrid or not) are ever accelerated at the rate you could achieve with a 75 HP engine revved into the high but still safe range. People buy big engines so that they can get all their acceleration needs served at half throttle. And that's for stick shifting, those on automatic pick engine size so that they can accelerate on quarter throttle or else the car shifts back and it sounds all x "small engine working hard" (which would be so much less inefficient!).

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

#466

Post by StumpChunkman »

On a meta note, I come to HN for the typically more informed and sometimes expert takes on the issues and articles that surface here, especially for tech related news. It's interesting how even this site is not insulated from some absolutely insane misinformation about EV's that starts to show up in the comments whenever they are brought up. I mean, just look at how many comments this article about brake dust has generated.

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

#467

Post by potato3732842 »

padjo wrote: post #456
brtkwr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just normal driving, it wasn’t quite so bad on our previous car which was a Nissan Leaf (with 30kWh battery) but our current Kia Niro just has a lot bigger batter (64kWh) and it is a lot heavier I suppose, the tyres just don’t seem to last as long. I’m pretty sure I’m using summer tyres all year round (I live in the UK) this was recommended by the dealer

Perhaps do an advanced driving class? Assuming no mechanical issues the next place to look is your driving. 10k is way too low, something is not right.

10k per set of tires seems like a high "smiles per gallon" number to me.

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

#468

Post by ceejayoz »

30gdan wrote: post #405
stephen_g wrote: post #5

Good to have more data points and evidence, but this seems extremely well established by now? Zero tailpipe emissions, drastically removed brake dust, slightly higher tire wear (due to weight), but much better overall than ICE.

Much better at what ? Do you have decent data for what it takes (CO2, child labour , cost of supply chain, ...) to make your Lithium based battery VS melting an ICE ? Same question for recycling ? Comparing only the lifecycles of products doesn't make any sense if you don't put in perspective creation & destruction and this is where the massive lie is, no EV constructor has ever been transparent about this because it…

> Do you have decent data...?

> just cannot be cleaner...

Someone doesn't!

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

#469

Post by elyobo »

eldaisfish wrote: post #432
lotsofpulp wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

also once everybody else is obstructing your view with a bigger car it becomes necessary to have a bigger one, it's a race to the metaphorical bototm

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

#470

Post by AngryData »

potato3732842 wrote: post #399
AngryData wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is actually one reason some companies are trying to move back to all drum brakes for EVs. The drum protects the brakes from water, rust, and debri fairly well and is far more reliable when not used as often. The only real obstacle is car companies having spent the last few decades focusing all their braking and traction control features on disc brakes so they need to be reimplemented for use in drums. And really…

This comment comes across a lot like the fanboys screeching about how their 1985 or 91 Toyota had a "nice" interior as if the most rattle prone 2009 GM work truck interior isn't better in every way just as a result of sheer cumulative progress. Like if you actually put A beside B and look at them without the rose tinted veneer of nostalgia it's not even a comparison. Rusty rarely exercised drum brakes have a ton of f…

Rusted rarely exercised drum brakes are already known to be far more reliable than rusted rarely exercised disc brakes, that is why many vehicles still or had until recently kept drum brakes in the rear where they get far less usage and get 1/10th the attention as front brakes. Or in trailers brakes that are utilized far less often.

But people already had this entire debate decades ago when disc brakes were first implemented. If you are racing or using a lot of braking power, discs are obviously better, they have better heat dissipation, they are quicker to repair and replace, more predictable for analog/dumb traction and stability control systems, and getting them rusty and dirty isn't a concern because you are racing and/or using the shit out of them. And most of the disadvantages became of little concern to consumers because when the consumer market moved towards automatic transmissions and smaller displacement engines people stopped engine braking constantly and were instead clearing their brakes off at literally every stop so dirty disc brakes stopped being a common concern. But the downsides still exist and is why disc brakes haven't taken over all applications.

Like yeah, drums have less heat capacity and worse cooling, but the entire point of regenerative braking is that you don't use them as much and so heat issues don't matter, only a small fraction of your braking force will use the physical brakes. Ideally in an EV your physical brakes are 100% a safety item, not a common usage item, and so reliability should be the top concern.

Post reply on HN