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

491–500 of 783 posts

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

#491

Post by potato3732842 »

mjevans wrote: post #159
djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if everyone drove optimally, every road is going to reach a capacity where its physically impossible to maintain a certain speed. It's similar to network congestion. Mandating that everyone drive faster won't solve anything.

It would reduce the duration of rush hour... once the least skilled drivers were improved or removed from the pool. I do agree it wouldn't solve a complete lack of capacity, civic planning, transportation infrastructure. Including lack of busses that travel frequently enough and where people want to go.

>It would reduce the duration of rush hour... I do agree it wouldn't solve a complete lack of capacity,

Exactly. Rush hour is like dumping 5gal bucket into a sink. You'll always be bottlenecked by the drain but a better drain will mean all the drops get where they're going faster and with less waiting around.

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

#492

Post by eldaisfish »

potato3732842 wrote: post #444
eldaisfish wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Everyone who doesn't want what I want them to want has been brainwashed by corporate interests" is not a robust assertion under even the most casual scrutiny. I hate to break it to you but something like a Rogue or HRV does circles around an Altima or Civic when it comes to daily flexibility and utility for a fairly paltry additional cost. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out why they fly off the…

The North American market now only includes a handful of sedans. Meanwhile, Hyundai and Toyota somehow manage to sell “tiny” cars in Korea, Japan and lots of developing countries.

A practical car is a station wagon, not an SUV, many of which have less storage space.

Please, cut the needless snark. People do buy vehicles for edge cases but the lack of smaller, practical vehicles is driven is large part by manufacturer profit.

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

#493

Post by bradfa »

masklinn wrote: post #364
pkolaczk wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I confirm and that’s an unpleasant surprise. Already had to replace the rear rotors and pads on my Highlander… because of rust. They should add some “brake cleaning” mode to temporarily disable regenerative braking.

There’s been a few suggestions that drum brakes should make a come back, for EVs. They’re enclosed so they don’t get dirty, the inner face of drum will rust less than discs, fade is not an issue thanks to regen braking, and before they get too hot and fade drums will brake harder than disks (thanks to a higher pad surface area). And they’re enclosed so they also keep the brake dust inside the drum, making it easier t…

Drum brakes are cheaper, too. The VW ID4 has rear drum brakes for all of these reasons and it seems to work out very well.

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

#494

Post by Toutouxc »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #252
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more benefits to EV conversion in a community than the use of renewable energy, noise and roadside air quality being pretty big ones. Also... how do you know there aren't Hawaiians charging their EVs using rooftop solar? I hear they're known for being in the sun sometimes.

> Also... how do you know there aren't Hawaiians charging their EVs using rooftop solar? Because of math. A 6 kW house, to charge a 60 kW battery… so long as everyone with an electric vehicle is charging them at their house for 10 sunny hours to charge from empty, you’re right and I’m wrong. Some people could get by, but it leaves the solar for nothing else. If you leave the house while the sun is up you better get b…

Dude, literally every single EV-related number you’ve mentioned around here is so insanely off. Two hours at a charger, 20 minutes of charge just to get home, charging an EV 0 to 100 % and now again, charging a 60 kW battery every day. I don’t know what kind of terrible EVs you’ve seen, but they weren’t what normal people drive. Either get some real world experience with EVs or just stop posting about them.

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

#495

Post by londons_explore »

potato3732842 wrote: post #447
londons_explore wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard braking is an insane power. Eg. A typical 4,400 lb car emergency stopping from 80 mph has a braking power of 940 horsepower. Hybrid cars have smaller motors, inverters, and battery packs - and none of those components can absorb 940 horsepower! A 2nd gen prius battery for example has a max in/out of 30 horsepower.

Always sketches me out using regen for a serious grade decent while laden or towing. I have a sneaking suspicion that one day it's gonna error out and disable itself because too much power and I'll be down to just normal brakes.

It will disable itself if your battery is already full...

Some cars it's quite an abrupt change from the regen braking to the hydraulic brakes.

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

#496

Post by empath75 »

altairprime wrote: post #39
rayiner wrote: post #16

We should obviously ban combustion engine cars, at least starting with cities. I can’t think of a single clearer win for air quality.

If all of us renters were forced to convert to electric there’d never be an open charger in any city again for the next five years, because no landlord will voluntarily afford that cost, and no municipal region can pass a ballot measure to afford that cost. California’s impending ban of combustion car sales hinges wholly on a magical DC-charging network that doesn’t exist in U.S. cities yet (i.e. at parking meters),…

Demand induces supply. Probably don't ban it _all at once_, but a gradual phasing out will give plenty of time for chargers to get built. They won't be _free_, but they will be available.

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

#497

Post by sokoloff »

brtkwr wrote: post #49
ghushn3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you doing to your tires that they only last 10k miles? I think that might be a driver error issue, because my EV (a heavier sedan) basically never needed tire replacement barring me running over a screw or something.

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

The factory fitment LEAF tires seem to be made of cast iron, based on the unimpressive levels of cornering grip but also on their impressive long-wearing nature.

I'm likely to end up replacing mine based on age-related degradation rather than wear.

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

#498

Post by apelapan »

eldaisfish wrote: post #438
stavros wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

There must be some connection between traction control and regen braking in newer Teslas, because I didn't really have any problems with it during the past winter. A friend working in auto industry was involved with doing competitor analysis and was shocked back in 2014 or something like that, the Teslas they tested simply spun out of control when letting go of the accelerator in slippery conditions.

They didn't care much for convential wisdom and car building competence in the early days of Tesla.

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

#499

Post by empath75 »

jjayj wrote: post #33
rayiner wrote: post #16

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 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?

The same way you fix parking problems and lots of other problems. You have regulations that require landlords to provide certain amenities.

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

#500

Post by potato3732842 »

eldaisfish wrote: post #492
potato3732842 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everyone who doesn't want what I want them to want has been brainwashed by corporate interests" is not a robust assertion under even the most casual scrutiny. I hate to break it to you but something like a Rogue or HRV does circles around an Altima or Civic when it comes to daily flexibility and utility for a fairly paltry additional cost. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out why they fly off the…

The North American market now only includes a handful of sedans. Meanwhile, Hyundai and Toyota somehow manage to sell “tiny” cars in Korea, Japan and lots of developing countries. A practical car is a station wagon, not an SUV, many of which have less storage space. Please, cut the needless snark. People do buy vehicles for edge cases but the lack of smaller, practical vehicles is driven is large part by manufacturer…

Many of those tiny foreign cars are unfortunately not economically useful to sell in the regulated markets of the rich west, and even when they are they often aren't without the developing nation sales volume to amortize a lot of the fixed costs over.

I agree that there's a lot of stupidity going on when it comes to station wagons vs crossovers vs compact SUVs and the OEMs really do SUV-ify a lot of things that ought not to be.

The shape of these vehicles is fairly preordained by the nature of the fuel economy regulations and wind resistance and other regulations that apply equally to all of them. You're not gonna find "more space" in something like a Subaru Outback by squashing it on the vertical axis unless you stretch it in another dimension or find somewhere else to find space. Maybe you might be able to eek out a slightly better angle on the hatch or something but it ain't gonna be much. Fuel economy regulations make cars with thicc asses like the big sedans and station wagons of yesterday nonsensical.

The snark is not needless. It is tautologically impossible for the overwhelming majority of people do be "doing it wrong" on a matter that is in large part a subjective one of preference. If someone wants to assert that then I will talk down to them.

People buy these small SUVs left and right because they're seemingly the best option when it comes to well rounded boring A to B vehicles.

Post reply on HN