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

Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

emissionsanalytics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 336 posts

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#321

Post by kungtotte »

hef19898 wrote: post #239
abyssin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a hitchhiking ride in France with a man working in the building and infrastructure industry telling me about these figures, and the intense lobbying against transporting goods on rails...

On Germany the best lobby work to put transportation on truck instead of rail is done by DB, German Railroads, with their freight services. Compared to trucking you can easily double lead times, increase costs per ton and decrease trackability and reliability.

Same thing in Sweden.

Lower costs for the customers and higher reliability when you ship by truck means rail is not really a consideration even though it would be better for everyone if it actually worked.

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#322

Post by kungtotte »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #128
_Microft wrote: post #32

Maybe offtopic but a surprising bit of extra information regarding wear and vehicles: Road wear scales with the fourth power of axle load, so heavier vehicles do much more damage than one might expect. Take a 40t truck with 5 axles vs. a small car with a weight of 1t and two axles (e.g. VW Polo, maybe an older VW Golf might only weigh 1t as well): (8t axle load / 0.5t axle load) = 16^4, i.e. the truck puts 2^16 (6553…

I'll take your off-topic a step further ;) A couple days ago on one of the NPR shows they interviewed a long-haul truck driver. At one point he said (paraphrasing), "If you bought physical goods, it was transported by truck." Given the amount of consumption (of physical goods) that's a significant amount of tire wear.

He was underselling it.

Unless you walked naked out into the woods and built your life entirely from found materials, literally everything in your life was at some point or another hauled by a truck.

Everything.

This is not a hyperbolic way to make an argument, it's the truth. Sometimes you'll have to go pretty far back the chain of events, maybe as far as raw materials, but at some point (probably several) X was on a truck for any X.

A hippie commune that grow all their own food living off the grid? Their clothes, their tools, the paint on their house, it all rode on trucks.

Two-ish years ago truckers in Brazil went on a strike to protest increased gas prices and corruption and it only took three days before the president ordered the military to force the trucks into moving again. That's how hard it hits if trucks stop moving.

The military couldn't do shit though because the trucks hauling the diesel powering the military vehicles were part of the protest so they got nowhere.

If all the trucks stop right this second, we'll be living in post-apocalyptic chaos by Friday. No joke.

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#323

Post by nitin_flanker »

ratel wrote: post #164

Hold on: The claim is this: > "Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles." It does not seem to be a mistake: > "Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a factor of over 1,000." A tire might way up to 15 kilograms f…

Could there be an alternate way to measure the rubber wear off from vehicles? By considering the average distance after which a particular Sedan/SUV/Hatchback needs to change tyre, and then comparing the lost weights of old tyres and averaging that?

I'm just wondering if there are any alternate ways to correctly measure this emission.

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#324

Post by benjymo »

pmiller2 wrote: post #289
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, or you can ride a bike in these new bike lanes in one of the flattest and temperate climates in the US? Oakland is littered with cars along roads in every neighborhood you go on, and the police barely enforce anything resembling traffic code (due partially to complicated historical reasons). In some neighborhoods, I've seen duplexes with more land area in cars than living space (so is it a wonder that poorer…

Sure, you can ride a bike. Now, tell me how you would transport groceries for a family of 4, or how you transport the kids to doctor's appointments, for instance. What about people who physically can't ride a bike? What if I'm coming from 15 miles away?

I don't think the argument was to remove all car lanes and replace them with bike lanes.

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#325

Post by jasonmp85 »

pmiller2 wrote: post #289
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, or you can ride a bike in these new bike lanes in one of the flattest and temperate climates in the US? Oakland is littered with cars along roads in every neighborhood you go on, and the police barely enforce anything resembling traffic code (due partially to complicated historical reasons). In some neighborhoods, I've seen duplexes with more land area in cars than living space (so is it a wonder that poorer…

Sure, you can ride a bike. Now, tell me how you would transport groceries for a family of 4, or how you transport the kids to doctor's appointments, for instance. What about people who physically can't ride a bike? What if I'm coming from 15 miles away?

(A) Use panniers

(B) Use a trailer the kids can ride in

(C) Don’t use a bike for a 15mi commute. Better still, don’t do things 15mi away. That’s so damn far what the hell

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#326

Post by [deleted] »

lkbm wrote: post #262
nightski wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but people buying F-150s are not buying Teslas. The use case is quite different. My Subaru Outback (a rather large car in comparison to the Tesla) is 3,600 lbs. But I doubt the increase in weight is a huge factor in environmental concerns.

> Right but people buying F-150s are not buying Teslas. The use case is quite different. Have you been to a Texas city? They're full of F-150s driving around a single person and an empty bed on paved roads. Sure, farmers and contractors use trucks as trucks, but thousands of people use them as commuter cars. Most pickup trucks are used as trucks once in a blue moon.

[deleted]

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#327

Post by yincrash »

ratel wrote: post #164

Hold on: The claim is this: > "Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles." It does not seem to be a mistake: > "Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a factor of over 1,000." A tire might way up to 15 kilograms f…

Hypothesis: New tires have some break-in where they wear more than after the break-in period. To test- how much do 1 yr old tires emit?

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#328

Post by jessaustin »

jessaustin wrote: post #307
reitzensteinm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that's true, but are you saying it doesn't reduce wear?

It probably reduces wear slightly. Increasing contact area necessarily decreases applied pressure. Then again, a wider effective contact profile damages more of the road than a narrower one would. Let's not forget the context of this discussion, however. Fourth power expressions are still fourth power expressions after multiplication by a constant factor. 4/18 is a constant factor.

Also, road wear is a function of friction as well as pressure. Friction is increased with additional tires.

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#329

Post by Karrot_Kream »

pmiller2 wrote: post #289
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, or you can ride a bike in these new bike lanes in one of the flattest and temperate climates in the US? Oakland is littered with cars along roads in every neighborhood you go on, and the police barely enforce anything resembling traffic code (due partially to complicated historical reasons). In some neighborhoods, I've seen duplexes with more land area in cars than living space (so is it a wonder that poorer…

Sure, you can ride a bike. Now, tell me how you would transport groceries for a family of 4, or how you transport the kids to doctor's appointments, for instance. What about people who physically can't ride a bike? What if I'm coming from 15 miles away?

Surely as someone from the area you've seen the countless folks with cargo bikes transporting their kids? I live 1.5 mi. away from my grocery and I take panniers and shop for a family of 2 (though I understand that kids need a lot more things than adults do, so this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison). And if you're coming from 15 mi. away, you're a guest, not a resident, so either take transit and a bike share or circle the block for parking. I don't demand a house in your yard, and neither should you demand a parking spot in mine. Also, what about the folks that physically can't drive a car but can ride a bike, or the folks with poor reflexes or vision that should not be allowed to drive and yet are given a pass in the US because it's so driving centric?

Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

#330

Post by reitzensteinm »

jessaustin wrote: post #328
jessaustin wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably reduces wear slightly. Increasing contact area necessarily decreases applied pressure. Then again, a wider effective contact profile damages more of the road than a narrower one would. Let's not forget the context of this discussion, however. Fourth power expressions are still fourth power expressions after multiplication by a constant factor. 4/18 is a constant factor.

Also, road wear is a function of friction as well as pressure. Friction is increased with additional tires.

This is already taken in to account with the forth power rule, isn't it?
Post reply on HN