TailingsPond + 662 GE October 9 34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: You want to eliminate EV trucks now? Wow, what a great idea. Add this to your repertoire on EV pollution. https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxic-emissions-are-worse-for-the-environment-study/ "It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles’ emissions to new lows. Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear. As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air," Do you realize that ICE vehicles also have brakes and tires? If the weight of the vehicle is the problem implement more regulations or road taxes based on weight. Just remember, the same weight regulations would apply to ICE vehicles. You don't want that, trust me. EVs cars are not heavy vehicles, they are just a bit heavier than the same sized ICE cars. Regular trucks are still heavier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,230 DM October 9 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: You want to eliminate EV trucks now? Wow, what a great idea. Add this to your repertoire on EV pollution. https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxic-emissions-are-worse-for-the-environment-study/ "It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles’ emissions to new lows. Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear. As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air," ny post as a source ???? oh my you really are grabbing at straws try doing a brake to brake comparason on EVs versus ICE vehicles on brakes ........in EVs the electric motor itself is used in braking, instead of grinding off brake pad material you generate electricity.......now tell us are you claiming the electric motors put out particulate pollution???????? why do brake pads last twice as long on an EV compared to an ICE vehicle????? pretty simple to understand unless you are an idiot https://nrsbrakes.com/blogs/blog/10-points-to-remember-about-electric-vehicles-brakes#:~:text=1.,for 80%2C000 miles or more. 1. How Often Should the Brake Pads of a Hybrid or Electric Vehicle be Replaced? It depends on their use and on how much the driver relies on the regenerative braking system. Brake pads on these vehicles last at least twice as long as they do in conventional vehicles: for 80,000 miles or more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,230 DM October 9 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You want to eliminate EV trucks now? Wow, what a great idea. Add this to your repertoire on EV pollution. https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxic-emissions-are-worse-for-the-environment-study/ "It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles’ emissions to new lows. Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear. As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air," NY Post??? A science based publication????????? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35760182/ Comparison of total PM emissions emitted from electric and ... National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov When secondary PM emissions were included, the EF was always significantly lower for the EV than ICEVs. The total PM10 EF of the EV (47.7-57.7 mg/V·km) was lower than those of the gasoline ICEV (56.5-70.5 mg/V·km) and diesel ICEV (58.0-72.0 mg/V·km). Since secondary PM particles are mostly of submicron size, the EFs of the PM2.5 fraction of the ICEVs (28.7-33.0 mg/V·km) were two times higher than those of the EV (13.9-17.4 mg/V·km). https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/ by Matteo Barisione | March 5, 2021 | Opinion Electric vehicles and air pollution: the claims and the facts A new article published today by Transport & Environment (T&E) explains that claims that electric cars make air pollution worse are wrong. Toxic emissions from tailpipes of diesel and petrol cars have caused tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. The health impacts of diesel emissions in the EU is well-known, especially after Dieselgate. The health impact of electric vehicles (EV) and its non-tailpipe emissions (brake, tyre and suspension) is a matter of some debate, following recent negative media coverage, e.g. in the United Kingdom and in France. Are we on the verge of an EVgate? It is actually the exact opposite, according to an article published on the T&E website. 1.EVs reduce pollution from brake and tyres On brake pollution, conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars mainly use disc brakes to slow the car down, which emits particle pollution. In contrast, EVs use “regenerative braking” as it restores braking energy back to the car’s battery to power the car. This process reduces the need to use the brakes and therefore reduces particle emissions. On tyre pollution, EVs have heavier weight compared to ICE cars and, according to some reports, this extra weight increases wear and thus particle pollution. Yet, EVs are mostly fitted with special tyres designed to cope with the heavier weight of batteries to ensure that they do not wear out too quickly. More studies are needed to measure particle emissions from tyres, especially from EVs, but all road vehicles, including heavy SUVs, are to blame for tyre pollution. 2. EVs reduce particle pollution Focusing on ‘primary’ particle mass (PM) emissions, i.e those particles which are emitted directly from the exhaust, tyres and brakes, should not lose sight of ‘secondary’ particle pollution. These particles form in the air due to other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and ammonia (NH3) emitted from the tailpipe. Like primary particles these ‘secondary’ particles also contribute to PM2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 microns) and PM10 (particles smaller than 10 microns) pollution, thereby causing poor air quality. According to a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these secondary particles can contribute up to 29% of the total PM emissions of a car. Most importantly, the OECD study found that when all particle sources associated with cars are counted, including secondary particles, EV cars contribute less PM2.5 and PM10 than diesel or petrol cars. 3. EVs eliminate all toxic emissions from engines Switching from an ICE to an EV car eliminates all toxic tailpipe pollution, e.g. NOx, HC and carbon monoxide (CO). A harmful pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), is responsible for over 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe. It causes respiratory and cardiovascular disease and can be a death sentence for those suffering from asthma. ICE cars also emit other pollutants, less known but toxic and cancer-causing chemicals including benzene (C6H6) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Car makers themselves acknowledge that it is not possible to eliminate harmful emissions from the engines of fossil fuel vehicles. The only option is to switch from engines to electric motors, i.e. EVs. The sooner this happens, the sooner the air quality benefits will be felt across Europe. 4. Emissions from brakes and tyres must be regulated Expected improvements in air quality due to switching to EVs do not mean that non-exhaust pollution should be ignored. Particle pollution from brakes and tyres should be reduced in all vehicles as quickly as possible. A method for accurately measuring brake wear emissions is under development by the United Nations Particle Measurement Programme. Technologies for reducing brake wear emissions are already available. The EU-funded LOWBRASYS and REBRAKE projects succeeded in reducing particle mass emissions from brakes by over 50%. A French company Tallano has developed a ‘vacuum’ brake pad which is advertised to remove 85% of braking PM. This system can also be retrofitted and used by public transport such as buses or trams. The upcoming EU pollutant emission standard currently in preparation (called “Euro 7”), should set a brake particle limit for all vehicles regardless of their powertrain. This will drive innovation and adoption of low-emission brake technologies, reducing their contribution to air pollution for all vehicles. For tyre wear particles, the latest EU tyre labelling regulation (2020/740) requires the European Commission to develop a method for measuring tyre-wear emissions and subsequently assess the feasibility of adding abrasion and mileage information to tyre labels. Health and environmental NGOs now recommend that the Commission bans the sale of the most polluting and least durable tyres from the EU market since these have a disproportionately negative effect on air quality. It will beyond doubt improve air quality across Europe. In conclusion, EVs do not produce more pollution than fossil-fuelled cars. On the contrary, they eliminate emissions from engine exhaust and significantly reduce emissions from brakes. The evidence on tyres is more mixed. However, claims that EVs create more particle pollution due to tyres are misleading as they ignore their overall air quality benefits. Particle emissions should not be used as an excuse to slow down the transition to zero-emission mobility. Instead, regulations should address pollution from brakes and tyres to ensure that emissions from these sources are reduced for all road vehicles. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 455 October 9 (edited) 20 hours ago, Rob Plant said: I can assure you that they didnt mate! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car Flying vehicles 1900s Edited October 9 by specinho 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 455 October 9 (edited) 23 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Dude, EVs have been on the market for years and meet or exceed safety standards. Those are not problems, nor do they make much sense. a) Steering systems between combustion vehicles and EV are not significantly different. ICE cars also contain plenty of computers which could be hacked. b) EVs still have hydraulic brakes. Electric braking is just a bonus. c) Increased flammability compared to gasoline? d) They are lightening safe in a storm just like any other car. Faraday cage effect. a) I'm not familiar but power of steering wheel for ICE likely connected to battery, not so much of internet connection. They probably can't hack the battery yet. For EV, everything is connected to one large battery that supplies to internet accessing device also. It is by this design that EV could be more prone to be overtaken. A separate battery system was suggested by a cult kid, here in this forum. For accessory, including internet connection, there could be one lead acid battery. Other important function like driving, braking, steering wheel, etc on lithium battery. Not sure if anyone has noticed and tested on the workability? b) hydraulic brake is the theory behind how brake works. Battery is affecting function of brake somehow on ICE and you mentioned EV too. My car was sabotaged by known clan/ personnel here to make it looked like an accident, ages ago. Both steering wheel and brake did not function when battery was low in charge. Luckily, it was in outskirt. Cars were scarce. The car managed to halt safely by the road side. c) not sure if you have noticed many fire outbreak taken place recently involving containers keeping lithium battery especially those produced by developing countries? Did you know even lithium battery of samsung would expand shall you keep in the carbooth for one hot afternoon? It claimed to be original with 5 year warranty. Could have exploded if discovered a little later. No collision. No provocation. Just hot weather could set it on fire. d) i have no idea. Imagine the lightning or flood water is conducted by 70kw battery for EV...... Edited October 9 by specinho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 9 (edited) 7 minutes ago, specinho said: I'm not familiar but power of steering wheel for ICE likely connected to battery, not so much of internet []connection. They probably can't hack the battery yet. Not sure if anyone has noticed and tested on the workability? b) hydraulic brake is the theory behind how brake works. Battery is affecting function of brake somehow on ICE and you mentioned EV too. [] c) not sure if you have noticed many fire outbreak taken place recently involving containers keeping lithium battery especially those produced by developing countries? d) i have no idea. Imagine the lightning or flood water is conducted by 70kw battery for EV...... I said EVs pass all safety tests, there are many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Standards Edited October 9 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,745 RP October 9 (edited) 3 hours ago, specinho said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car Flying vehicles 1900s Good grief! Speccy you said "Although these technology might not be new, e.g. amphibian and flying car might have existed back in early 18 th century" You do understand that this wouldve meant flying vehicles in the 1700's now dont you??? Do you really think the 18th century was 1947??? I think you'll find thats the 20th century pal. Have you been living under a rock? Edited October 9 by Rob Plant 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,230 DM October 9 3 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Good grief! Speccy you said "Although these technology might not be new, e.g. amphibian and flying car might have existed back in early 18 th century" You do understand that this wouldve meant flying vehicles in the 1700's now dont you??? Do you really think the 18th century was 1947??? I think you'll find thats the 20th century pal. Have you been living under a rock? he is very confused ....the only flying in the 18th century was done with hot air.........I do not see any wheels on those balloons The first 'aerostatic' flight in history was an experiment carried out by the Montgolfier brothers at Versailles in 1783. At long last, man could leave the surface of the earth below. 19 September 1783 is a key date in the history of humanity. The first hot air balloon flight 19 September 1783 - Versailles Palace of Versailles https://en.chateauversailles.fr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 9 On 10/7/2024 at 11:14 AM, Ecocharger said: Price of oil falling? Hmmm...do not get too excited about that. It looks like the oil price jump may now be happening. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Historic-Short-Squeeze-Sends-Oil-Prices-Higher.html "A record short position in oil and energy stocks has led to a historic short squeeze Any day now! You must grow weary of always being wrong while claiming you understand economics. Low oil demand: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/EIA-Slashes-Forecasts-of-Oil-Demand-Growth-and-Oil-Prices-in-2025.html "Lower crude oil prices in the forecast “largely reflect a reduction for global oil demand growth in 2025,” the EIA said." EV sales surging: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Rollout-of-Charging-Points-in-the-US-Is-Far-Slower-Than-Surging-EV-Sales.html "That’s a surge of 142% since the beginning of 2023." 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 (edited) On 10/8/2024 at 8:42 PM, TailingsPond said: Do you realize that ICE vehicles also have brakes and tires? If the weight of the vehicle is the problem implement more regulations or road taxes based on weight. Just remember, the same weight regulations would apply to ICE vehicles. You don't want that, trust me. EVs cars are not heavy vehicles, they are just a bit heavier than the same sized ICE cars. Regular trucks are still heavier. No, EVs are definitely heavier and cause more pollution than fossil fuel vehicles. "Because EVs are on average 30% heavier, brakes and tires on the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars. Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions on half a metric tonne of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. For reference, half a metric tonne is equivalent to roughly 1,100 pounds. 4 Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions with about 1,100 pounds of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. Most EV batteries weigh around 1,800 pounds.Emissions Analytics The most popular EV in the US, Tesla’s Model Y, boasts a lithium-ion battery that weighs in at a hefty 1,836 pounds. Another sought-after electric model, Ford’s F-150 Lightning pickup truck, also has an approximately 1,800-pound battery." Some EV batteries are close to 3,000 pounds, or about the same weight as a compact fossil fuel car. "Emissions Analytics has found that adding 1,000 pounds to a midsize vehicle increased tire wear by about 20 percent, and also that Tesla’s Model Y generated 26 percent more tire pollution than a similar Kia hybrid. EVs’ more aggressive torque, which translates into faster acceleration, is another factor that creates more tire particulate mile for mile, compared to similar internal combustion engine cars." https://grist.org/transportation/electric-vehicles-are-a-climate-solution-with-a-pollution-problem-tire/ Edited October 10 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 10 42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: No, EVs are definitely heavier and cause more pollution than fossil fuel vehicles. "Because EVs are on average 30% heavier, brakes and tires on the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars. I said I would support weight regulations, but they would apply to all vehicles. Do you support regulations limiting PM2.5 emissions from vehicles (dust, tires, brakes, and tailpipes all included)? A simple yes / no question. Once again to be clear this is not about climate change or CO2, it is about PM2.5. Would you support PM2.5 regulations on vehicles? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 EVs are major contributors of toxic airborne chamicals. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2024-2-summer/material-world/evs-pollution-tailpipe-tires "The heavier the vehicle, the more particulate matter its tires release. That means electric vehicles, which weigh about 30 percent more than gas-guzzlers, are worse offenders when it comes to tire pollution. Electric vehicles’ batteries are responsible for the lion’s share of their extra weight. Standard car batteries weigh between 25 and 50 pounds, whereas EV batteries average 1,000 pounds. In the case of GMC’s Hummer EV pickup, the battery could weigh at least 2,800 pounds." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: I said I would support weight regulations, but they would apply to all vehicles. Do you support regulations limiting PM2.5 emissions from vehicles (dust, tires, brakes, and tailpipes all included)? A simple yes / no question. Once again to be clear this is not about climate change or CO2, it is about PM2.5. Would you support PM2.5 regulations on vehicles? There is currently much research on the vast number of chemicals involved. Why do you ask? This would be a rhetorical question as the California authorities do not recognize tire pollutants as a problem yet. Edited October 10 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 (edited) European car makers are requesting the reduction of EV mandates for next year. https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/tariffs-wont-save-european-ev-manufacturing-if-eu-drops-co2-targets-analysis "EU tariffs on EVs from China have had a mixed impact so far, according to T&E analysis of the EV-Volumes database. MG had its largest ever drop in BEV market share in Europe, falling from 4.1% share in August 2023 to 2.4% in August 2024, the research shows. BYD continued to expand its EU share though at a slower pace than before, growing from 1.6% in August 2023 to 2.9% BEV market share in the same month this year. Geely increased its market share from 1.3% in August last year to 2% in August 2024. Beyond EVs, the EU also needs a more coherent approach to its homegrown battery industry, T&E said. Domestic battery producers have experienced setbacks, driven by global market dynamics and cheap Chinese batteries. Unless action is taken, 59% of the battery production planned for Europe is at risk of not going ahead, T&E estimates, and would likely be scrapped. This would lead to a loss of billions of investment and close to 100,000 potential jobs. T&E called for an EU investigation into battery cells to enable trade defence measures." Edited October 10 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 10 Just now, Ecocharger said: There is currently much research on the vast number of chmicals involved. Why do you ask? You claim EVs produce lots of PM2.5. If that is a problem why not regulate PM2.5 emissions from vehicles? If EVs actually make more PM2.5 than the ICE size equivalent your pro-oil agenda should want more regulation. Same rules for all vehicles. Are you sure you want that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 10 19 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: This would be a rhetorical question as the California authorities do not recognize tire pollutants as a problem yet. It is not a rhetorical question, I'm asking for an answer. Do you need to wait for Californian authorities to tell you your opinion? Do you support PM 2.5 regulation on vehicles? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 (edited) 15 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: You claim EVs produce lots of PM2.5. If that is a problem why not regulate PM2.5 emissions from vehicles? If EVs actually make more PM2.5 than the ICE size equivalent your pro-oil agenda should want more regulation. Same rules for all vehicles. Are you sure you want that? Wait till the research is done. The California authorities need to be convinced that this is a real problem. Edited October 10 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 10 Just now, Ecocharger said: Wait till the research is done. Research is never done LOL. What forms of pollution do you support regulating? If you have a beef with PM 2.5 regulate it. Simple. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 (edited) The current candidates are taking opposite positions on energy issues in Pennsylvania. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Harris-Energy-Policies-Under-Fire-in-Crucial-Swing-State.html "Energy affordability is a key issue for Pennsylvania voters, who make up a significant portion of "American Energy Patriots." "The Biden-Harris administration has a negative approval rating among this voting bloc due to rising energy costs and perceived threats to the natural gas industry. While Trump's pro-domestic energy production stance is clear, Harris's energy policies remain ambiguous, causing uncertainty among Pennsylvania's energy sector." Harris has adopted a plan that aides describe as “strategic ambiguity” on energy policy to avoid alienating environmental activists and moderate voters. In fact, it took until early September for her campaign to list any key issues on its official website. The state’s natural gas producers have pressed Harris on her specific policies, which have been inconsistent or—in some cases—nonexistent." Smart politics. Edited October 10 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Research is never done LOL. What forms of pollution do you support regulating? If you have a beef with PM 2.5 regulate it. Simple. The first job is to label the EVs accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 662 GE October 10 2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: The first job is to label the EVs accordingly. Why? You seem certain about the stuff you posted. Assume all vehicles have fair total PM2.5 emission data. Would you support PM2.5 regulations? Do you think a 8 cylinder sports car doing burnouts is less polluting than a hatchback EV? I am all for fair regulations; if you can show that a EV is more polluting than your clunker show it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 2 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Why? You seem certain about the stuff you posted. Assume all vehicles have fair total PM2.5 emission data. Would you support PM2.5 regulations? Do you think a 8 cylinder sports car doing burnouts is less polluting than a hatchback EV? I am all for fair regulations; if you can show that a EV is more polluting than your clunker show it. You seem to like regulations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,438 DL October 10 3 hours ago, TailingsPond said: I said I would support weight regulations, but they would apply to all vehicles. Do you support regulations limiting PM2.5 emissions from vehicles (dust, tires, brakes, and tailpipes all included)? A simple yes / no question. Once again to be clear this is not about climate change or CO2, it is about PM2.5. Would you support PM2.5 regulations on vehicles? Your "weight" regulations would put the EVs off the market. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,230 DM October 10 (edited) 9 hours ago, Ecocharger said: No, EVs are definitely heavier and cause more pollution than fossil fuel vehicles. "Because EVs are on average 30% heavier, brakes and tires on the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars. Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions on half a metric tonne of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. For reference, half a metric tonne is equivalent to roughly 1,100 pounds. 4 Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions with about 1,100 pounds of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. Most EV batteries weigh around 1,800 pounds.Emissions Analytics The most popular EV in the US, Tesla’s Model Y, boasts a lithium-ion battery that weighs in at a hefty 1,836 pounds. Another sought-after electric model, Ford’s F-150 Lightning pickup truck, also has an approximately 1,800-pound battery." Some EV batteries are close to 3,000 pounds, or about the same weight as a compact fossil fuel car. "Emissions Analytics has found that adding 1,000 pounds to a midsize vehicle increased tire wear by about 20 percent, and also that Tesla’s Model Y generated 26 percent more tire pollution than a similar Kia hybrid. EVs’ more aggressive torque, which translates into faster acceleration, is another factor that creates more tire particulate mile for mile, compared to similar internal combustion engine cars." https://grist.org/transportation/electric-vehicles-are-a-climate-solution-with-a-pollution-problem-tire/ Emmision Analytics????? research????? so they took an EV and intentially beat the crap out of it by doing burners until the tires fell off....... they destroyed a set of tires in 300 miles of crazy driving......... brand new set of tires.......took the treads of in a few hours...... their lack of science claims were debunked https://tireindustryproject.org/faq/are-tire-emissions-1000-times-worse-than-exhaust-emissions/ Are tire emissions 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions? Research has not demonstrated that tire emissions are 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions. The claim that tire emissions are 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions is based on the flawed and unscientific suggestion that comparing the weight of different emission types provides a measure of the relative risk that they pose. The assertion that tire emissions are “1,000 times worse” than exhaust emissions is sensationalist and disingenuous. It is a misrepresentation of an Emissions Analytics claim that the weight of tire-wear emissions are 1,000 times greater than exhaust emissions per kilometer driven. To the admission of Emissions Analytics’ chief executive, this figure comes from a test performed on a car driven in such a way as to maximize tire emissions (“driven as crazily as you could, really pushed it”). Driving style is known to be the main factor of tire wear (Le Maitre et al., 1998), but the extreme measures adopted by Emissions Analytics are not representative of normal driving and would result in a tire lifespan of not more than 500km. Edited October 10 by notsonice 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members