3 ms·
> Nor regenerative braking vis-a-vis brake pad dust. Huh? To be clear, you’re claiming regen braking may not significantly reduce brake dust? I drive an EV wi
by mwint 5y ago
> Nor regenerative braking vis-a-vis brake pad dust.
Huh? To be clear, you’re claiming regen braking may not significantly reduce brake dust?
I drive an EV with relatively weak regen (‘15 Leaf), and easily 95% of total energy goes to regen; the last few MPH go to the real brakes.
The service manual lists _inspecting_ the brakes at 60k miles and again at 100k. I don’t expect to ever replace the pads in this, unless they rust off from lack of use. So if that pad is lasting that long, it must be making less dust.
- smilekzs 5y agoI think they meant "regardless of what method of braking you use, the tire still has to do the same amount of work, therefore produce the same amount of tire emissions".
- mwint 5y ago“Brake pad dust” is pretty specific. I wonder if tire emissions are true. One on hand, EVs tend to be heavier. On the other, efficient braking inside the regen zone should mean more gradual stops, lower average accelerations and speeds.
- hinkley 5y agoThe tire dust I’m sure is worse during acceleration and deceleration, but just rolling across pavement breaks down the tire. If it didn’t, then why do you have to replace them every five years?
- hinkley 5y agoIt will never cease to amaze me how often developers get trapped in thinking in absolutes. Someone once blamed it on Boolean logic but I laughed it off. Maybe it’s not so funny. Helps and solves are very different things. Yes, using brakes less means less pollution. But you can’t get to zero that way. Reducing pollution by 2/3s doesn’t “fix” the pollution. For anything that doesn’t break down (or not readily, such as metals), it’s a matter of whether you’re dead in four years or twelve. You’re still dead, and to anyone living in that future, it hardly matters if we ruined something in 2025 or 2045.