16 ms·

How do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster.

kyleee 10mo ago
And unfortunately there is some nasty stuff in tires
- HPsquared 10mo ago
  There never seems to be much discussion on reducing the harm from tire (and I suppose road surface) particulates. Maybe that's the next frontier?
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    There's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction. For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather.
    - selimthegrim 10mo ago
      How would you recommend them based on winter performance?
      - ceejayoz 10mo ago
        I live in a snowy area and am quite happy with them.
        selimthegrim 10mo ago
        I believe they are directional tires so it would make it hard to operate with a full size spare otherwise I’ll definitely consider them
    - HPsquared 10mo ago
      I was thinking more from the perspective "make them out of materials that aren't too bad to inhale/ingest"
      - ceejayoz 10mo ago
        Sure, that's great too. But the rubber lasting longer means less of those bad things to inhale floating around at any given time.
      - mrguyorama 10mo ago
        What material is strong, malleable, dirt fucking cheap, has a high coefficient of friction, easy to work with, amenable to additives, meets all the suspension properties we expect out of a tire, etc, and isn't bad to breathe a lot of the dust of? Modern tires are works of material science miracle, working with dirt cheap inputs. Even iron dust from steel on steel friction like with trains is bad for your health. The human lungs just have bad filtration.
        HPsquared 10mo ago
        If nobody asks the question, nobody will try and look for one.
  - potato3732842 10mo ago
    Because a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap.
  - ZeroGravitas 10mo ago
    EU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022): https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotive-industry/environmental-protection/emissions-automotive-sector_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv... > Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide.
jgeada 10mo ago
Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?
- Angostura 10mo ago
  Because a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase?
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    Alternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business. Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinformation-activists-rural-america https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf... And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-behind-offshore-wind-misinformation/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind...
    - bpt3 10mo ago
      I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs. If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious.
      - ceejayoz 10mo ago
        > I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd... That's not shocking to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) > Friends of the Earth U.S. was founded in California in 1969 by environmentalist David Brower after he left the Sierra Club. The organization was launched with the help of Donald Aitken, Jerry Mander and a $200,000 donation from the personal funds of Robert O. Anderson. One of its first major campaigns was the protest of nuclear power, particularly in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson > Robert Orville Anderson (April 12, 1917 – December 2, 2007) was an American businessman, art collector, and philanthropist who founded [the United States' sixth-largest oil company] Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
lkbm 10mo ago
I'm not sure, and I assume it will vary a lot by speed. EVs do also have higher torque, so that may increase tire-based particles, but you're right that it avoids the brake pads for the most part. Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though.
- tart-lemonade 10mo ago
  >Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though. And lower VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) is also a win for the planet, it's probably the best weapon the average person has access to in the fight against climate change. Transit usage begets transit usage; more fares paid to the agency enables better frequencies and more routes, leading to more people opting to take transit instead of driving... In a well-run system, it's a positive feedback loop (and the inverse, where people stop taking transit, can also lead to a death spiral, as happened across America in the mid-20th century).
  - oasisbob 10mo ago
    If we're speaking about individual actions, isn't avoiding air travel more effective than any other form of individual vehicle travel choice?
    - treyd 10mo ago
      Yes, and the northeast has the best rail transit in the US, which NYC sits right in the middle of.
      - bluGill 10mo ago
        Rail transit in the north east is the best in the US. But it is terrible in many ways. As someone who lives in an area that would be marginal for rail even in the great rail countries of Europe of Asia I really need the north east to develop great rail - only by bringing great rail to places where it is easy can we possibly get it good enough that it would be worth bringing to me. Instead I just get examples of why we shouldn't bother with transit at all here: when all we can see is the stupid things New York is constantly doing to transit (where the density is so high they can get by with it) there isn't an example I can point to of that would be worth doing here.
littlestymaar 10mo ago
A bit worse on tires because they are heavier (for comparable vehicle size, but obviously not if you compare a small EV with a ICE truck), and much better on brakes because of regenerative braking. Overall they are better.
nabla9 10mo ago
With EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier. EV SUV worse than gas SUV.
a_paddy 10mo ago
Tire wear on EVs has more to do with the weight of your right foot than the curb weight of the vehicle. The high torque of EVs results in frequent wheel slippage for those eager to pull away from traffic lights quickly. Just like with high BHP ICE vehincles, smooth and gentle acceleration/deceleration will result in long tire life.
PunchyHamster 10mo ago
I'd gonna guess "worse" Brake dust is mostly some iron, carbon, silica. Not great to ingest but very much recyclable by the environment, unlike rubber. And possibly much easier to greatly reduce (just build some shielding around the brake to catch most of the dust) than the tyre
- coryrc 10mo ago
  Unfortunately it's also copper and asbestos :(. (Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads...) But tire dust is definitely now the worst of the two, by far. 6-PPD alone.
  - potato3732842 10mo ago
    >Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads.. On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm>
bryanlarsen 10mo ago
EV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles. https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle... non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust.
- throwawaypath 10mo ago
  Thank you for sourcing an answer!
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
mikestew 10mo ago
“Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago? I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves.

kyleee 10mo ago

And unfortunately there is some nasty stuff in tires

HPsquared 10mo ago
There never seems to be much discussion on reducing the harm from tire (and I suppose road surface) particulates. Maybe that's the next frontier?
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  There's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction. For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather.
  - selimthegrim 10mo ago
    How would you recommend them based on winter performance?
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      I live in a snowy area and am quite happy with them.
      - selimthegrim 10mo ago
        I believe they are directional tires so it would make it hard to operate with a full size spare otherwise I’ll definitely consider them
  - HPsquared 10mo ago
    I was thinking more from the perspective "make them out of materials that aren't too bad to inhale/ingest"
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      Sure, that's great too. But the rubber lasting longer means less of those bad things to inhale floating around at any given time.
    - mrguyorama 10mo ago
      What material is strong, malleable, dirt fucking cheap, has a high coefficient of friction, easy to work with, amenable to additives, meets all the suspension properties we expect out of a tire, etc, and isn't bad to breathe a lot of the dust of? Modern tires are works of material science miracle, working with dirt cheap inputs. Even iron dust from steel on steel friction like with trains is bad for your health. The human lungs just have bad filtration.
      - HPsquared 10mo ago
        If nobody asks the question, nobody will try and look for one.
- potato3732842 10mo ago
  Because a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap.
- ZeroGravitas 10mo ago
  EU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022): https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotive-industry/environmental-protection/emissions-automotive-sector_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv... > Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide.

jgeada 10mo ago

Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?

Angostura 10mo ago
Because a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase?
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  Alternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business. Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinformation-activists-rural-america https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf... And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-behind-offshore-wind-misinformation/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind...
  - bpt3 10mo ago
    I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs. If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious.
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      > I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd... That's not shocking to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) > Friends of the Earth U.S. was founded in California in 1969 by environmentalist David Brower after he left the Sierra Club. The organization was launched with the help of Donald Aitken, Jerry Mander and a $200,000 donation from the personal funds of Robert O. Anderson. One of its first major campaigns was the protest of nuclear power, particularly in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson > Robert Orville Anderson (April 12, 1917 – December 2, 2007) was an American businessman, art collector, and philanthropist who founded [the United States' sixth-largest oil company] Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).

lkbm 10mo ago

I'm not sure, and I assume it will vary a lot by speed. EVs do also have higher torque, so that may increase tire-based particles, but you're right that it avoids the brake pads for the most part. Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though.

tart-lemonade 10mo ago
>Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though. And lower VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) is also a win for the planet, it's probably the best weapon the average person has access to in the fight against climate change. Transit usage begets transit usage; more fares paid to the agency enables better frequencies and more routes, leading to more people opting to take transit instead of driving... In a well-run system, it's a positive feedback loop (and the inverse, where people stop taking transit, can also lead to a death spiral, as happened across America in the mid-20th century).
- oasisbob 10mo ago
  If we're speaking about individual actions, isn't avoiding air travel more effective than any other form of individual vehicle travel choice?
  - treyd 10mo ago
    Yes, and the northeast has the best rail transit in the US, which NYC sits right in the middle of.
    - bluGill 10mo ago
      Rail transit in the north east is the best in the US. But it is terrible in many ways. As someone who lives in an area that would be marginal for rail even in the great rail countries of Europe of Asia I really need the north east to develop great rail - only by bringing great rail to places where it is easy can we possibly get it good enough that it would be worth bringing to me. Instead I just get examples of why we shouldn't bother with transit at all here: when all we can see is the stupid things New York is constantly doing to transit (where the density is so high they can get by with it) there isn't an example I can point to of that would be worth doing here.

littlestymaar 10mo ago

A bit worse on tires because they are heavier (for comparable vehicle size, but obviously not if you compare a small EV with a ICE truck), and much better on brakes because of regenerative braking. Overall they are better.

nabla9 10mo ago

With EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier. EV SUV worse than gas SUV.

a_paddy 10mo ago

Tire wear on EVs has more to do with the weight of your right foot than the curb weight of the vehicle. The high torque of EVs results in frequent wheel slippage for those eager to pull away from traffic lights quickly. Just like with high BHP ICE vehincles, smooth and gentle acceleration/deceleration will result in long tire life.

PunchyHamster 10mo ago

I'd gonna guess "worse" Brake dust is mostly some iron, carbon, silica. Not great to ingest but very much recyclable by the environment, unlike rubber. And possibly much easier to greatly reduce (just build some shielding around the brake to catch most of the dust) than the tyre

coryrc 10mo ago
Unfortunately it's also copper and asbestos :(. (Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads...) But tire dust is definitely now the worst of the two, by far. 6-PPD alone.
- potato3732842 10mo ago
  >Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads.. On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm>

bryanlarsen 10mo ago

EV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles. https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle... non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust.

throwawaypath 10mo ago
Thank you for sourcing an answer!
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

mikestew 10mo ago

“Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago? I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves.