BEVs

[reohn2]

If it's classed as a trike,which seems likely if it can be driven on a car licence, a helmet isn't required by law.

It's because all three wheels lean like a conventional motorcycle that a helmet is required by law,and are not rigid like a conventional trike or quad

A helmet is required because the wheels aren't far enough apart. There is a specified distance at which point a helmet is no longer mandatory. That's what I read when it was launched.

I stand corrected.

[reohn2]

This story in the Metro about long range BEV car travel came up on my news feed:- https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/12/what-its ... -18748814/

[pwa]

This story in the Metro about long range BEV car travel came up on my news feed:- https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/12/what-its ... -18748814/

Yes, a couple of years back I heard a similar account, but it was even more difficult back then. Things do look to be improving quite quickly, with regard to charging points, but there is still some way to go. We are in a trasition phase, and I suppose we must expect a delay before things look properly sorted.

[Biospace]

This story in the Metro about long range BEV car travel came up on my news feed:- https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/12/what-its ... -18748814/

Is this some sort of competition to maximise your carbon footprint while writing inane, error-ridden newspaper articles?

"sustainable tourism and off-grid adventures being big business these days, eco-friendly destinations are becoming a must-have on our in our holiday tick list"

Perhaps once the majority are riding around in BEVs and cars with engines are as niche as riding to Waitrose on horseback, range will be reduced to 150 miles and motorway charging stations switched off?

[pwa]

This story in the Metro about long range BEV car travel came up on my news feed:- https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/12/what-its ... -18748814/

Is this some sort of competition to maximise your carbon footprint while writing inane, error-ridden newspaper articles?

"sustainable tourism and off-grid adventures being big business these days, eco-friendly destinations are becoming a must-have on our in our holiday tick list"

Perhaps once the majority are riding around in BEVs and cars with engines are as niche as riding to Waitrose on horseback, range will be reduced to 150 miles and motorway charging stations switched off?

What makes me laugh is destinations sold as "sustainable tourism" that have you trashing the planet by flying there, but you get to ease your conscience by pooing in sawdust when you get there!

[Biospace]

What makes me laugh is destinations sold as "sustainable tourism" that have you trashing the planet by flying there, but you get to ease your conscience by pooing in sawdust when you get there!

And if these 'sustainable' destinations were analysed, I very much doubt that they're anywhere approaching it, often less so than many conventional venues.

Reading an article of that sort makes me wonder just how draconian things will have to become in an attempt to help prevent some of the damage being done to our environment.

[reohn2]

TBH I flicked through the blurb and only read the relevant info on the car and charging etc.

[Biospace]

Urban vs non urban is very well known - if you're just eating motorway miles then the tyres just roll. They wear when they have to do work, to accelerate/brake/turn the vehicle - and that's basically constant in urban driving.

The source was British Gas and their fleet - no I don't have more detail than that, though I did note various confounding factors.

Normal people don't use the accelerator pedal as a binary input, they only request as much torque as they need - and with no gear shifts you request a pretty constant torque level rather than pulsing that torque up as the revs climb then dropping to nothing, and having to accelerate harder to deal with the gap in power from the gear change.

Tyre wear is directly proportional to tyre temperature, which in turn is directly proportional to speed. Most roads are not motorways, and even if junctions, roundabouts and corners are negotiated at low urban speeds, wear will be greater if tyre temperature is higher.

Suggesting that people won't use more torque from a more 'powerful' engine is clearly not true even if they still accelerate at the same slow rate as in their 65bhp/65ft.lb 1.2 litre petrol car they once drove since a typical modern car with 170ft.lb will be accelerating more mass. And from my observations, most people accelerate more briskly in today's heavier cars than they did before so many cars were fitted with exhaust turbochargers, or so many BEVs were on the road.

Similarly, there is more braking than there used to be - more power often leads to more speed where previously there wouldn't have been time to reach a given speed, more mass and less air drag. Whether friction or regen braking, it's a waste of energy and wears tyres. Most people use brakes far more than is necessary, often because the car is capable of accelerating so easily in the first place or because they drive too closely to another whose driving is energy wasteful.

When you quote figures so far removed from what is broadly accepted but can't link to any source, I'm not surprised there were "confounding factors". Yes, there is more to it but the long and short is that the more powerful and heavy a vehicle is, the faster its tyres will wear. And BEVs, like it or not, are more powerful and heavy than ICEvs, like for like.

[Carlton green]

This story in the Metro about long range BEV car travel came up on my news feed:- https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/12/what-its ... -18748814/

Is this some sort of competition to maximise your carbon footprint while writing inane, error-ridden newspaper articles?

"sustainable tourism and off-grid adventures being big business these days, eco-friendly destinations are becoming a must-have on our in our holiday tick list"

Perhaps once the majority are riding around in BEVs and cars with engines are as niche as riding to Waitrose on horseback, range will be reduced to 150 miles and motorway charging stations switched off?

What makes me laugh is destinations sold as "sustainable tourism" that have you trashing the planet by flying there, but you get to ease your conscience by pooing in sawdust when you get there!

I’ve said it before and it cannot be said too often. It should become a legal requirement that in 2030 no new (post 2030 manufacture) fossil fueled commercial aircraft can be used in UK air-space. When the man and woman in the street can no longer drive new fossil fuel vehicles then there is precious little acceptable reason why others should still have the facility to jet off on their hols in new aircraft. Aircraft fuel should be heavily taxed and taxed on what’s used travelling to and fro any destination regardless of changes at airports in other countries - no shuffling off to France and then getting a tax free onward flight. Short haul flights - anything overland within Europe - should, with rare exceptions, be banned. There will be a few ‘special cases’, always is, but broadly we should not have one rule for some and another rule for others.

[Biospace]

I’ve said it before and it cannot be said too often. It should become a legal requirement ...

I'd ban air travel within the European continent tomorrow, given the incessant bleating about road vehicle exhausts and labelling by government of ever more powerful and massive BEVs as "Zero Emission". What's the point of the massive expenditure on high speed rail if people are using planes to travel overland for hopping between capital cities in Europe?

It's ironic that some of those I know who are the most fundamentalist (and vocal) climate catastrophe criers think little of flying off for the weekend somewhere. There is always a very good justification - they're good at that sort of thing.

Of course in the real world it won't/can't happen in the medium term, there are business interests to accommodate and economies to consider - that's to say, votes. But, given by 2050 it sounds like freedoms for tcmits will be reduced and orders of how we organise our lives will be ever more pertinent, we're otherwise into a world of ever greater divide where those who make the rules increasingly believe they are kings rather than public servants.

[[XAP]Bob]

Urban vs non urban is very well known - if you're just eating motorway miles then the tyres just roll. They wear when they have to do work, to accelerate/brake/turn the vehicle - and that's basically constant in urban driving.

The source was British Gas and their fleet - no I don't have more detail than that, though I did note various confounding factors.

Normal people don't use the accelerator pedal as a binary input, they only request as much torque as they need - and with no gear shifts you request a pretty constant torque level rather than pulsing that torque up as the revs climb then dropping to nothing, and having to accelerate harder to deal with the gap in power from the gear change.

Tyre wear is directly proportional to tyre temperature, which in turn is directly proportional to speed. Most roads are not motorways, and even if junctions, roundabouts and corners are negotiated at low urban speeds, wear will be greater if tyre temperature is higher.

Suggesting that people won't use more torque from a more 'powerful' engine is clearly not true even if they still accelerate at the same slow rate as in their 65bhp/65ft.lb 1.2 litre petrol car they once drove since a typical modern car with 170ft.lb will be accelerating more mass. And from my observations, most people accelerate more briskly in today's heavier cars than they did before so many cars were fitted with exhaust turbochargers, or so many BEVs were on the road.

Similarly, there is more braking than there used to be - more power often leads to more speed where previously there wouldn't have been time to reach a given speed, more mass and less air drag. Whether friction or regen braking, it's a waste of energy and wears tyres. Most people use brakes far more than is necessary, often because the car is capable of accelerating so easily in the first place or because they drive too closely to another whose driving is energy wasteful.

When you quote figures so far removed from what is broadly accepted but can't link to any source, I'm not surprised there were "confounding factors". Yes, there is more to it but the long and short is that the more powerful and heavy a vehicle is, the faster its tyres will wear. And BEVs, like it or not, are more powerful and heavy than ICEvs, like for like.

Your assumptions directly contradict the experience of the fleet manager for British Gas... I know which I am more likely to believe.
I have declared the source, but you're clearly just assuming that EVs must be worse than everything else on the planet.

The fact that EVs have a completely different torque profile from ICE is something you just completely ignore, the fact that regen isn't a waste of energy, in fact it's the opposite of that...

[Carlton green]

Urban vs non urban is very well known - if you're just eating motorway miles then the tyres just roll. They wear when they have to do work, to accelerate/brake/turn the vehicle - and that's basically constant in urban driving.

The source was British Gas and their fleet - no I don't have more detail than that, though I did note various confounding factors.

Normal people don't use the accelerator pedal as a binary input, they only request as much torque as they need - and with no gear shifts you request a pretty constant torque level rather than pulsing that torque up as the revs climb then dropping to nothing, and having to accelerate harder to deal with the gap in power from the gear change.

Tyre wear is directly proportional to tyre temperature, which in turn is directly proportional to speed. Most roads are not motorways, and even if junctions, roundabouts and corners are negotiated at low urban speeds, wear will be greater if tyre temperature is higher.

Suggesting that people won't use more torque from a more 'powerful' engine is clearly not true even if they still accelerate at the same slow rate as in their 65bhp/65ft.lb 1.2 litre petrol car they once drove since a typical modern car with 170ft.lb will be accelerating more mass. And from my observations, most people accelerate more briskly in today's heavier cars than they did before so many cars were fitted with exhaust turbochargers, or so many BEVs were on the road.

Similarly, there is more braking than there used to be - more power often leads to more speed where previously there wouldn't have been time to reach a given speed, more mass and less air drag. Whether friction or regen braking, it's a waste of energy and wears tyres. Most people use brakes far more than is necessary, often because the car is capable of accelerating so easily in the first place or because they drive too closely to another whose driving is energy wasteful.

When you quote figures so far removed from what is broadly accepted but can't link to any source, I'm not surprised there were "confounding factors". Yes, there is more to it but the long and short is that the more powerful and heavy a vehicle is, the faster its tyres will wear. And BEVs, like it or not, are more powerful and heavy than ICEvs, like for like.

Your assumptions directly contradict the experience of the fleet manager for British Gas... I know which I am more likely to believe.
I have declared the source, but you're clearly just assuming that EVs must be worse than everything else on the planet.

The fact that EVs have a completely different torque profile from ICE is something you just completely ignore, the fact that regen isn't a waste of energy, in fact it's the opposite of that...

The way I read this exchange is that evidence (ie. something substantiated) has been requested and the request dismissed. You’re better than that, you’re the type of person who will normally back-up your points with data. I might be forgiven for thinking that you’ve adopted a position and are now sticking to it regardless of valid counterpoints.

Would it be that hard to say, to admit even, that BEV’s are not as green as they are portrayed to be? To maybe say that the wider costs of BEV’s aren’t always apparent?

My own take on this topic is that vehicles in general are far too big and so regardless of the form of power source. Vehicles have become profit centres for manufacturers and distributors rather than simply transport for those who genuinely need it. Indeed transport needs used to be met by very simple vehicles and if we went back to them, and reduced mileages, then today’s BEV’s wouldn’t be needed.

[Biospace]

the fact that regen isn't a waste of energy, in fact it's the opposite of that...

Yet another misunderstanding egged on by sales blurb and pub chatter which could easily encourage drivers to wear their EV tyres even faster through more unnecessary acceleration and braking. Regenerative brakes waste less energy than friction brakes, but they still waste energy. Typically, half of the braking energy is unrecoverable in a BEV.

The kinetic energy which is 'lost' during braking has been generated for a BEV by burning FF at around 50% efficiency (UK marginal supply is created mostly by CCGT as determined upthread), there are also grid transmission losses (~9%) then losses in the battery charger, battery and motor (~20%) - that's 64% of the FF being burned to make electricity is wasted before it even starts to overcome the mass of vehicle, frictional losses and heat or cool the cabin once underway.

One delight of the early C21st evolution of the EV has been that with limited amounts of energy storage, aerodynamics, rolling resistances and heating/cooling requirements have been given careful consideration, making them slightly more efficient in these respects alone - always a good thing. I like an aerodynamic car with tall, narrow tyres and plenty of roof insulation.

EVs don't need tyre replacements every few hundred miles, which is what some comments (and news reports) seem to be suggesting.

British Gas fits all its vans with non-BEV specific Michelin CrossClimate tyres for the all-year round grip they offer and has found they last more than twice as long on BEVs (40k) than on diesels (15k).

I've found the article you've read, which appears written to counter fleet managers' concerns about tyre wear on electric vehicles. It's muddled throughout and could easily confuse a reader, remarkably the author has a "MA in journalism". I extracted a few facts, and looked up others.

The worst case scenario for "a diesel van" whose wheels had its [driven?] car tyres replaced after only 15,000 miles. The BG manager continues in reference to their electric vans, “We reckon our tyres go on now for the best part of 40,000 miles".

• The tyres are commercial vehicle tyres which have a very different wear rate from car tyres - especially when car tyres are fitted to a van.

• It's not mentioned whether these figures are for the driven axle or both.

• The diesel van was a VW with 30% more torque than the Vauxhall electric van.

Kwik Fit data is quoted as EVs wearing tyres only 4% more than for ICEvs, but this is for front tyres only. Teslas, BMWs and VWs have EVs with driven axle at the rear. A driven axle's tyres may last half the time of those on the noon-driven axle, more when the non-driven axle is trailing.

There is a comment that the electric vans steer and manouevre differently which has an effect on tyre life, and that “I also think our engineers drive their BEVs more carefully because they want to maximise their range so they can get home at night.”

Goodyear's General Manager is quoted as saying “Due to the heavier battery, tyres on EVs tend to wear down considerably faster than those on vehicles powered by ICE.”

[reohn2]

An article in Fleet World about BEV tyre wear and it's causes:- https://fleetworld.co.uk/ev-tyre-wear-d ... warns-red/

[Biospace]

An article in Fleet World about BEV tyre wear and it's causes:- https://fleetworld.co.uk/ev-tyre-wear-d ... warns-red/

It sounds like that excess tyre wear is increasingly a concern for vehicle fleet managers, "Latest data from FleetCheck indicates that tyre management is becoming the dominant factor in everyday fleet running costs and it’s warned that growing uptake of electric vehicles will only make this more acute."

The article highlights this particular 'Corporate Driver Training' company who has made news by stating the driver has more effect on tyre wear than anything else and almost sounds to contradict what tyre companies are saying.

“Because EVs tend to be heavier than their ICE equivalents, they are more likely to be used in stop-start urban environments, and with higher torque through the driven wheels, fleet managers may be expecting higher tyre wear rates." What?!

"following training, its clients see no more tyre wear for EVs than usual, provided they are driven properly and the unique characteristics of these vehicles are taken into account" - so given the heavier mass, they must be training people to accelerate and brake more slowly than for a normal car.

"those drivers wearing tyres out far quicker than servicing schedules may mean they are on the road with illegal, unsafe tyres far longer than they realise.” - yikes, it's that sort of comment which chills the blood.

Those comments are from the boss of the driver training company, from non-sensical to very concerning for an apparent acceptance that drivers will at some point be driving on illegally worn tyres, because they're only checked/replaced at a service.

It's probably little more than the usual part journalism, part advertising, part trying to justify what a manager has suggested needs to be highlighted and 'explained' which fills pages of some largely in-house magazines.