Car’s tires are swirling donuts of pollution | Hacker News Reader

Car’s tires are swirling donuts of pollution

washingtonpost.com

22 pointsanjel28 comments

I strongly suspect we're hearing more about tire pollution as a way to spread FUD about EVs, and slow their adoption by whatever means possible, just so a few legacy companies can juice profits one more time.

That's not to say that tires don't create pollution, but let's tackle the elephant in the room before setting out mousetraps. We can even put effort into both simultaneously, let's just assign like 95% of the effort on getting rid of ICE engines.

Tire pollution is basically EURO7 in nutshell.

I'm hugely skeptical of all the recent claims that combustion cars are nearly as clean as EVs because of tires.

I fully believe tire and brake dust could be a much larger issue than expected, but it does feel disingenuous when it’s presented as an EV problem. Brake dust is probably far worse, but glossed over since EVs don’t generate nearly as much as an equivalent combustion car. Instead, the focus is suddenly on the one aspect where EVs could potentially make more dust due to their weight.

I saw a link to a DOT funded study that seemed to show for particulates about 80%/10%/10% was from the tail pipe, brakes, and tires.

But granted the type of particulates aren't the same for each source.

Yeah I think tire particulates fall back to the ground quickly. They're not the same kind of thing as 2-stroke exhaust

I remember that brief period 30 years ago when we were going to have high-speed maglev trains.

https://www.amazon.com/Popular-Science-Vol-June-1992/dp/B008...

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/03/science/new-funds-fuel-ma...

People will leave their cars behind if they can travel more quickly by mass transit.

Im not convinced thats true in all or even most cases

Move to a city where mass transit is available, day-to-day amenities are located close enough to be walking distance, and where using a car is inconvenient (no free parking, hard to find parking spaces, inconvenient garages in the city centre, congestion fees, etc.) and you will see that most people will drop car usage.

It's very easy to see when you live it yourself.

And where people's activities don't involve carrying things. Public transit is great until you need to get groceries for the week from the store back home, or take more time every day to get that day's groceries instead of a weekly trip.

It's also more expensive to buy small quantities of many products than it is to buy in bulk and store the excess until it's used. It's yet another way our society punishes the poor.

Why would you buy groceries every day? Usually, where I live, people who need more than a backpack of groceries have a small rolling bag, with enough space to fit a week's worth of groceries for a family of 3-4. I buy groceries for a week for 2 people on a large backpack.

Public transit is just great overall, being able to walk to get basic day-to-day needs is pretty sweet as well. I seriously do not understand this argument, and I've lived in Brazil, USA, and Sweden, it's simply a non-issue when mass transit is dependable, well-connected, and available.

I live in texas where we havent had a high temp lower than 100F for about a month. Things cannot be close enough for people to want to walk there instead of taking a car.

I lived in Brazil for a long part of my life, walking outside when it's 38C isn't fun for long stretches but a 15 min walk to the store under the shade of trees is absolutely common... Texas is made of asphalt though, probably hard to find trees among all that pavement.

Sure, but most people wouldn't be able to on their commute as the US doesn't have enough money to build tracks in cities these days as "fair value" for eminent domain would be simply too much, at least in the USA. Taxpayers would never want to pay for it, especially since public transportation always has to be subsidized.

We already subsidize roads and highways. People conveniently forget that.

The idea would be to target the largest cities, of course.

What's with the clickbait title for the HN post? The article is titled ”Why tires — not tailpipes — are spewing more pollution from your cars”

Also, and this is pretty minor, but the HN title gives a mixed message -- donuts are delicious!

I don't even know what a donut of polution would be, but it would probably be delicious, too. Maybe some kinda' cronut?

If you search “swirling donuts of pollution”, you’ll see that it was used elsewhere referencing the Post article. There are also links to the Post article referencing that headline. It’s not unusual for online news sources to test engagement with multiple headlines for an article. Though, the “donuts of pollution” headline is admittedly quite ridiculous.

The article suggests a different tire material, but this wouldn't do anything about breaking dust.

There's been work on active capture systems, e.g.: https://sciencebridge.de/en/brake-dust-collector.html

Whatever the technical solution is, the primary problem seems to be regulatory, as these emissions aren't regulated at all.

This is pretty much solved with regenerative braking, which is a given on electric cars.

EVs use hybrid braking, not 100% regenerative. They will fall back on traditional brakes when the required deceleration exceeds regenerative capacity (due to rapid braking, full battery, etc). It reduces the problem, but I'm not sure about "pretty much solved".

You are right about the fact EVs still use break pads but in normal circumstances it is absolutely minimal.

Source: I drive an Audi e-tron and see (in the dash) and feel / hear when the normal breaks are used. Only below 10KM/h and with emergency breaking. The scenario battery 100% full is a pipe dream :)

The battery 100% scenario is not a pipe dream; it's a common occurrence. Source: I live on top of a hill.

Unfortunately, there isn't a better alternative. Cars are the best form of transportation around, maximizing efficiency, comfort and freedom. Just looking at all of the public transport around where I live (midwest USA), and they're all complete failures - it's no coincidence that cars reign supreme in this area.

Are you just... forgetting about the rest of the world other than the midwest USA? Building car-centric infrastructure is a choice. Some bad choices were made in the US when cars were new and shiny, but we're making better ones now. For example:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/new-daily-train-l...

Boomers still fetishize their cars, but that's a self-correcting problem that won't be around much longer.

Actually, bicycles are the best form of transportation around. They're the most energy-efficient, and least environmentally impactful form of transportation. Your doctor likes it because you get some exercise, too!

With e-bikes you can combine the best of both worlds - a reasonable speed yet you're still contributing to your locomotion.

Electric motorcycles would be next up if you need to travel a longer distance at a higher speed than is required in an urban environment.

https://archive.is/UM1lR

Editorialized title:

Actual title:

“Why tires — not tailpipes — are spewing more pollution from your cars”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com