It's an unfortunate trend with EVs too (thanks in large part to Tesla IMO). You can get a ton of acceleration with big electric motors and batteries, but the car will otherwise drive like ass because it's so heavy and so little attention has been paid to anything besides speed.
Most BEVs also have low center of gravity and even mass distribution, so they’re not as bad as a heavy ICE car.
On public roads, 0-30mph acceleration is probably most fun you can have within realm of legal and sensible driving. Handling is not an issue at speed limits of public roads.
This was extremely misleading breakdown, because it discounted all of the ICE gases that are toxic, but weigh almost nothing, and lighter combustion particles that stay in the air, versus tire particles that are typically heavier and stay on the ground.
Of course worn tires aren't environmentally neutral, but that framing was used as a regressive "gotcha" in EVs vs ICE, without daring to mention any real solutions like reversing heavy macho-pickup-truck and SUV fashion created by a workaround for emissions regulation, or moving freight from trucks to rail.
I said it was low-hanging fruit because it's my understanding that it is: since EVs (again, correct me if I'm wrong) generate more tire rubber particles because of their comparatively high torque output, it's literally a software fix (limiting torque) to cut those emissions to ICE levels or, potentially, even lower. The only reason not to do it is that many people view their personal vehicles as large, expensive toys, and they will be less fun toys if their acceleration performance is curtailed.
I don't see this as a "gotcha" for EV technology, because it has such a trivial solution, and it was not my intent to suggest that ICE cars are less (or more, for that matter) damaging to the environment. I'm honestly not sure why you would read my comment that way.
---
As for the harm done by microplastics like tire rubber particles, it's my understanding that they don't simply stay on the ground, but rather that drainage carries them into the ground, waterways, and ultimately oceans, where they remain intact for some indefinite period and cause largely unquantified disruptions to local organisms and ecologies. It's not obvious to me that they won't ultimately be more of a problem than airborne pollutants, since they may be much more persistent and difficult to remove.
After the EV transition is complete, though, that'd be a good time to start limiting torque. Unless most people are just riding self-driving taxis by then, which probably won't be doing fast acceleration anyway.
I don't really think either of these arguments is obviously correct, so I lean toward the option that immediately limits harm. But I'm also under no illusion that anything other than short to medium term profits are driving automakers' decisions, so in practice we will surely get the worst of both worlds.
Seriously, I haven't been hit in the head.
The AMG was fun for a total of 4 seconds, which is exactly how long it took you to get to the legal speed limit, then you just sort of pootled along, unable to push hard and enjoy it. Yes it had grip, yes it had the noise, but I'd say out of the 4 years I owned it, I had "fun" in maybe a total 5% of those 4 years.
In the e-Up? I can push it hard all the time. You can get on some countryside roads, keep the pedal flat, and chuck it around, and it takes ages to get to any kinds of illegal speeds. And it's electric so the torque is always there, there's no waiting for the dual clutch gearbox to finally decide what it wants to do, you press the throttle and you go, it's absolutely beautiful how you can thread this car out of a corner. My enjoyment of hard driving this car is probably 10x that of the AMG, partially because you can actually do it for longer, and partially because I'm far less likely to kill myself or land in jail doing so. And it's only 1200kg so it's not like an oil tanker in turns, despite having wheels from a lawnmower.
> The result is terrifying. Both terrifying to drive, and terrifying to realize that these things are out on the road, in the hands of a public I don't trust enough to handle this sort of power. Up on Angeles Crest, the Plaid is incredibly quick, but it doesn't have the chassis, steering, or brakes to deal with the horsepower. Especially irritating is the damping, which is never settled in the Plaid's multiple drive modes. And that yoke steering wheel is just so incredibly stupid.
It is scary. Consumer automobile trends are chasing more and bigger in every dimension and our regulators are either asleep at the wheel or on the payroll. Pedestrian deaths are trending up, we have hard data showing that pickup trucks are 2.5x more likely to kill the occupants of other vehicles in a crash, and there is no sign that anyone gives a single flying fuck about any of these lives that have been needlessly snuffed out—a pile of corpses as a monument to the pigheaded vanity of adult children. It is fucking disgusting.
Presumably you suggest we also banish unhealthy food, cigarettes, weed, and alcohol, right? They are all responsible for significant deaths (especially when combined with any kind of driving) and are only for fun
In short, yours is not a good analogy because the danger posed by the use of harmful addictive substances is to the self, while the danger posed by driving an F-450 XLT Cummings Power Stroke 8.0 Liter Ranch King Harley Davidson Edition is to others.
You didn’t read what I wrote. I specifically called out being under the influence. A drunk behind the wheel of the Corolla is far more dangerous to pedestrians than a teetotaling truck driver. Similar to anyone at a high risk of heart attack or stroke that gets behind the wheel.
It's a world built for cars, and we're only barely clawing it back.
I hate getting one of these as a rental instead of a van.