And we need more lightweight cars , not heavier, since tire wear is proportional to vehicle weight to the fourth power. Ironically, CAFE regulations and EV incentives both did the opposite
You didn't expound upon your point about the unintended consequences of CAFE standards but they're very real. Instead of making smaller and more efficient sedans per the guidelines, car makers opted start making all of their vehicles "light trucks" -- 80%+ of new vehicles are SUVs or bubbly looking "crossovers" -- which are not subject to the same demanding standards. Small sedans also cost less and would require ongoing R&D to continue to meet the CAFE standards. The end result, as this thread is interested, is heavier vehicles with bigger tires and more plastic in the environment and our brains.
Pretty much any major American city is less dense than it was 100 years ago. It was cheaper to build out than it was to build up.
All of that stuff you listed comes from tax dollars, and people ultimately care less about that than what's coming out of their pockets for a home purchase. Well, until it's unsustainable, anyways.
In this country we have this ideal of a rugged individualist whose out there living off the land and making his own way. Never will this rugged individualist acknowledge that he's dependent on 10x as many miles of roads as his urban counterpart. Never will this rugged individualist acknowledge that providing him with internet access on the state's dollar costs orders of magnitude more than someone living in a sustainable location. Same with delivery costs and literally every other thing this person consumes. They get to pretend to be a self-reliant individualist while leaching off of the tax dollars of urban residents who cost a fraction of the amount to support.
Thankfully we have Starlink to replace pork consumption with actual services.
The end of the Pacific Electric system was not a conspiracy theory by tire companies or anything like that; the price of the cars dropped and that's what consumers preferred, i.m.o.
It's a crying shame that they've stopped selling them in the US. Marketing (the real men need their Rams, thank you very much!) and the CAFE loophole seem to have won the day, though, and we're all worse off for it.
That means, all else being equal, a car company makes more profit selling a vehicle that has a higher profit margin. The $80k trucks my family members buy do not cost 3X as much to manufacture as say, a nice Camry, but the price you pay is about 3X. This means the dealer/manufacturer just outright make more money if a higher percentage of people buy trucks instead of small cars.
Consumers have "signaled" that they will be fine paying three times as much for the same exact feature set (no, they are not hauling anything, and there certainly isn't a massively higher percentage of Americans doing truck things than 50 years ago), even using longer term loans to make it happen.
When the car market has been basically saturated for decades, how else do you "make line go up" than selling the same product (transportation) for more money?
> ... even using longer term loans to make it happen.
I don't understand how so many people are driving these vehicles. Not only are they 2-3x as expensive to buy or lease but they're also 2-3x more expensive to fuel and maintain. (Probably to insure, too?) I don't have any data to back this up but my intuition tells me that these vehicles and their loans could be the cause of the next subprime mortgage-esque financial crisis.
Paradoxically most of the 'small government' types are often the biggest road users.
I think it's "limited government". I'm pretty sure they would prefer roads get more spending.
Does this mean that a bus that weighs 10 times as much as a small car will produce 10000 times as much tire dust? If it does, I'm not sure if investing in buses will reduce tire dust at all. A bus can replace a lot of cars, but 10000 is a stretch. We need more trains.
I'd believe buses have a lot of tire wear compared to an individual car but I wouldn't use that relation as proof of just how many times so.
Thinking about it a different way, there isn’t much difference in recommended tire pressure among the autos I’ve owned. That means that the pressure between the road and the tire is relatively constant but the surface area of contact is directly proportional to vehicle weight. For a fixed contact pressure, I am struggling to imagine a physical process by which the rubber loss is not proportional to the contact area.
Tire wear is caused by the surface of the tire being rubbed off through contact with the road. Most tire replacements happen because too much rubber has worn off of the contact surface.
While that happens some in the other direction, that’s not what usually causes road failure. You can tell this because pot-holes and other road failures have abrupt edges - they are not the road material until nothing is left but the earth beneath.
Roads also wear by being elastically deformed by the weight of the vehicles upon them. Eventually this deformation leads to failure of the road material, and it breaks away from the rest of the road, creating cracks and pot holes and so on.
Because the cause of failure is different, I don’t have any reason to expect the effect of vehicle weight to be the same. Moreover, unlike tire wear, its easy to hypothesize a physical reason that heavier vehicles will disproportionately wear the road: heavier vehicles will cause more deflection, and every material I have experience with will fail from repeated deflection faster if it’s deflected more.
Cheap, easy maintenance, good fuel economy and speed, traffic jam immunity..
you're correct. I mistakenly thought it was only carbon coming off the tires. So yeah, EVs have a significantly lower carbon output that ICE vehicles. My point still stands but thanks for the callout.
But really cycling and transit are the way to go to make cities more liveable. Personal cars take too much space in a city and ruin the built environment for everyone not in one.
Despite their own health hazards no amount of tire particulate from EV's can achieve that level of widespread public health impact.
To think that the minuscule difference in tire dust is significant at all, compared to the pollutants that EVs completely eliminates, is absolutely ridiculous.
The devil is in the details, yes. Have you considered that the policy makers have actually looked into the details? Have you looked into the details? Have you read any detailed reports about tire wear or did you just make up a problem based on your own intuition? Because I’ve seen reports from EV fleet operators that indicate that they see no difference in tire wear. Most likely the added weight (which isn’t all that much for modern, smaller EVs.. you know, the ones that people actually drive in urban/suburban areas in Europe) as a factor is drowned by other larger factors.
And we’re not that far away from EVs with the same or lower weight than their ICE counterparts, so getting these kinds of policies in place has some forward-looking aspects to them as well.