[GTO]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Surely weight has to play a role, but the ev’s we get here are barely 75-150kg more than ICE, that’s the difference between Having 1 vs 3 occupants at worst. How much is too much weight?

Good point. I don't think there will be a major difference among the smaller cars, but in the segments above, it's crazy.

EQS weighs almost 2600 kilos, which is 500 kilos more than the S-Class. It also has 858 Nm of torque and AWD. Which between the two will wear out tyres faster?

Just wait till you see the weight of midsize & full-size EV SUVs that are coming our way due to their battery demands.

[zandot]

It could also have something to do with cars that are fitted with "EV specific" tyres with the sound deadening foam inside having lesser tread. I believe this was found to be the case with OEM tyres fitted by Tesla for example documented online by various youtubers.

From my personal usage and EV ownership experience..

1) Nexon EV - 50,000km in 1 year. Tyres going strong with slight signs of wear, possible to get another 7-10k out of them at least.
2) MG ZS EV - 29,000km in 8 months. Tyres have easily another 20-25k life left in them
3) Ioniq 5 - first time using Michelin EV specific tyres - rear 2 tyres gone in less than 30,000km or roughly 10 months of driving to the point the middle was bald.
4) BMW iX - only done about 10,000km so far in 3 months but tyres seem to be doing fine also not EV specific.

[Roadside-Friend]

Hi All,
Logically agree with the article! Please also look at a study by Emission Analytics, a thread of which was published in WSJ on 3rd of March or around that date, which went on to even state the amount of emissions from tyres (wear & tear) were about 400% more than the vehicle exhaust emissions. No specific EV tyres exist that function as well as normal tyres.

The Michellin, Ceat and other brands that are making EV specific tyres are confirming ONLY to the sound part or making the tyres more silent! Can share an experience of a Hyundai car model carrying a tyre sealant (breakdown) if anyone wishes. I am a new participant so am not well versed with the exact rules of posting and want to be right in my utterances! Best!!

[Samarth 619]

It seems more like an article than a study.
Even I can create sensation by saying that my Duke 390's Metzelers lasted 6000 miles, and its true. What's that supposed to mean without a proper comparison?

A proper study in this context is one in which we equip a similarly powered ICE and an EV with the same brand of tyres, and ride them equally.
An EV will still have more torque at all rpm's except top, but this is the only choice, the only equal comparison you can get at.
Then, you make a statement like "A similarly powered EV wears tyre faster than an ICE, all other conditions being the same."

A lot of propaganda is running around, but physically speaking there may be a little truth here. Maybe too little to matter.
Would you mind too much, if your EV tyres last 70 km, instead of 75 on a Petrol vehicle, for example?

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Surely weight has to play a role, but the EVs we get here are barely 75-150kg more than ICE, that’s the difference between Having 1 vs 3 occupants at worst. How much is too much weight?

We take wet weight of an ICE vehicle at its full tank of fuel weight, however mostly its always running at lesser than a full tank of fuel.
At the rate of fuel weight being around 740 grams per liter, we're looking at a little lesser than the claimed wet weight for an ICE, thus putting more pressure on EV.
For a 100L tank, that's around 75 kg of fuel.

If at all the study holds any merit, I would say it could be due to a combination of instant torque, always more weight, and the impact of this torque on the 2 inward tyres while steering, etc..
If at all.

[Redex]

Hi,
it is not the type of vehicle that determines tyre life. It is the stress loading that the tyre has to endure. A BEV, petrol and diesel car of the same weight will all have similar tyre wear if driven in the same manor. Hard accelerating, fast cornering, hard braking and weight all determine tyre life.
Generally, BEV,s are heavier. To improve tyre life accelerate slower, corner slower, brake gently, empty your car don't carry unnecessary weight. As always regularly check tyre pressures. You will also get improved range.
If you drive an ICE vehicle hard you also get poor tyre life. It's all about the physics concerning the forces applied to the tyre.
Even 40 tonne truck tyres usually last 60,000 to 70,000 Kms.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Originally Posted by GTO

Good point. I don't think there will be a major difference among the smaller cars, but in the segments above, it's crazy.

EQS weighs almost 2600 kilos, which is 500 kilos more than the S-Class. It also has 858 Nm of torque and AWD. Which between the two will wear out tyres faster?

Just wait till you see the weight of midsize & full-size EV SUVs that are coming our way due to their battery demands.

Again, if we are taking about vehicles like EQS or i7, then comparison has to be made with ICE vehicles of similar power and weight. How much do tires of an E63 AMG or an M5 last? As long as it is a similar ballpark, there is no issue.

The problem is that such ‘studies’ paint all EVs with one brush to give a false impression to an uninformed or naive reader. By their logic, an MG Comet and a Tesla Model S Plaid will chew through their tires at the same rate.

[Roadside-Friend]

Is quite true! Besides that, also the faster burn out leads to more pollutants getting added to the environment. Suggest to look at the study paper by Emission Analytics on the same! Cheers!

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

Again, if we are taking about vehicles like EQS or i7, then comparison has to be made with ICE vehicles of similar power and weight. How much do tires of an E63 AMG or an M5 last? As long as it is a similar ballpark, there is no issue.

The problem is that such ‘studies’ paint all EVs with one brush to give a false impression to an uninformed or naive reader. By their logic, an MG Comet and a Tesla Model S Plaid will chew through their tires at the same rate.

Exactly my point, either the comparison should be made on weight parity or on power parity. Any deviation and we might as well be looking at cars of different segment altogether even if they cost the same.

Originally Posted by Roadside-Friend

Please also look at a study by Emission Analytics, a thread of which was published in WSJ on 3rd of March or around that date, which went on to even state the amount of emissions from tyres (wear & tear) were about 400% more than the vehicle exhaust emissions.

I think there’s already a thread on that, either case, since it’s a related topic I’ll respond here (quotes are from this article)

The headline conclusion we draw now is that, comparing real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions to tire wear emissions, both in ‘normal’ driving, the latter is actually around 1,850 times greater than the former. *Yes, in normal driving the ratio is almost double the previous figure for aggressive driving.

First thing that sticks out to me, is that the headline figure of 1850 times worse emissions than ICE, is actually comparing the tailpipe PM2.5 emissions of ICE cars to the tyre and brake dust emissions of EVs

It doesn’t compute the most basic of comparison criteria ie both the sides must compare the same unit. Tailpipe of ICE should be compared to Grid emissions (power generation), and their tyre and brake emissions of EV to the same emissions on ICE

What value are we to derive from comparison of tyre vs tailpipe? It doesn't make any sense. How are supposed to compare with the ICE cars unless we know that the tyre and brake dust figure is like on ICE cars?

Surely comparing apples to oranges does not provide an iota of context to the problem at hand ie tyre and brake dust. That context can only be provided by fair comparison of (Tyre + brake dust from ICE) vs (Tyre + brake dust from BEV).

Unless there is an actual side by side comparison, even their 2020 report which they link, tested a 2011 Golf driven on track (which track is not revealed, but most likely a race track or circuit) vs the current EV report which apparently

uses high-precision scales to weigh all four wheels – tires and rims together, without detaching – over at least 1,000 miles on real roads. *This is coupled with a proprietary sampling system that collects particles at a fixed point immediately behind each tire, which are, via a sample line, drawn into a real-time detector measuring the size of distribution of particles by mass and number.

There is massive quality difference between a circuit and real road. I don't think it is very honest to compare a 9y old car driven on circuit to BEVs tested on real roads.

Either test both on circuit or both on real roads.

I must also add that testing on real roads is probably going to fudge your numbers for the worse anyway, because you're not the only person driving on "real roads", they're shared by thousands of other cars, trucks and busses.

And after all the hoopla in the article, the quote this parting line in the end, which should have been said much earlier on :

Nevertheless, it is important to say that a gentle BEV driver, with the benefit of regenerative braking, can more than cancel out the tire wear emissions from the additional weight of their vehicle, to achieve lower tire wear than an internal combustion engine vehicle driven badly.

I think the article is still misunderstood though.

Anti EV folks are using it as a [wojack look](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAE) tool to add one more point to their inherent hatred of EVs, just another reason to add to the list, not recognising the problems with the testing methodology, and the sheer disparity in the test conditions for the ICE and EV test respectively.

And the unfair comparison would obviously invite criticism from EV gang who would try to disprove that tyre emissions and brake emissions don't exist. I fully recognise they do exist, however, like the report noted, a conservative driver would more than cancel out the tyre wear even while driving an EV which weighs more than similar ICE car.

In all this misinterpretation, the main purpose of the article — almost like a dieselgate moment for tyre emissions — is lost.

What the article demands : BRING TYRE AND BRAKE DUST UNDER EURO VII

What the public focusses on : ICE VS EV SLUGFEST (and they wholly deserve it for the unfair comparison)

[Uncia6276]

My 32 years of driving / riding experience of ICE engines, and my limited travel in the EV taxis of the Orix on projects, I share my understanding here.

ICE engines, the torque is very is a curve, means based on RPM, and there is seldom wheelspin during pick-up of at speed.

EV's - I have had chance to site in Tigor / Nexon, what I observed is that during spirited driving, even when we are doing 40-50 kmph, the press on the accelerator, I could hear the wheels spin. Though this gave the ride a racing type feel, when done regularly, definitely there would be more tyre wear over say 1-2 years as compared to ICE engines.

Such wheelspin at 40-50 or above is rare in those ICE engines.

[navinmra]

My two cents:
Tyre manufactures tweak the rubber compound, tread pattern and other materials to achieve ‘performance’, ‘comfort’, ‘economy’ etc. Mind you, these are conflicting characteristics. Engineers can achieve one characteristic albeit at the expense of others. For instance comfort oriented tyres have softer sidewalls which make them lousy at cornering. On the other hand, performance oriented tyres have less flexion of sidewalls for better cornering and therefore by design are not comfortable.

When I changed from the comfort, low noise oriented Michelin primacy 3T to the performance oriented Continental UC6, on my Civic, the increase in rolling resistance and therefore sluggishness of the car was very noticeable. But it was a joy to throw around corners because of the grip it offered thanks to super soft tread compound and taut sidewalls.

Coming to EVs, since NVH levels are super low, tyre noise is very visible. And so EV specific tyres are typically low noise and low rolling resistance configurations. The trade off you have to accept for that is faster wear.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

What the article demands : BRING TYRE AND BRAKE DUST UNDER EURO VII

Recently I was reading about Euro 7 emission standards. Below is the agreed standard for brake particle emissions, clearly shows the guys who prepared these regulations know that EVs have less brake dust.

The deal sets brake particles emissions limits (PM10) for cars and vans (3mg/km for pure electric vehicles; 7mg/km for most internal combustion engine (ICE), hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles and 11mg/km for large ICE vans)

People just don't apply their logic questioning when it comes to hate against EVs. Even believe a Tesla can be unlocked with a 2$ Pokemon card.

These studies never cared about tyre dust from a Fortuner vs Etios, they somehow want the gullibles to believe EVs cause more pollution.

[robby0707]

Originally Posted by sai47

I have a Nexon EV Max which has run around 60k Kms till now. Tyres are pretty good compared to an ICE that has run equivalently. Mostly due to the braking and slowing down duties being taken care of by the regen system IMO.

Do you mean that if the braking is done by regen system, then the tyres have lesser stress? How exactly?
I think the reason for the increased wear is weight and instant torque.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Originally Posted by robby0707

Do you mean that if the braking is done by regen system, then the tyres have lesser stress? How exactly?
I think the reason for the increased wear is weight and instant torque.

Nexon’s regen is very well calibrated. It kicks in progressively. As a driver, it takes a bit of getting used to initially, but you learn to low down the car gradually using regen and judgement of distance. You learn to lift off and let the car slow down on its own at, say, 200 meters, instead of braking at 150 meters. Ergo, lesser force and over a longer distance. Gentle braking = less stress. The car comes is an intelligent brake vacuum pump that lets the regen do most of the slowing down and engages the discs only after that has maxed out. Friction brakes are used essentially to bring the car to a complete stop, or for sudden panic braking.

My experience with the Nexon EV indicates that a well calibrated and adjustable regen system is beneficial to both tire and brake pad+disc life.

[dhanushs]

Even if there is some value to this study it will be because of mainly three reasons.

• EV Tyre Compounds wear out faster because they focus more on NVH
• More weight.
• Instant Torque, which is also higher.

[navinmra]

Originally Posted by dhanushs

Even if there is some value to this study it will be because of mainly three reasons.

• EV Tyre Compounds wear out faster because they focus more on NVH
• More weight.
• Instant Torque, which is also higher.

Spot on. Low NVH and low rolling resistance requires compounds and tread patterns that unfortunately wear fast too. Instant torque matters too but is largely a function of driving style. I for one have become more sedate after switching from ICE to EV