Hacker News Reader

> Conspiracy theories are rampant - somebody told me they thought the tires on EVs would give them cancer

Well I mean, they're not really wrong. Tires release 100 times the amount of volatile organic compounds as a modern tailpipe [0] and those emissions are roughly 20% higher for EVs on average simply because they weigh more. Pollution is strongly linked to numerous types of cancer and tires are a big culprit here.

[0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical...

They were wrong, in that I think they read something similar to what you linked and completely misunderstood what it was saying to mean "the EV engines turn tires into cancer poison," rather than "EVs put more stress on their tires as byproduct of their weight, which in turn can release carcinogens."

The Chevy Bolt weights about 3,600 pounds - while heavy for a vehicle of its size, it is not particularly different from an average "midsize" car weight, at least according to Google. This seems like a red herring to me given how much larger most cars on the road are, at least as far as the Bolt is concerned. Perhaps it is an issue for larger EVs like the Model Y or Mach E.

The results vary study to study, but a good ballpark measure is that the average EV is 15% heavier than the average ICE [0]. Other studies I've seen are in the same range, roughly between 15-20%. So if anything, I would call it counterintuitive at best — it's a very real problem, simply the awareness around it is low.

[0] https://www.automotivelogistics.media/insight/you-gotta-carr...

But let's compare it to a Ford 250 which is about 2x the weight. I think it's more than lack of awareness, but ignorance. They dont ask why EV = cancer.

This is missing the point entirely. Finding one ICE that's heavier than an EV doesn't change the fact that on average, EVs are considerably heavier than ICEs. You can pick individual examples from either set that are light or heavy, but on average EVs weigh more and hence their tires wear more.

I think we got that point, just kinda focusing on your other since there is an entire fleet of ICE vehicles that are simply unavailable as an EV. My point was its conspiracy, not uninformed simply because they nutjob in the example never mentioned weight, never questioned why, and took EV = cancer as fact. It doesn't matter if EVs weigh 5x more or 5x less.

> Pollution is strongly linked to numerous types of cancer and tires are a big culprit here

Is there a comparison with harmful pollutants from the exhaust including CO, from engine from oil, gas leaks from gas station underground tanks etc. I think an EV comes way ahead.

I want an EV really badly - just not the current ones. Give me a Subaru crosstrek type vehicle with 400 mi range, I.e a car with 8-9 in ground clearance and 4 wheel drive. If it’s 40-45k that’s okay.

Not sure what the ground clearance will be on the upcoming rugged edition of the smallest Volvo ev crossover, but that could be getting close to my requirements.

Isn’t Subaru planning an EV cross trek? There are lots of SUV-style EVs, you have to look harder to find sedans like the Model 3.

They haven’t acted like it. They are discontinuing the plug in crosstrek and their only electric vehicle is a Toyota.

Subarus have more ground clearance than most SUVs

Usually when I want a car like that I'm about to drive through a small river or something. How well insulated are the batteries in an EV?

> We don't have a usable national charging network.

I feel like there's a big lever the federal government has its hands on that would solve this in record time:

Add a substantial gas station tax which is only applied to gas stations with fewer than two level 3 chargers, and watch how fast the national charging network happens.

It doesn't even need to cost the gas station anything. A vendor can foot the bill for installing the chargers and split the profits with the gas station. It would be a boon for gas stations, since EV charging customers are far more likely to generate foot traffic in their stores (where they make the majority of their money) than gas customers who just gas and go.

I think a more effective lever would be giving owners of apartments and other multi-families properties a property tax rebate if they install level 2 chargers. Particularly in cities, the lack of a place to charge your car in your apartment is a huge impediment to adoption. Property taxes are state revenue, but the Federal government could set up a program that makes states whole if they set up such a scheme.

More tax is always a dumb, lazy idea. Make EV's more affordable, not ICE cars less affordable.

As it is, half the people with a driver's license in this country cannot afford a base model Honda Civic, much less an EV and its associated charging hardware. Taxing gas will put these people out of personal transportation altogether or make their lives all that much more difficult.

> More tax is always a dumb, lazy idea. Make EV's more affordable, not ICE cars less affordable.

The point isn't to raise revenue via tax, it's to incentivise creating a privatized national charging network and make EV ownership feasible. Making them affordable isn't sufficient. Offer the gas stations all the carrots: loans, easy regulations, profits from EV charging revenue. Offer the tax stick to the ones that won't modernize.

Well until recently with the wide-spread adoption of NACS I am not surprised gas stations didn't make the leap.

Now there isn't much of a "technological ambiguity" excuse and they should be able to execute clearly.

Where do you live that this seems wise? Gas stations are dangerous, high crime places. One of the perks of an electric car, to me, is never going to a dangerous gas station again.

There are probably a few parts of a relatively nearby large city where I wouldn't go out of my way to gas up late at night. But I can't personally think of a time when concern for my safety was something I remotely thought about when getting gas.

Uhh . . . where do YOU live that getting mugged at a gas station is something to regularly worry about AND you can afford an EV?

Wouldn't San Francisco check both of those boxes? It's easier to afford an EV than to afford to live there, and it has a major crime problem.

SF has a major property crime problem, getting mugged (at a gas station or otherwise) is more of a Texas/Deep South problem.

Where do you live that gas stations are "dangerous, high crime places"? That is extremely abnormal, I don't identify with that at all. Of the hundreds of different gas stations across the country I have frequented in my life, there have only been a couple that might be described as "sketchy".

No worries, it will be easier to get mugged on superchargers.

I'm still pissed about the discontinuation of the Bolt.

I rent Bolts frequently now that Avis carries lots of them. They are amazing cars and LITERALLY EXACTLY what many customers wanting EVs have asked for: cheap, "normal" interior, not slow.

This would be perfect for my wife, who is driving an aging Fusion PHEV (that she loves).

Yes, I can get her a Tesla, but she's expressed reservations and the direction the product is going is not helping (stalkless, missing ultrasonic sensors, screen shift).

The Bolt was “affordable” because despite government incentives the MFG was losing 9 bills on each one sold.

They won’t “make it up with volume” as the saying goes.

That's not accurate. They were losing about $2,000 on the lowest-tier models. See https://theticker.org/11334/business/general-motors-to-stop-....

Still, to your point, the logical solution there would be to find cheaper ways to manufacture the car people want, not try to demand people buy other cars that are cheaper to make. They weren't even trying to be manipulative about it - they were just like "nope, you can't have this anymore, but please still give us your money."

Those were the industry estimates of their losses, at launch time; but you’re right, they probably were able to lose less over time. However, they also had recalls which made things worse.

Apparently their new platform is supposed to focus attention on decreasing the price of production so they don’t lose money on every platform vehicle they sell —which quite obviously would not be sustainable.