[biker1]

5%, perhaps more depending on what you include. Regardless, it is small compared to ICE engine efficiencies.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Originally Posted by Justputt

Line losses are NOT very low! Attention Required! | Cloudflare

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Albany

This ridiculous article has been debunked numerous times. Consider the source folks.

We’ll post some sites then to back up your claim and not from EV manufacturers.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, those that were against the horseless carriage "back in the day" are equivalent to those that PROMOTE the same fossil fuel technology today? Your correlation seems a bit off and a bit of a contradiction. You seem to be saying that ICE "back in the day" was better for the environment than the horse(might be true, considering the flatulence) and now burning fossil fuel is a bad thing. I know what you meant, but your correlation is skewed.

EVs are at same level as electric horseless carriages back in 1900. They just made them more fancy and expensive.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Southwest737

The single motor Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus weighs in at 3,582 lbs.
The other two dual-motor Model 3 trims, Long Range and Performance, both weigh in at 4,065 lbs.
Curb weight of a Toyota Camry is 3580 lbs.
I drive a M3LR and after 20,000 miles tire wear is normal. Plenty of tread for at least another 20k.
What a POC article. More lies about EVs. The truth is it’s the best car we have owned. We did not buy it due to climate change. We bought it because it is highly efficient torque beast that blows away antiquated inefficient ICE vehicles.

I wonder when 737 going to have EV motors?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Great, now you've done it!

That post is sure to draw out 2 of my "favorite" posters and their global warming fantasy tirade.

Ask and thee shall receive. Eagles are my favorite football team. This is an example of a subject with some HALF TRUTHS sprinkled in and then an ERRONEOUS conclusion is drawn. It is certainly true that small particles are given off when ANY 2 surfaces rub together. If you rub a metal file over a wood surface, you get saw dust. If the metal file was fine enough, you MIGHT (?) get invisible particles. Now the stretch of the truth occurs when they say that invisible tire and brake particles are going to hurt human lungs. And it would be true that the heavier the vehicle the more of these invisible particles would be sent out.
..........Now, one big "curve ball" to what was said in the article is that the 18 wheeler trucks that are traveling EVERY highway would have more tires and brakes and would be more than 10 times heavier than any known Electric car, truck or E-Golf Cart. So if these invisible emitted particles were killing people by injuring their lungs, then ALL the people at TRUCK STOPS, and truck drivers would be LONG dead from lung cancer.

[Justputt]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Ask and thee shall receive. Eagles are my favorite football team. This is an example of a subject with some HALF TRUTHS sprinkled in and then an ERRONEOUS conclusion is drawn. It is certainly true that small particles are given off when ANY 2 surfaces rub together. If you rub a metal file over a wood surface, you get saw dust. If the metal file was fine enough, you MIGHT (?) get invisible particles. Now the stretch of the truth occurs when they say that invisible tire and brake particles are going to hurt human lungs. And it would be true that the heavier the vehicle the more of these invisible particles would be sent out.
..........Now, one big "curve ball" to what was said in the article is that the 18 wheeler trucks that are traveling EVERY highway would have more tires and brakes and would be more than 10 times heavier than any known Electric car, truck or E-Golf Cart. So if these invisible emitted particles were killing people by injuring their lungs, then ALL the people at TRUCK STOPS, and truck drivers would be LONG dead from lung cancer.

AGAIN, if you read the article, it isn't slanted against EVs and only makes the point that HEAVIER vehicles (ICE or EV) suffer the same issue with tire and break particles!! EV only factors in because on average they are heavier. I don't think ANYONE makes a cancer claim against plastics in the article, so that's a straw argument.

[jimjamuser]

There are some other 1/2 truths in that article in that disreputable publication. Namely.....gravity needs to be considered. Small particles given off by brake linings and tire particles will fall down on some road somewhere and rain will wash them away to sewers and eventually into the MUD bottoms of rivers, where they would soon be rendered inert. Now, another 1/2 truth would be that an E-automobile like a Tesla would weigh some LARGE amount compared with a gas-guzzling vehicle like a Cadillac. Another factor is that in the NEAR future battery weights will be coming down. Another factor is that E-motors move in a circle as opposed to up and down piston movement and THEREFORE require only about 1/3 of the parts as compared to a gas engine. Therefore, less parts need to be shipped to the vehicle factory, which would easily give the E-vehicle an edge in producing less particle pollution (even IF that theory were true, which it isn't)
.........Not for the REAL truth. The gasoline engine helps America's international enemies. The gasoline engine produces out of its exhaust pipe a CO2 gas which RISES (as opposed to those small stupid particles which fall) and the CO2 becomes TRAPPED in the upper atmosphere and has been reflecting HEAT back to the Earth in large quantities in the last 11 or so years. This HEAT has caused many PROBLEMS one of which is HEATED oceans WHICH are spawning more hurricanes of greater intensity.
.......Also note......The worldwide gas and oil conglomerates have a vested PROFIT interest in PREVENTING the widespread ADOPTION of ELECTRIC vehicles. They are DESPERATE to prevent them!!!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Justputt

AGAIN, if you read the article, it isn't slanted against EVs and only makes the point that HEAVIER vehicles (ICE or EV) suffer the same issue with tire and break particles!! EV only factors in because on average they are heavier. I don't think ANYONE makes a cancer claim against plastics in the article, so that's a straw argument.

OK I will take that as a good comment. With the tiny addition that brake is spelled brake.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Boomer

…………AND We’re Off!

While I have no intention of buying an EV, my reasons have nothing to do with loaded tabloids like The Daily News. I like my dependable old Accord and have no need to buy a car that costs more than my first house — and that would be ANY car these days.

But when did Americans lose the ability to think for themselves, to read between the lines, to look deep for the motive behind what is very loosely called news, to NEVER fall for the old divide-and-conquer game, and to make decisions based on the pros and cons…….

Speaking of cons, by now we all should know that the old “Do your own research” pukefest of a line we have been hearing for years simply means that you can go online and find lots of articles to agree with your own narrow opinion.

You can then bask in your own echo chamber and never have to bother to look any further or to welcome an exchange of ideas.

Maybe branch out, expand horizons, and instead of clinging to such sources as The Daily News, tune in to The Daily Show, but only on Monday nights, 11 PM, Comedy Central because Jon Stewart has returned — but he works only on Mondays.

If you think you might like good satire instead of tabloid hype style, you might end up laughing and having a good time in my echo chamber.

Boomer

Agreed. Monday's Daily Show is excellent. learn things and be entertained. It is a win-win.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.

EV mustang looks nothing like the King of street coyote ICE vehicles.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.

Love the Dropkick Murphys.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Yup! Good taste in music sir. This is their annual ‘super bowl’ coming up (St. Patrick’s Day) multiple shows....unfortunately, all in Boston (unless you’re in Boston of course that weekend)

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, those that were against the horseless carriage "back in the day" are equivalent to those that PROMOTE the same fossil fuel technology today? Your correlation seems a bit off and a bit of a contradiction. You seem to be saying that ICE "back in the day" was better for the environment than the horse(might be true, considering the flatulence) and now burning fossil fuel is a bad thing. I know what you meant, but your correlation is skewed.

And don't forget, the first "horseless carriage" was an EV. The EV was invented BEFORE the ICE powered cars...

So, the BETTER technology WAS the ICE vehicle, since it replaced the EV...

[Slapnut]

I've read where it uses as much emissions to mine the ingredients for the electric car as a vehicle that has 150,000 miles of road use. Not to forget that China is the country that has the resources and gets rich off of our government