Hate for electrics saddens me.

[optik382]

No beef with you, this is just how I discuss things! Enjoy your Taycan, I know I am!

Sponsored

 

[j.w.s]

Suncoast posted some great spy photos on Facebook of the E-Boxster being charged.
I was excited as I'm eager to switch back to a 2 door with open roof ASAP.

What I was not excited for was the near universal outpouring of disgust, hate, and overall negative vitriol from fellow Porsche enthusiasts.

I honestly can't go back to ICE, no matter how much I love some of Porsche's ICE products (especially my old Targa 4S).
I can't give up the EV convenience, power, torque, cost to run and maintain.
It would be like going back to a Motorola RAZR after using an iPhone.

When I read each "I'll never give up my gasoline car" screed, I imagine the author hunched over a desk near their coal-fired hearth, lit by a whale oil lamp, writing with a quill pen dipped in a lead ink pot while a chamber pot sits by their side.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Well, for now, some things are true: EVs are heavier, so there's more tire pollution and it takes more tech to make them fun to drive. They in fact do not make great track cars yet, even a Taycan. [...] and the overall tradeoffs are good for everyday use.

This "tire pollution" thing - a (clean) ICE will emit ~200g/km. I doubt all 4 tires on an EV would have 'emitted' that much over 10k (miles or km - doesn't matter). Ultimately emissions are about harmful particles per million (ie mass is perhaps a good approximation), so I vote to give this tired trope the ignominious death it deserves.

We do seem to agree on the conclusion - overall tradeoffs being good. (Which I'd qualify as an understatement, but ok.)

And they do in fact suck for road trips, because charging infrastructure is poor in most places, and 20-30 minutes *is* a long time! This is coming from a guy who owns three EVs. But I don't do road trips often

Sounds like you're not fully convinced.. I took this whole EV ownership thing as trying to make it work, which includes making small sacrifices every now and then (those 20-30 min). Not saying everyone should put up with inconveniences (and the tolerance level is subjective), but to some degree it's up to us, EV (still) early adopters, to win minds over.

 

[optik382]

This "tire pollution" thing - a (clean) ICE will emit ~200g/km. I doubt all 4 tires on an EV would have 'emitted' that much over 10k (miles or km - doesn't matter). Ultimately emissions are about harmful particles per million (ie mass is perhaps a good approximation), so I vote to give this tired trope the ignominious death it deserves.

We do seem to agree on the conclusion - overall tradeoffs being good. (Which I'd qualify as an understatement, but ok.)


Sounds like you're not fully convinced.. I took this whole EV ownership thing as trying to make it work, which includes making small sacrifices every now and then (those 20-30 min). Not saying everyone should put up with inconveniences (and the tolerance level is subjective), but to some degree it's up to us, EV (still) early adopters, to win minds over.

I am fully convinced, as an owner of three EVs, that they're overall more fun *and* better for the environment.

My point here is that, if it is in fact to a degree up to us as early adopters to win people over, we won't do it by denying the real downsides of EVs that do still exist. That just shuts people down. You have to find common ground with folks before you can persuade. There are still real compromises, and depending on your use case, budget, etc. EVs could still be impractical for some people.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

My point here is that, if it is in fact to a degree up to us as early adopters to win people over, we won't do it by denying the real downsides of EVs that do still exist. That just shuts people down.

I wholeheartedly agree; the reason I picked on your post was the tire emissions - I think we need to do our homework and defuse such "real downsides". I'm not denying that tire emissions in particular may be higher for EVs than ICEs, but perhaps that's such an insignificant aspect of total emissions that it just leads one down the wrong path. It's pure deflection/whataboutism.

There are still real compromises, and depending on your use case, budget, etc. EVs could still be impractical for some people.

Absolutely, no contest. But it's always worth digging in and finding out if someone's concerns are theoretical or practical; elsewhere on this forum, some have expressed the need for 800-(unit not important) range, and it's hard to say if that really is justified. Imagine having the same conversation with someone without any EV exposure/experience whatsoever.

 

[DougFrisk]

When I read each "I'll never give up my gasoline car" screed, I imagine the author hunched over a desk near their coal-fired hearth, lit by a whale oil lamp, writing with a quill pen dipped in a lead ink pot while a chamber pot sits by their side.

I just see this.

 

[optik382]

I wholeheartedly agree; the reason I picked on your post was the tire emissions - I think we need to do our homework and defuse such "real downsides". I'm not denying that tire emissions in particular may be higher for EVs than ICEs, but perhaps that's such an insignificant aspect of total emissions that it just leads one down the wrong path. It's pure deflection/whataboutism.



Absolutely, no contest. But it's always worth digging in and finding out if someone's concerns are theoretical or practical; elsewhere on this forum, some have expressed the need for 800-(unit not important) range, and it's hard to say if that really is justified. Imagine having the same conversation with someone without any EV exposure/experience whatsoever.

Not trying to be pedantic, but... carbon emissions are of course a problem, because they lead to climate change / global warming, and yes tailpipe emissions cause local particulate toxicity. Tire emissions are toxic particles that get into the water and poison animal and plant life, and they are directly proportional to vehicle weight, and perhaps even more if we're talking about the torque of EVs. If I wasn't driving a 5,500lb Taycan, I would be driving a 3,500lb 911, "emitting" *at least* 35% less tire.

Check out this article, from a reputable news source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...ire-brake-tailpipes-emissions-pollution-cars/

To quote: "...Wear and tear on tires and brakes have been shown to produce increasingly more particle pollution, by mass, than car exhaust systems did in several real-world and test scenarios. Some of the particles are large enough to see with our eyes. Others are fine particles (known as PM 2.5, with diameters up to 2.5 microns) and ultrafine particles (known as PM 0.1, with diameters of 100 nanometers), which can enter through our bloodstream and harm our organs."

So... you are saying that tire emissions are insignificant. But the article above says they already outpace tailpipe emissions in California. I don't consider that "pure deflection/whataboutism." It seems like a real problem, and one of the many things that gets worse instead of better when we switch to EVs.

I still feel that *overall* EVs are a cleaner and more fun option, but brushing aside real data showing real issues is exactly the problem we are facing in this debate.

 

[snstevens]

Not trying to be pedantic, but... carbon emissions are of course a problem, because they lead to climate change / global warming, and yes tailpipe emissions cause local particulate toxicity. Tire emissions are toxic particles that get into the water and poison animal and plant life, and they are directly proportional to vehicle weight, and perhaps even more if we're talking about the torque of EVs. If I wasn't driving a 5,500lb Taycan, I would be driving a 3,500lb 911, "emitting" *at least* 35% less tire.

Check out this article, from a reputable news source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...ire-brake-tailpipes-emissions-pollution-cars/

To quote: "...Wear and tear on tires and brakes have been shown to produce increasingly more particle pollution, by mass, than car exhaust systems did in several real-world and test scenarios. Some of the particles are large enough to see with our eyes. Others are fine particles (known as PM 2.5, with diameters up to 2.5 microns) and ultrafine particles (known as PM 0.1, with diameters of 100 nanometers), which can enter through our bloodstream and harm our organs."

So... you are saying that tire emissions are insignificant. But the article above says they already outpace tailpipe emissions in California. I don't consider that "pure deflection/whataboutism." It seems like a real problem, and one of the many things that gets worse instead of better when we switch to EVs.

I still feel that *overall* EVs are a cleaner and more fun option, but brushing aside real data showing real issues is exactly the problem we are facing in this debate.

This talk about microparticles is interesting, but I think it missing the major reason why EVs are so important in the fight against climate change.

Battelle is a research firm that does extensive work with the US Dept of Energy. In the 1980s they began a detailed study of climate change (probably even earlier), that involved placing self-contained measurement pods all over the world to collect data on temperatures, humid, wind, etc.

My friend who was running this project had a way of explaining the reality of tailpipe emissions that I've never forgotten. He told me this --

• Each gallon of gasoline weighs ~6.3 pounds.
• A gallon of gasoline is 87% carbon and 13% nitrogen by weight, so a gallon of gasoline is ~5.5 pounds of carbon.
• A medium bag of Kingsford Charcoal Briquettes is 16 pounds, and is ~100% carbon

Thought Experiment
Imagine that you don't produce carbon dioxide from gasoline, but instead your car spits charcoal briquettes out the tailpipe of your car. Even at 30 miles/gallon, for every 100 miles each car travels it will spew ~16 pounds of briquettes out onto the road. Now multiply that by the 15,000 miles per year, and by the millions of cars on the highway, and you get a real sense of the problem.

We're not talking microparticles here...

 

[violuma]

I have no idea whether the UC Riverside researcher cited in that WaPo piece is in fact a fossil fuel sockpuppet, but just wanted to point out that such a species does exist.

 

[optik382]

This talk about microparticles is interesting, but I think it missing the major reason why EVs are so important in the fight against climate change.

Battelle is a research firm that does extensive work with the US Dept of Energy. In the 1980s they began a detailed study of climate change (probably even earlier), that involved placing self-contained measurement pods all over the world to collect data on temperatures, humid, wind, etc.

My friend who was running this project had a way of explaining the reality of tailpipe emissions that I've never forgotten. He told me this --

• Each gallon of gasoline weighs ~6.3 pounds.
• A gallon of gasoline is 87% carbon and 13% nitrogen by weight, so a gallon of gasoline is ~5.5 pounds of carbon.
• A medium bag of Kingsford Charcoal Briquettes is 16 pounds, and is ~100% carbon

Thought Experiment
Imagine that you don't produce carbon dioxide from gasoline, but instead your car spits charcoal briquettes out the tailpipe of your car. Even at 30 miles/gallon, for every 100 miles each car travels it will spew ~16 pounds of briquettes out onto the road. Now multiply that by the 15,000 miles per year, and by the millions of cars on the highway, and you get a real sense of the problem.

We're not talking microparticles here...

This kind of "carbon" is CO2- it's a gas, not a particles or briquettes, and it's not poisonous. Accumulation high in the atmosphere threatens the existence of humanity due to climate change, and that's why EVs are so important. I agree with you there.

But comparing the mass of emitted non-toxic gas to the mass of emitted solid toxic particles makes no sense. They both have an impact, but direct mass comparison is not appropriate.

The article in WaPo compares the masses of particulates emitted by tailpipes vs. particulates emitted by tires and brakes. That is about toxic toxic pollution as opposed to global climate change. These particles can get into water and/or our lungs and cause cancer etc.. While tailpipe particulates and brake/tire particulates probably also have different levels of toxicity per mass than tire compounds, at least we are comparing solid particles. I do think it'll be interesting to eventually understand, when compared with a modern/clean ICE vehicle, do EVs cause more or less toxin emissions through the battery ingredient mining, eventual battery disposal, tires, etc.. My intuition says ICE is still way dirtier, but I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer to this one, because battery recycling, EV tires, and many other news techs are still being developed.

 

[bsclywilly]

I am somewhat bewildered why the argument of toxic particle emissions from tires and brakes is being attached to EVs. Even if EVs contribute 15-30% more per car, EVs don’t even make up 1% of cars on the road in the US. If rivers and streams are becoming poisoned, it’s certainly due to the last century of cars and trucks on the road and not because of a relatively small number of EVs in the last decade.

It’s nice to see when market pressures push industries to develop less polluting tech. Just weird that EVs are being blamed.

 

[snstevens]

This kind of "carbon" is CO2- it's a gas, not a particles or briquettes, and it's not poisonous. Accumulation high in the atmosphere threatens the existence of humanity due to climate change, and that's why EVs are so important. I agree with you there.

But comparing the mass of emitted non-toxic gas to the mass of emitted solid toxic particles makes no sense. They both have an impact, but direct mass comparison is not appropriate.

The article in WaPo compares the masses of particulates emitted by tailpipes vs. particulates emitted by tires and brakes. That is about toxic toxic pollution as opposed to global climate change. These particles can get into water and/or our lungs and cause cancer etc.. While tailpipe particulates and brake/tire particulates probably also have different levels of toxicity per mass than tire compounds, at least we are comparing solid particles. I do think it'll be interesting to eventually understand, when compared with a modern/clean ICE vehicle, do EVs cause more or less toxin emissions through the battery ingredient mining, eventual battery disposal, tires, etc.. My intuition says ICE is still way dirtier, but I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer to this one, because battery recycling, EV tires, and many other news techs are still being developed.

My point was that carbon spewed from tailpipes is much more of an issue than micro particles from tires. In fact, every 1 gallon of gasoline (weighing 5.5 pounds) converts to 20 pounds of carbon dioxide.

The issue here is that people can’t see CO2 so they discount the impact. The “Thought Experiment” that my friend told me helps make the impact of burning fossil fuels more tangible to people who can’t see CO2, and are therefore prone to discounting the problem. If we had to shovel the briquettes off the road ever day to make way for the next day’s travel, we’d all see the problem pretty quickly.

BTW, newer battery packs are being designed so they can be recycled into new batteries, not disposed of. We’re not there yet, but that’s the direction.

 

[tigerbalm]

At the start of the last century most early cars were initially electric. Can you imagine if the internal combustion engine had never happened – where we would be with both battery tech and charging infrastructure today?

And what would the fear mongering be if a company was trying to introduce ICE?

Petrol cars require energy companies to drive EXPLOSIVE liquid fuel up and down the highway to refuelling stations. They are incredibly dangerous and are going to BLOW UP and KILL US ALL!

Tunnels – none of which have adequate ventilation systems – are going to fill up with POISONOUS gases and KILL US ALL!

The noise of combustion engines is going to give drivers HEADACHES and cause them to become DISTRACTED, which will result in them plowing into other cars and KILLING US ALL!

 

[Jhenson29]

As it stands today, there are some things BEV is better for and some things ICE is better for, just like there are some things a truck is better for and some things a car is better for, or pick any other aspect of (eg coupe/convertible).

Focusing on one aspect of a vehicle, naming its benefits and declaring yourself a winner is silly. (general statement; that’s not directed at anyone That’s not to say you’re wrong if you have a preference based on your use case or wrong within a narrow scope of application. But you can’t declare your use case is applicable to all use cases. (This goes for options too. The upgraded AC and DC charging threads resurfacing comes to mind…)

Naming “deficiencies” just for the sake of it is silly too though. I guarantee you my wife has no idea her Taycan is about 1000lbs heavier than her Panamera was and it makes no difference to her day to day driving. In fact, she thinks her Taycan drives 10x better. (I think it’s only 8x better. ?Not that the weight can’t be an issue in other cases. But naming it for the sake of naming it…?. That‘s just an example.

I do expect EV to close a lot of gaps with ICE though. A lot of things that are “compromises” now will not be in time.

But can’t we all just get along?*

* I do agree with combatting misinformation though.

Sponsored