|
Do you ever actually read this garbled nonsense or just the headline?
What the research actually says is, apparently, that heavier cars cause more damage to roads. The only relevance of how they're powered is that electric cars weigh more than their OCE equivalent, but an electric Mini (for example) is still going to weigh less than a diesel Landcruiser.
The article also states that electric cars weigh "roughly twice as much" as other models, which clarifies the quality of journalism involved here.
The Telegraph and the Mail, for whatever reason, have an anti-EV agenda. As with so much in life, and the same is true across the entire news media spectrum, their 'news' is almost entirely about pushing these agendas and ignoring any element of truth.
|
|
It's true a lot of these so called Media outlets are usually paid by people to publish anti articles from anything from foreigners to brexit to as Adampr has eluded to an anti-EV agenda. It does seem there was a big difference the attention grabbing headline and some of the more other details of the article which is a shame when it comes to shoddy journalism.
|
|
|
‘ The Telegraph and the Mail, for whatever reason, have an anti-EV agenda.’
There are well publicised links (financial) between legacy fossil fuel producers and the government, and guess whose views are reflected in the Telegraph and Mail?
More anti-EV FUD.
|
|
It is generally accepted that road damage is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight.
What does this mean:
- an EV of 1.2 tonnes vs a ICE of 1. 0 tonnes produces, as the Telegraph suggests, just over twice the road wear/damage.
- an HGV with (say) 3 axles weighing 20 tons produces ~30,000 times the road wear/damage compared to an ICE.
Basically road wear and damage by either EV or ICE is utterly trivial compared to that of an HGV. The Telegraph are simply accurately reporting an out of context and thus completely meaningless truth.
|
It is generally accepted that road damage is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight.
What does this mean:
- an EV of 1.2 tonnes vs a ICE of 1. 0 tonnes produces, as the Telegraph suggests, just over twice the road wear/damage.
- an HGV with (say) 3 axles weighing 20 tons produces ~30,000 times the road wear/damage compared to an ICE.
Basically road wear and damage by either EV or ICE is utterly trivial compared to that of an HGV. The Telegraph are simply accurately reporting an out of context and thus completely meaningless truth.
To be fair, they are pointing out that if a person changes from an ICE car to an equivalent EV, the EV will damage the road a good deal more. Like many things, a small incarese in force (due to weight in this case) can have a disproportionate effect on the wear something experiences (the road).
Your argument to compare them to an HGV is a red herring because someone buying a new ICE HGV would buy one with the same and maybe even a lower weight (due to improvements in efficiency), which would at best do the same damage to the road, but probably less.
The problem should be more cast as having more, heavier vehicles on the road, which is caused by having more people in the country and less products being produced locally / in the UK or regionally, plus the growth over the past few deacdes in out-of-town shopping and 'throw-away' goods that previously were physically and economically able to be repaired / maintained and locally.
|
|
Just looking at motorways using 2019 Department of Transport figures to avoid pandemic distortion. Ignore vans, motorcycles, coaches etc.
Cars travelled 50bn motorway miles in the UK, HGVs 8bn miles. Intuitively this is plausible - the ratio of cars to HGVs is ~6:1.
Using my figures above - if the damage caused by cars is 50bn, the damage caused by HGVs would be 264,000bn (8bn x 33,000).
In total HGVs cause ~5000 times more road damage than cars. Even if every ICE were replaced by an EV HGVs would still cause 2500 times more damage than cars.
You could change the numbers slightly - an HGV is a vehicle over 3500kg. I have assumed 20,000kg. They can weigh up to 44,000kg (more in a limited number of cases).
Just accept it - cars are trivial terms of road damage.
|
Just looking at motorways using 2019 Department of Transport figures to avoid pandemic distortion. Ignore vans, motorcycles, coaches etc.
Cars travelled 50bn motorway miles in the UK, HGVs 8bn miles. Intuitively this is plausible - the ratio of cars to HGVs is ~6:1.
Using my figures above - if the damage caused by cars is 50bn, the damage caused by HGVs would be 264,000bn (8bn x 33,000).
In total HGVs cause ~5000 times more road damage than cars. Even if every ICE were replaced by an EV HGVs would still cause 2500 times more damage than cars.
You could change the numbers slightly - an HGV is a vehicle over 3500kg. I have assumed 20,000kg. They can weigh up to 44,000kg (more in a limited number of cases).
Just accept it - cars are trivial terms of road damage.
They difference is that the overhwlming majority of HGV journeys are essential - a good number of car journeys aren't, not helped by how society has developed over the last few decades.
Many people use their car for trips you can easily walk it - often because they are lazy, unfit / overweight (who's fault is that?) and they can (still, even today) easily afford it. Plus those 'woofs' who have nothing better to do with their time and money wo go around at high speed and dangerously.
There ARE savings to be made from the high number (even if in the minority) of needless car journeys and in cars that seemingly get bigger and heavier year by year.
It would also help if the population wasn't swelling by 0.5M per year net.
|
|
|
|
Do you ever actually read this garbled nonsense or just the headline?
What the research actually says is, apparently, that heavier cars cause more damage to roads.
I can't answer the first question, but I think Sammy's eye lights on an 'issue' which he thinks is suitable for starting yet another thread.
On the second point - who would have thought it ? Seems pretty intuitive to me.
|
Do you ever actually read this garbled nonsense or just the headline?
What the research actually says is, apparently, that heavier cars cause more damage to roads.
I can't answer the first question, but I think Sammy's eye lights on an 'issue' which he thinks is suitable for starting yet another thread.
On the second point - who would have thought it ? Seems pretty intuitive to me.
I can't find the University of Leeds research that is being talked about. It seems, from what I can discern from the Telegraph article, that all it actually says is that, from a sample of 15, EVs weigh more than their ICE equivalent - i.e. an electric Mini is heavier than a petrol mini.
The consequences of this have apparently been worked out by the Telegraph's 'analysis'. The details of that analysis are rather scanty, but I think they just multiplied the proportionate difference in weight by four.
All this winds me up because there is a genuine discussion to be had about the relative benefits, or otherwise, of EVs but it is prevented by nonsense being pumped out in the media every day.
|
|
|
|
I cannot understand why things I put on here suddenly revert back to me personally when all I do is put them on here to help discussion. It seems quite reasonable to me that a heavier car is ultimately going to cause more road damage than a lighter one. My latest observation of the larger EVs is that most seem to be sitting on 20inch or larger wheels which cannot help weight either. The article comes from MSN the more observant would have noticed and I favour no particular press. I think this a more interesting topic than say wiper blades which I suppose is easy to understand
|
I cannot understand why things I put on here suddenly revert back to me personally when all I do is put them on here to help discussion. It seems quite reasonable to me that a heavier car is ultimately going to cause more road damage than a lighter one. My latest observation of the larger EVs is that most seem to be sitting on 20inch or larger wheels which cannot help weight either. The article comes from MSN the more observant would have noticed and I favour no particular press. I think this a more interesting topic than say wiper blades which I suppose is easy to understand
It reverts back to you because you're the person who stated the opinion in the first place.
The article you have linked to is from the Mail and is largely a copy of one in the Telegraph.
|
I cannot understand why things I put on here suddenly revert back to me personally when all I do is put them on here to help discussion. It seems quite reasonable to me that a heavier car is ultimately going to cause more road damage than a lighter one. My latest observation of the larger EVs is that most seem to be sitting on 20inch or larger wheels which cannot help weight either. The article comes from MSN the more observant would have noticed and I favour no particular press. I think this a more interesting topic than say wiper blades which I suppose is easy to understand
It reverts back to you because you're the person who stated the opinion in the first place.
The article you have linked to is from the Mail and is largely a copy of one in the Telegraph.
Could somebody please help as I feel I am wasting my time on this sad place!
|
|
<< Could somebody please help as I feel I am wasting my time on this sad place! >>
I've been wondering about that, off and on .... :-)
|
|
|
|
Any "sadness" here is partly the result of constantly being confronted with news stories or similar whose theme is the awfulness of some aspect of life, motoring or otherwise.
We are served up with a series of tabloid-type "shock-horror" stories designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction.
We can always just ignore them, I suppose...
|
Any "sadness" here is partly the result of constantly being confronted with news stories or similar whose theme is the awfulness of some aspect of life, motoring or otherwise.
We are served up with a series of tabloid-type "shock-horror" stories designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction.
We can always just ignore them, I suppose...
I am free to post on here what I will as my status is no more or less than anyone else on here.
Why don't the people who are poking fun have a go at the MOD who's just posted an equally interesting article from the DM on Fiat colours.
Yes please ignore them. What pray of interest have you and a few others started a tread of any interest if at all. All you and some others serve to do is knock down just about anything that is posted. I think I will join the flat Earth society now that is something you could knock me on!
|
Any "sadness" here is partly the result of constantly being confronted with news stories or similar whose theme is the awfulness of some aspect of life, motoring or otherwise.
We are served up with a series of tabloid-type "shock-horror" stories designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction.
We can always just ignore them, I suppose...
I am free to post on here what I will as my status is no more or less than anyone else on here.
Why don't the people who are poking fun have a go at the MOD who's just posted an equally interesting article from the DM on Fiat colours.
Yes please ignore them. What pray of interest have you and a few others started a tread of any interest if at all. All you and some others serve to do is knock down just about anything that is posted. I think I will join the flat Earth society now that is something you could knock me on!
Surely you understand the concept of free speech and that, whilst you can post what you want (within the rules of the forum), people can also reply.
If the post on paint colours was (a) not true and (b) repeated on an almost daily basis, I'm sure it would get the same reception.
|
|
|
|
The article you have linked to is from the Mail and is largely a copy of one in the Telegraph.
Could somebody please help as I feel I am wasting my time on this sad place!
I can't think of anyone else who posts so much apparent stuff that is mostly inane.
But it is what it is..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
