It could have something to do with the fact that in order to regen-brake a 1800kg car at your typical 0.5g at 100 km/h you need some 270kW of motor/generator power. This is the main reason your Teslas and Polestars have these otherwise outlandish engines, and if you already have it, why not accelerate at traction limit, creating all these aerosols and what not.

It is extremely atypical to be braking at 0.5g. That is an emergency braking situation, in which case, it is perfectly reasonable to be engaging the mechanical braking.

Modern cars emergency brake at 0.87-1.08g. Maybe 0.5g is not your everyday braking, but not something you'd remember in a few weeks. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/20...

I wasn't making any kind of comparison to petrol cars! I guess it seemed like I was and that explains the downvotes, perhaps?

All I was trying to do is add some support to the claim that battery density does matter in cars (contrary to ancestor assertion). Less weight = less strain on brakes and tires = less nasties in the air and our lungs.

Brakes? Surely not, EVs hardly use them.

Tyres, absolutely. Equivalent size EVs are heavier (due to the batteries) which creates more tyre wear. My brakes, however, wear far less than on a petrol car due to regenerative braking.