> because they're transmitting power both when starting and stopping, not just when starting.

For the tires it doesn't matter if the energy from stopping is transferred into brakes or back into a motor though?

It’s because they weigh more

“They weigh more” is something I kinda have a problem with. People act like EVs are these behemoths, but your typical EV is hardly an outlier. The Tesla Model 3, for example, weighs as much as a Honda CRV. Yes, that’s a different car class; but nobody looks at a CRV and complains about its weight and the environmental impact of that weight on air quality nearly the same way.

You don't even have to go to a different class. A Model 3 weighs about as much as a BMW 3 series and both weigh slightly less than the average new car.

This is as much of a criticism of bmw as a compliment to Tesla, the new M5 weighs more than a similarly fast lucid air

A lot of this is modern safety features. Crumple zones and stronger roofs add weight, more weight implies bigger engines, bigger engines require stronger frames, soon the average car is two tons. Volvo S60, Mercedes C class and Audi S4 are also a similar size and weight. The makes from the US and Japan are a little lighter but not dramatically lighter and their safety ratings are also a little worse.

It’s also a testament to the improved efficiency of engines. Once your engine can deliver a few extra MPG, it’s easier for companies to pack more weight on.

People who care about the externalities of unnecessarily large and heavy vehicles do complain about compact utility vehicles, aka “I want to sit higher up”.

A model Y would be the comparison to a CRV (model Y is 400 pounds / 10% heavier).

I mean, I totally get the criticisms that you see of people having unnecessarily large SUVs, like really who needs an Escalade. But a CRV? Like a Model Y with one passenger weighs the same as a CRV with 3.

I just looked it up and wow, you're right. A Cybertruck weighs less than an F250 depending on specs

This is legitimately the first time I’ve ever seen myself being called right on the Internet

I don’t understand this concept. I would expect an ICE and an EV vehicle with the same weight, speed, deceleration, tires, etc to have the same wear on tires. The difference being the energy to stop an ICE being transferred to the brake pads and rotors, rather than recharging the EV’s battery.

What am I missing? Why wouldn’t the tires experience the same forces in both scenarios?

> I don’t understand this concept.

It's because it's wrong. If you decelerate the same vehicle at the same rate, the tires can't even tell whether the deceleration is from regenerative braking or friction braking, so the only difference is less brake dust with regenerative braking.

If anything it's the opposite because regenerative braking is more effective when braking is gradual, giving the driver a direct convenience and financial incentive to brake less aggressively (better range, buy less gas or charging), which generates less tire wear.

> I don’t understand this concept.

Because it's completely wrong. The tires indeed experience the same force and don't care where the energy is dumped. As other posters wrote, the increased tire pollution from EVs is because they tend to be heavier, and because their considerable extra torque is likely to be (ab)used by their drivers. Yours truly included, guilty as charged, though I do practice restraint... often.

It's due to the regenerative braking, which transmits more power via the wheels when decelerating. Most ICE cards don't have regenerative braking; hybrids tend to.

This doesn't make sense. Energy in the system is conserved. On an ICE car, brakes convert the energy to heat. On an EV, motors convert the energy to electricity. The tires experience the same net force.

EVs wear tires more quickly, in general, because they are very heavy and produce more torque (and drivers are more likely to request that torque, also).

But the brakes experience less work, and so there is less combined brake and tire dust for distance traveled.

I'd guess an ICE transmission provides some deceleration too. But right on, apples-to-apples you would need to compare a Tesla to a Mercedes or etc and not a Corolla. They are sold as a luxury/performance car.

If the stopping distance is the same (same accel/decel), I don’t understand this statement

> because they're transmitting power both when starting and stopping, not just when starting.

bri3d’s adjacent post is what my thoughts would be on why EV’s consume more tires.

Fundamental misunderstanding of physics. Slowing 2,500lbs from 60-0MPH in 4 seconds (for example) puts just as much wear on a tire if it's with friction brakes or with regenerative braking or engine braking.

You're only considering braking, and for that case you're right. You're not considering acceleration, where EVs supply near maximum torque instantly when you press the accelerator pedal. This causes increased wear in tires, I've seen estimates of 20%.

Which can easily be sorted with a more gentle throttle curve.

My EV has three modes - Eco, Normal and Sport. In Sport you get shoved back in your seat from the instant torque, and the fast 0-60 times. In Eco you take off like in a normal car.

You also need to remember that traction control is inherrently easier and faster in an EV as the ECU has fine grained control of how much power to send to the tyres and can effect it near instantly.

> EVs supply near maximum torque instantly when you press the accelerator pedal.

You do realize you can drive without just slamming the accelerator pedal straight to the floor every time you start going right?