It’s more like 30%. And they aren’t distributing that weight across a larger frame with bigger wheels as a larger truck or SUV might.
If a 200-pound person carried a 60-pound backpack 24/7 I’d expect their shoes would wear out noticeably faster.
2 Likes
My hopped up golf TDI always ate the front right tire.
One wheel peel? One tire fire?
Does the 335i not have an LSD or some electronic “equivalent”? My 1 series wears them both evenly.
3 Likes
As someone who purchases Z W rated tires for a 30 year old car this statement also struck me as odd?
My EV has way cheaper longer lasting tires than my old collector car 
7 Likes
same, i’ve easily put 40k on my Leaf with the tires they came with, no idea if they were swapped when i bought it
4 Likes
Just cornering something that weights twice as much as a normal commuter will eat the tires.
4 Likes
We got 22000 miles out of our original Model Y tires. I just had to have a new set put on.
My brother’s driven about twice that in his Model Y and might have bought a dozen tires by now. I don’t know what he does… driving through active construction sites or something, maybe. He’s generally lost tires to road hazards though which he might have encountered in a non-EV.
2 Likes
Chevy Bolt also does not require expensive tires. I replaced my for $82 apiece with similar spec tires as OEM
5 Likes
Yeah - driving in straight lines with 90 degree turns in good city roads at city speeds will have a very different result than winding rural roads with variable surface quality and the opportunity for much more variable speeds.
It’s the same for ICE cars, of course, but the extra weight probably makes a disproportionate difference.
2 Likes
But for the same form factor, EVs have much lower COG, and that matters a lot for braking and handling wear on tires.
2 Likes
The 335/340 and 535/540 don’t have LSDs unless one pays for the ///M sport upgrade or install the $4500 differential yourself.
2 Likes
Though, to be fair, they’re still a drop in the bucket compared to the road wear of freight trucking.
4 Likes
That is true. But as long as drivers of ICE vehicles are expected to pay for roads through gasoline taxes we should expect at least as much from EV drivers who are responsible for even more wear and tear per vehicle.
5 Likes
That’s the problem. It’s (gasoline taxes) an outdated model that neglects that a lot of people who do little driving themselves benefit greatly from a well-maintained road system. If it’s worth doing, it’snworth budgeting from general taxes, not from use taxes (inherently regressive).
13 Likes
Depends on your point of view. Not everyone gets equal benefit from roads, and equally distributing the cost of roads for everyone effectively subsidizes private car ownership over other forms of transportation.
Why should someone who walks and rides bikes everywhere have to pay as much of their taxes in road upkeep as someone who drives every day? And why should someone who takes a commuter train instead of private vehicle have to pay for their own train ticket when the cost of roads is paid by everyone?
When the government makes people pay to use rail but not to drive on the roads they’re basically creating policy that rewards the least efficient and least environmentally responsible way to get around.
4 Likes
Because those low-road-use people benefit from transportation on roads in a myriad of ways. Having fresh groceries at the local store, police, fire, and ambulance services, delivery services, etc. etc. etc. not to mention that people who have the privilege of being able to afford housing in areas along public transportation routes or safe bike paths shouldn’t be subsidized over people who live/work where those aren’t reasonable options.
Bullshit that the government is “rewarding” people for driving vs using public transportation. In the US, there are very few places where the government has evenly distributed public transportation, especially in areas where workers tend to be able to live. I’m all for public transportation, but for the vast majority, it’s insufficiently distributed to be viable.
3 Likes
And people who rarely travel by train benefit from our nation’s rail system, yet those who travel regularly by rail still have to pay a higher share of its upkeep (via tickets) than those who don’t.
Why enact policies that externalize the social costs of driving a car but not the social costs of other forms of transportation?
“Let’s build more and more roads and let everyone drive them for free, but build fewer trains and keep charging everyone to ride them” is effectively a government subsidy for cars over other forms of transportation.
3 Likes
Wait, I thought you were talking about road maintenance not expansion. Don’t change the subject. Road maintenance is a benefit to society, in the same way as public schools are. And no one is saying it’s either roads or trains. We can (and should) do both.
C’mon, you know you don’t need to play fast and loose with me. Why do that?
2 Likes
Paid for the same way. And as long as they’re the transportation option that everyone gets to use for free there’s always going to be demand for more of them.
1 Like
They aren’t paid for the same way. Gas taxes go to maintenance; infrastructure projects are funded primarily through bonds.
Also, driving cars isn’t free. Beyond the personal expenses of purchase/lease and maintenance, there’s fuel and licensing and registration. None of that is free.
1 Like
I didn’t say cars are free. I said a system that makes it free to use public roads but not to use public trains effectively subsidizes car use over rail use.
I think we’ve exhausted this tangent.
2 Likes
