back to article Fat EVs may cause 'more death on our roads' – watchdog

As the popularity of electric vehicles grows, safety leaders are concerned that road injuries could increase due to how much heavier battery-powered cars are over their gas-guzzling predecessors. In a keynote address Wednesday at the Transportation Research Board's 2023 annual meeting, National Transportation Safety Board …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Another thing that critics of the electric buggies have been pointing out for years, only to be dismissed as "fake news".

    1. MatthewSt

      Weight is relative...

      My Kia (64kWh battery, 280 mile range) comes in at 1739kg (3833lbs) kerb weight, which is just over half of the vehicle headlining the article. Either weight is a problem, in which case it looks like that car shouldn't exist in either format, or it isn't.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Weight is relative...

        450kg of that weight is the battery. The equivalent petrol or diesel SUV would cause far less wear on the road by not carrying all that extra weight.

        1. MatthewSt

          Re: Weight is relative...

          How does that compare to the wear caused by the 1000+ 44,000Kg fuel tankers doing 220,000km each year carrying the 15 billion Kg of petrol and 12.5 billion Kg of diesel that were used in the UK in 2021?

          Not disputing that the car weighs more and causes more wear than the equivalent petrol car, but basing the entire argument on a single metric isn't going to last very long.

          Also, I go back to my original point: if weight of electric vehicles is as much of a problem as people claim then why are we permitting heavy cars of any fuel type?

          1. Natalie Gritpants Jr

            Re: Weight is relative...

            Good point. Just look at the distance between the ruts in lane 2 of most motorways. No coincidence that you can't get both left and right wheels of your car in them.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Weight is relative...

              My electric Hummer wheels fit in nicely.

              It's not ancient Rome anymore y'know

          2. Ian Mason

            Re: Weight is relative...

            I'll just amplify that by pointing out that road wear is generally understood to be proportional to the 4th power of axle weight. Note, that's axle weight, not vehicle weight (although the two are obviously directly related once the number of load bearing axles are taken into account).

            1. Tim99 Silver badge

              Re: Weight is relative...

              Before I saw this thread, I just posted this elsewhere on El Reg, with some calculations...

            2. Totally not a Cylon
              Boffin

              Re: Weight is relative...

              Actually but only when on a solid none suspended surface what matters is ground pressure.

              When driving on a surface the amount of wear is dictated by the pressure on between the surfaces, vehicle weight/axle weight only matters on bridges, trailers and other none solid items.

              I drive a 4x4 with large tyres which can drive over surfaces you cannot walk on without sinking due to the vehicle's ground pressure being lower than that of an average adult. My vehicle still weighs 1.8 tonnes but it exacts less pressure on the ground than a 16 stone person.......

              Further UK roads used to have a 38 ton weight limit for normal vehicles (heavy haul has its own rules) but then we were 'harmonised' with Europe and forced to raise the limit......

              1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                Re: Weight is relative...

                than a 16 stone person

                Nice to know that you don't skew your comparison by using the average weight of a UK resident..

                Or don't include the shoe-size measurement!

                (I'm 1.83m, weight 73kg and wear size 7 shoes. I would guess my ground pressure would be higher than someone with size 9 or 10 feet)

                1. seldom

                  Re: Weight is relative...

                  Especially if you're wearing stilettos.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Weight is relative...

            There’s a damn sight more cars than trucks.

            Damage is relative too.

          4. SundogUK Silver badge

            Re: Weight is relative...

            You're completely missing the point. EV's are @ 30% heavvier than non-EV's, regardless of which sector the specific vehicle falls in to. Therefore, replacing all non-EV's with EV's will increase the weight load on all roads by @ 30% which is going to cost. Has this cost been factored in to the over-all cost of implementing a ban on non-EV's? I doubt it.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Weight is relative...

              Has this cost been factored in to the over-all cost of implementing a ban on non-EV's? I doubt it.

              Of course not. Engineering is hard, hence why very few MPs have any background. Much easier to virtue signal about banning oil and pumping EVs than to consider the wider implications of your policies.

              This is just one of them. So extra wear means extra particulates, which means extra air pollution. Also compounded by EVs either running harder tyre compounds so tyres last longer, or regular tyres that will convert to dust faster. Then there's that old chap Newton and his laws of motive vehicles. The heavier the vehicle, the more damage it's going to do to it's environment. So more deaths or injuries from vehicles impacting with each other, or street furniture.

              Amusingly, more virtue signallers seem to be waking up to the cost though. Thanks to yet more insane goverment policies, electricity has become a lot more expensive making EVs even less economic. And that's without fuel and road duties being copied across to EVs. There's also been a flurry of stories about EV driver's xmas breaks being ruined by spending hours trying to find a working electron pump, or just queueing for one that is.

              If only there were some easily transportable, storeable, and dispensible alternative form of energy for transportation than trying to haul around flat batteries.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Weight is relative...

                Yeah, but... think of the children!

                1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                  Re: Weight is relative...

                  Yup, they seem to be getting heavier too.

        2. Stork Silver badge

          Re: Weight is relative...

          Cars, as opposed to HGVs, cause hardly any road wear. I remember a model linking wear to the axle weight ^ 4!

          That also explains the bus problem.

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Weight is relative...

            Yes, worrying about cars weighing 4000 lbs instead of 3000 or big SUVs weighing 6000 instead of 4500 misses the mark. Road damage is so overwhelmingly caused by trucks - and specifically their cargo - that the added weight of battery packs doesn't matter.

            One potential benefit of electric autonomous trucks would be that we can reduce the load from 80,000 lbs to a lower figure. That would require more trips, but with autonomous trucks able to operate round the clock (assuming battery swaps instead of waiting for hours to charge) versus human drivers at the truck idle over half the time would allow halving payloads.

            Presumably an autonomous truck could also avoid potholes when possible or slow down when traveling over them to reduce additional damage to already damaged areas of road.

            1. nijam Silver badge

              Re: Weight is relative...

              > Road damage is so overwhelmingly caused by trucks

              Maybe on inter-city routes. In cities, the culprits are prmarily buses, of course. Partly because they stop and start more often than other traffic needs to, mostly because of their weight.

          2. joed

            Re: Weight is relative...

            I do not know that cars, especially heavy one cause little damage to roads and surroundinds (in the event of a crash). Bikes, sure (but not dirt bikes on dirt roads)

        3. Hairy Spod

          Re: Weight is relative...

          Not necessarily the case, although not widely acknowledged potholes and road degradation are often started by mini fuel spills rotting the binder (even a single drop of fuel especially diesel). EVs are not part of that problem.

      2. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: Weight is relative...

        How much does the ICE version of your car weigh? See the difference?

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Weight is relative...

          How much does the ICE version of your car weigh? See the difference?

          No - largely because they don't seem to do a non-hybrid version of the C-HR any more..

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Weight is relative...

        And that’s still nearly 250kg heavier than the average ICE car of a similar size.

        Been saying it for years - anything close to or over 2 tonnes should be penalised in EXACTLY the same way high emissions cars are by vehicle licensing (ICE cars already get robbed for more tax at fuel stations) - heavy vehicles will put more wear on the roads so should have to pay for it.

        Even ICE cars are getting too heavy because manufacturers are insisting on packing them with technology that will:

        A) cost loads to fix when it inevitably goes wrong and

        B) increase the number of accidents because it seems people today struggle enough simply to pay attention to the road and other users of it without distracting them with a touchscreen and other nonsense.

      4. darklord

        Re: Weight is relative...

        OK in the UK I'm waiting for the extra wear and tear tax to come in on the infrastructure which will be applied to EVs due to the extra wieght loading on roads and bridges etc.

        Also the heavier the vehicle the more tyre wear it will impart so tyres and braking components will be replaced more regularly resulting in more carbon emissions for recycling those components.

        It will happen. I suspect it'll be 2025 when the current vehicle excise duty is reviewed.

        1. seldom

          Re: Weight is relative...

          Have you ever heard of regenerative braking?

          1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

            Re: Weight is relative...

            > Have you ever heard of regenerative braking?

            Have you ever checked the efficiency, how much you get back? You'll never get back the energy that went into deforming the tires, lost in gear, lost against the wind, lost in running the AC, lost in running the big bass as loud as possible to compensate the lack of size. The bigger and heavier the car, the less you get back. And those Fat EVs have the air drag of a closet. And hummers are even worse in all those.

  2. werdsmith Silver badge

    Mine goes about 30% less distance on the tyres than I used to get with old fashioned cars, I guess due to both the weight and the torque.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The good news is that it's much easier to implement torque limits, including OTA to reduce microplastics based on government-set regulations. This could even be done in real-time when conditions are particularly bad for tyre damage.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: 30% less distance

      If you will drive a performance EV then you should expect that.

      I get around 30% more distance out of my tyres on my EV but that is probably because I don't drive like a loony.

      My neighbour with his computer on wheels aka Tesla Model 3 Performance gets half the miles from a set of tyres that I do. He admits that he is a reformed M3 (BMW) driver only in that he's gone electric.

    3. Jim Mitchell

      The exact same kind of tyres? Tread wear varies widely across tires.

      1. Tim99 Silver badge

        The rule was: Comfort, tyre life, fuel efficiency, and grip - Choose any two, and compromise the other two.

        1. Montreal Sean

          Choose two

          I always choose comfort and grip.

          Trade off is I only get 30k km per set.

          1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

            Re: Choose two

            Trade off is I only get 30k km per set.

            Driving style also makes a big difference.. in my motorbike days I would always get about 25% more life on my tyres than they guys I would tour with (similar bikes, similar tyres) because my riding style was a good deal smoother.

            In the hybrid car I'm following the dealer advice - accelerate quickly up to crusing speed and then just maintain the speed. That means it uses EV mode much more so the extra fuel used to get up to speed is negatted by a lot less fuel used in the cruising phase. Which doesn't necessarily work in short journeys round town but it's great on motorways/dual carriageways. And I still take the motorbike line round roundabouts if they are clear :-)

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        The exact same kind of tyres? Tread wear varies widely across tires.

        Even across the same brand, model, and size, as tire manufacturers are always tweaking their formulas. While longitudinal studies have some value, anecdotal reports from a few drivers comparing what they used to get to what they get now don't have a lot of confidence.

  3. tekHedd

    More mass = more energy, right?

    So... if they weigh considerably more, that means we're using more energy to move the same sized car the same distance. But that's OK because... there's a good reason I just didn't... oh right because of regenerative braking we're generating energy in the car as well, but of course that's a lossy operation so surely we're generating more heat this way?

    There's a part of me, the part that remembers some old, probably apocryphal message about "entropy increasing" and managed to get a passing grade in thermodynamics on the second try, that is still unconvinced about the net savings of electric vehicles, energy-wise, in their current form.

    1. MatthewSt

      Re: More mass = more energy, right?

      Mainly due to how inefficient petrol engines are. Rough Googling puts petrol at 9.7kWh/litre. Assuming 40mpg that means you're using 44kWh of power to drive 40 miles.

      44kWh will get you at least 150 miles in the heavier electric car

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More mass = more energy, right?

        As a counter, a petrol car carries about 40-50 litres of fuel in the tank, or about 9-10 (imperial) gallons, which gives you approximately 380-480kWh of useful energy. That easily gets you 350-400 miles on a single tank. A diesel, even the crippled "low-emission" diesels they were making in the 00s and 10s, will get you even further.

        Battery-electric vehicles are efficient, yes, but that's because they have to be, in order to make use of the woeful energy density of the enormous battery. That energy density problem is not going to go away, no matter how many magical vapourware technologies are wafted about. They're already on the knife-edge of spontaneous combustion. Driving around with what amounts to an electrochemical bomb in the floor is not my idea of fun.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          > That energy density problem is not going to go away, no matter how many magical vapourware technologies are wafted about.

          On a long enough timeframe I suspect that's not true. In the last 20 years we've gone from the energy density of the Prius (rubbish) to modern EV cars, which are a lot more efficient. I suspect a lot of the gain comes from battery balancing tech and motor efficiencies over improvements in battery tech, but still. We're in the early stages.

          Mostly, however, I'm commenting to say Four Tonnes for an EV is fucking ridiculous. Unnecessarily ridiculous - it's not like they haven't tried, they've gone out of their way to do the worst job possible.

          1. veti Silver badge

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            Four Tonnes for an EV is fucking ridiculous. Unnecessarily ridiculous - it's not like they haven't tried, they've gone out of their way to do the worst job possible.

            Hear hear, and welcome to the US car industry. This is why I haven't even considered buying any American designed car in the past 30 years.

            1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              True of nearly all vehicles sold in the US, whether made there or elsewhere. Oversided, overpowered, mostly ugly, mostly a poor fit for their use cases. There's just very little market here for small, efficient cars any more. It's a pity; there used to be a pretty good selection of hatchbacks to choose from, for those who didn't need to transport a lot of people or cargo.

        2. MatthewSt

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          > Driving around with what amounts to an electrochemical bomb in the floor is not my idea of fun

          As opposed to driving with what amounts to a chemical bomb in the back?

          Energy density can improve (same way that engine efficiency could probably improve) but currently my car can drive further without stopping (280 miles) than I can. Charging facilities (granted, when they work) can already add 23 miles/minute to your battery, so 5 minutes charge while you nip in for a wee gives you another 100 miles.

          There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easily solvable, but the vast majority of us aren't trying to drive 350 miles in one go. I can drive back to Bradford from Oxford, plug the car in, and it's ready to go again the following morning. Doesn't suit everyone, but that doesn't mean it suits no one

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            I did 1000km last Tuesday across Europe - first really long trip in an EV. It's exactly as you said - I found the stops were roughly when I would have taken a break anyway. Over the 13 or so hours (including tunnel) I think I probably lost about 20 minutes where I had to wait for charging, as opposed to charging while I was stretching my legs or whatever. I've since discovered I could have even reduced that by preconditioning the car battery (by heating it) to get the maximum 230kW my car can take, instead of the roughly 120kW I averaged. Even at that rate it was far, far easier than I'd anticipated and cost was about half what it would have been in diesel.

            In the UK of course, it's a bag of shite from start to finish due to charger faults and massive under-provisioning. But that's not the fault of the technology.

            1. joed

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              Not to rain on that 1000km parade but most of travelers - at least in US - would skip any but a "pit stop" breaks for such a trip. Not to mention that they'd be done within 10 hours with absolutely no speeding (obviously assuming no gridlock on the way).

              And with such a low average speed i could almost make it on just one tank (obviously i drive a euro car with mass nowhere near behemot SUVs, electrics or even worse - electric SUVs).

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                For reference that was a pretty constant 130km/hr, excepting the Jura (France) and M20 (Kent), and the tunnel between the UK and France eats a bit of time. Total stoppage for charging was 91 minutes. Yes, I made notes. The average of 100km/hr you suggest is possible in the US would actually increase my range - I saw about 4.2km/kWh at 130km/hr, but I'd expect about 4.7km/kWh at 100km/hr.

                Also I need to repeat MatthewSt's point - we're talking about exceptional journeys, not routine. Most trips are not 1000km+, even in the US. On a short, run-to-the-shops-in-traffic trip, EVs are more efficient and ICE less efficient. If you have one car it's important that it can do both short and long trips - demonstrably, it can - but optimising for the shorter trips makes sense, and in this case the equation is even more weighted towards EVs

                1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  If you have one car it's important that it can do both short and long trips - demonstrably, it can - but optimising for the shorter trips makes sense

                  Nof for me, it doesn't. The vast majority of the miles I drive are long trips, and even my "short" trips are often around 150 miles. I batch up short trips, and often the car sits unused for a week or so.

                  Is my case atypical? Sure, but your generalization isn't universally true either.

                  There's no current EV model that would be a better alternative for my use case. (Also I think they all have touchscreens, so they're out of consideration for that reason alone.)

                2. ThatOne Silver badge

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  > we're talking about exceptional journeys, not routine. Most trips are not 1000km+, even in the US.

                  YMMV, quite literally. I use my car 95% for 700+ km trips (up to 1200 km, with the occasional 3000 km one). I rarely do "short, run-to-the-shops-in-traffic" trips with it, because not only it isn't adapted to inner city traffic conditions (medium sized SUV), but also fuel consumption skyrockets in stop & go traffic.

                  My point is, although I admit my usage is not common, it does exist.

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  I saw about 4.2km/kWh at 130km/hr, but I'd expect about 4.7km/kWh at 100km/hr.

                  Interesting. My phev seems to follow fairly closely to the theoretical square law. I'd be expecting you to see 7.9 @100 on that basis. I am now "that guy" that drives well under the speed limit to save money....

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                    The 4.2km/kWh was constant speed, flat roads, just above sea-level, no traffic over 150km - it's a "good" reading (avg of two runs actually, differed by 0.3 - but then I had different temperature and load). The other not so much, but 7.9 is right out! I'd done the same maths up front and made the same presumption, but I can't argue with measured numbers.

                    And yes, one unexpected side effect of an EV for me was that I now keep to the limit :-)

              2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                Coincidentally, I did two trips of just about 1000km (about 625 miles) last week, both in about 9 1/2 hours. I would not have enjoyed adding 7 hours to the total.

                And there were no charging stations anywhere along most of that route, of course.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  "I would not have enjoyed adding 7 hours to the total." - well in that case I'd advise against crossing the English Channel. Some very selective reading going on here.

              3. Marcelo Rodrigues
                Meh

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                "Not to rain on that 1000km parade but most of travelers - at least in US - would skip any but a "pit stop" breaks for such a trip. Not to mention that they'd be done within 10 hours with absolutely no speeding (obviously assuming no gridlock on the way)."

                Of course You could. I did it myself. My father used to do a 2900km trip in one go, only stopping to eat, refuel and "uneat" - it meant about 27 hours of driving nonstop (yes, at way over 100 km/h). Doesn't mean it's a good idea - You get tired and stressed, accidents happen. At 100 km/h one could stop each two hours to rest, stretch the legs, eat something and attend to his business.

                It would add about 15 minutes to each two hours - but the trip would be oh so much better... We are not machines, we are humans. Rest, stretch, respect your body. It pays in the end.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  I'm one nephew short thanks to this sort of attitude to driving. Anyone that thinks they can muscle through that kind of distance without stopping is a dangerous fool. It's no different to leaking oil on the road, bald tyres in the rain, or no headlights at night, and absolutely not something to be proud of (not a dig at you Marcelo, I'm agreeing with your point).

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              Now do it while towing a small caravan.

          2. Alumoi Silver badge

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            I can drive back to Bradford from Oxford, plug the car in, and, in an emergency, I'm SOL.

            1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              Don't be an idiot. I've run out of gas and done the hitchhike-of-shame with a can; the breakdown van can turn up equipped with a generator. It's no different.

              1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                I've run out of gas and done the hitchhike-of-shame with a can

                Never done it in a car.. done it with my 125cc learner bike (well before the days of mobile phones!). You might think a Honda XL125 (mid-80's vintage) would be fairly easy to push but I can assure you that it wasn't.

                And I still have the faint scars on my leg caused by the habit of the left footpeg to spontaneously pop back down again, just as my leg was going backwards.. Turns out that jeans don't protect very well from the teeth designed to stop your foot slipping.

                After that I was generally paranoid about fuel distances. Still am today in the car (arthritis precludes me from riding motorbikes - although I might see what electric bikes are like since they don't have clutches..)

              2. Alumoi Silver badge

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                Emergency? As in you've got to go right now?

                Yeah, I'm an idiot. That's why I always carry a 5l gas can in my trunk. Filled, of course.

                1. MatthewSt

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  Yes, if the emergency requires more than 70 miles driving and I need to set off as soon as I got home without stopping on the way then they'll probably die.

                  If you're the kind of person that likes to be prepared for that kind of emergency, then you wouldn't drive from Oxford to Bradford without stopping, you'd top up as you were travelling.

                  1. ThatOne Silver badge

                    Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                    > If you're the kind of person that likes to be prepared for that kind of emergency

                    I never managed to understand how people can leave their cars with half-empty tanks (bar financial or supply problems). I'm the kind of guy who feels queasy if any of my vehicles has less than 3/4 of a full tank. And when traveling long distances, I tend to top it off just before arriving, so I'll have a full tank the next morning.

                    Needless to say I never ran out of gas in my 40+ years of driving...

                    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

                      Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                      There are very, very few places in the world where you could ever need 300 miles of unsupported range at short notice.

                      And none of them are in the US or Europe.

                      I tend to top up when my diesel range drops below 100 miles, and even that is simply to ensure I'll never need to use a motorway service station.

                      An EV with 250 miles range that's otherwise the same as their current vehicle would suit almost everyone in the US and Europe.

                      The real problem is the charging infrastructure - there simply isn't anywhere near enough capacity in any of the grids to handle a majority of car owners switching to an EV.

                      1. ThatOne Silver badge

                        Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                        > 300 miles of unsupported range

                        It's not about unsupported range of course, few of people here live in that kind of boonies. It's about convenience, about knowing that whatever happens, gas won't be a problem to factor in.

                        I admit that if you live in a city and use your car mainly for short trips this is very unlikely to be an issue, but some of us do make longer trips, potentially to places they don't know very well, and/or with a less consistent infrastructure.

                        My point is that leaving your car filled up or empty will cost you the same, but in the first case you never risk running out of fuel.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                      Running the tank right down to the line is cheaper and more exciting that betting on the ponies, and I mostly win.

                      Still get a slapping from her indoors when I lose, but hey ho.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                "I've run out of gas and done the hitchhike-of-shame with a can; the breakdown van can turn up equipped with a generator. It's no different."

                It *is* different. You do not call tow truck just because you run out of gas. You do call it when you run out of electicity. You have literally no choice. Good luck on that when you're 100 km from nearest city in 3AM, at -20C. I.e. normal winter here in North.

                Not only that, the tow truck will charge you for the mileage, like 1e/km. That's 200 euros. For not having a spare fuel can.

                Where's your spare electicity can in case you run out of electricity? Oh, you don't and can't have any. It *is* different, to extent it's literal polar opposite.

                1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

                  Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                  > Not only that, the tow truck will charge you for the mileage, like 1e/km. That's 200 euros. For not having a spare fuel can.

                  You should add which country you refer to. A simple "like here in XXX" would suffice.

                  As for Germany: > 90% have ADAC or AvD, so no deal here any way. And a lot of cars have the "call this manufacturer hotline before calling them" to tune the reliability statistics. Even for cars way below 10'000 € like Mitsubishi Space Star 2012+ models (aka Mirage for leftpondians).

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            Petrol doesn't spontaneously explode when you try and draw it out of the tank too quickly. It also doesn't lose half its energy in cold weather.

            Battery tech is close to the maximum energy density we can achieve, even accounting for fantastic future inventions. We can expect, at best, a few incremental improvements, but we will never approach the energy density of liquid fuels.

        3. Stork Silver badge

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          Whereas you are not worried about 50 litres of highly flammable, toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, shuffled about at 30 m/s by people with 10 hours of training decades ago, and only kept from spilling out by 0.8 mm mild steel?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            No because petrol doesn’t tend to spontaneously combust and any petrol fire can be put out with water…

            1. MatthewSt

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              You might want to have a search about trying to put out a petrol fire with water, for other people's safety if not your own!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            "highly flammable, toxic and carcinogenic chemicals"

            Trifecta of BS. Even petrol is *just* flammable, it doesn't burn if you stick your knife in it and doesn't combust by itself, like batteries do.

            It's toxic only if you decide to drink it, very poor argument.

            Carcinogenic is semi-true, but even that needs constant long term effect. A whiff of fuel while filling the tank? 100% irrelevant.

            1. Stork Silver badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              It’s not BS, but perhaps not too important in real life.

              Both diesel and petrol are quite toxic, and both contain aromatic compounds which have a tendency to be carcinogens. You try to get permission for a process involving benzene.

              I tried to point out how we often are more wary of new things than familiar ones even if it is easy to point out dubious characteristics of the grandfathered process. I obviously failed, judging by the downvotes.

              For the record, I don’t consider flammability a major concern for any of the drivetrains.

        4. chriskno

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          I've got half way down the comments and not seen any mention of the main reason for EVs. We have to stop using fossil fuels in all aspects of our lives as fast as possible to mitigate the already catastrophic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And as an aside, owning and driving an EV is so much better than ICE vehicles with features that simply aren't possible in the old technology.

          1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            And what's the GHG contribution of manufacturing that EV and disposing of a still-usable ICE vehicle?

            features that simply aren't possible in the old technology

            And that god for that. You can keep your "features" in your EV, thanks. Those "features" are the worst thing to happen to automobiles since, well, ever. Spyware, security holes, idiotic UIs...

            1. MatthewSt

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              You're literally the only person in this thread who's suggested we dispose of still-usable ICE vehicles. Some can be converted, others can carry on until they're too expensive to maintain / considered too polluting. Change has to happen gradually, and the infrastructure will catch up.

              Regarding construction, the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths) reckons that taking into consideration the full lifecycle EV's emit less than half the amount of GHG compared to regular cars.

              Regarding the features, none of what you're describing there requires electric cars and exists just as frequently (if not more so) in ICE vehicles. The features that he's talking about are things like being able to run your house from your car's battery when the grid is busy / out / electricity is expensive. The EV I drive has physical buttons for everything (air conditioning, radio, etc) that you need while driving.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            "We have to stop using fossil fuels in all aspects of our lives as fast as possible to mitigate the already catastrophic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."

            Zero proof of that. None of the climate models have been even near on predicting anything correctly in last 30 years. Until they do, anything they predict will be more BS. Just like everything so far.

            Also: Numerical model isn't science, it's engineering and it's used when you've no idea about the science. You might wonder why they don't have any actual theories, and with those, formulas.

            Trivial to do : delta T = k * delta CO2 consentration (in ppm) ^ n ... choose k and n as you like, based on observations.

            Unless someone proves the formula exists and predicts future observations, they have no clue at all. Saying it's not so simple, when propaganda says it is *literally that simple* kind of proofs it's pure propaganda.

            1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              > Zero proof of that. None of the climate models have been even near on predicting anything correctly in last 30 years.

              It has been WORSE THAN PREDICTED. 1°C global rise was postulated for 2030's about 40 years ago, and we've already reached 1,5°C.

              You need to up your scientific knowledge! Or stay in your ignorance bubble, but please try to get a Darwin award while you are there.

      2. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Re: More mass = more energy, right?

        Very dubious comparison. First off….40mpg? Driven sensibly, modern petrol should get you 53mpg easy.

        Secondly, the electricity in the EV battery didn’t come down with the birds, it was also generated by a fossil fuel turbine, also with 45% efficiency. Then you lost another 10% in the transmission grid, and 15% as the charging inefficiency of the EV battery. Total efficiency 35%.

        Apples to apples, your 44kWh primary energy is only 15kWh in the battery, which drives you 51 miles. As opposed to the 53 miles in the petrol car.

        There’s a reason why those two figures are nearly identical. Because, they’re basically the same car which uses the same amount of energy at the wheels to drive it.

        If you ever get your calculation to show a significant difference, that just tells you you’ve failed to take some losses into account.

        There *is* an energy advantage to EVs: regenerative braking. But that’s only operative in urban scenarios. The open highway scenario gets no advantage from EV.

        1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          > First off….40mpg? Driven sensibly, modern petrol should get you 53mpg easy

          40 mpg = 5.88 l/100km, 53 mpg = 4.4 l/100 km.

          Nope you don't get to 53 mpg easily. For MY car, using "E10 super" fuel, 4.4 l/100 km is possible, even below. Getting closer to 4 l/100 requires driven in wind shadow or trucks at ~90 km/h, which requires the driver (aka me) to be in the mood for that.

          However, driving the normal average of 130 km/h to 140 km/h (German Autobahn) gets me closer to 5,5 l/100 km (aka 43 mpg). Driving a bit faster, up to 160 or 170 km/h (I don't drive faster with that car, and only with well warmed up motor) it is well above 6 l/100km

          An SUV having such low fuel consumption? Na, those with small motors require at least 5 l/100km in reality. However, the usual SUV are closer to 6 l/100km, for having a stronger engine "because I want it" and their bad CW-value.

        2. MatthewSt

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          If we're talking about driving sensibly, then an electric car will get 4.1 to 4.5 miles/kWh on motorway, and 5 in urban (as opposed to the 3.4 I'd used for the above calculation). I'd intentionally low-balled the electric number to stop the argument turning into a "but you'll never get that number". So the 15 kWh will give me 60-75 miles.

          Also, you're assuming that 100% of your electricity is generated using fossil fuels. At this point in time (17:30 on a Sunday evening), the UK is running on 39.5% carbon free generation.

          1. seldom

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            Where I live in Switzerland, the local area voted to only use hydro (there are a couple of big rivers here). This means that we've been paying a slight premium for our electricity for the last 10 years.My car is a hybrid with roughly 50km electric range. Unless I'm going on holiday or to a distant client with no remote log-in the car is driven purely electricly for 10 months of the year. Due to regenerative braking my alloy rims stay clean and my brake pads last forever(ish). I love the combination of short/long distance practicality.

    2. Headley_Grange Silver badge

      Re: More mass = more energy, right?

      The push for EVs isn't about energy saving, it's CO2 reduction.

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: More mass = more energy, right?

        ... which is different how, exactly?

        1. Red Ted

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          It depends on how the energy is generated.

          If you just used the same fuel in a big power station, you could run it much more efficiently and so create less CO2 per kWh than you would in the car.

          At the extreme, if you generated the power from a wind/solar/hydro plant then the CO2 created would be tiny.

          1. joed

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            It does not really matter how that electricity is generated. Claiming the use of clean energy only means that others have to do with dirty sources. And all that extra power generation capacity (regardles of the type) has to be built (with signifficant release of co2 and often destruction of natural lands). This fact somehow escapes greenwashing PR).

            1. parlei Bronze badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              You could always do both: move towards greener electricity generation AND move towards less fossil fuel used in vehicles.

            2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              > Claiming the use of clean energy only means that others have to do with dirty sources.

              Er, it's not a zero-sum game. Old energy sources are removed, new ones come online and are almost (T&Cs apply) always cleaner than the old ones.

              As for construction, what a strange straw man to bring up. Construction of PV, turbines, nuclear reactors, oil refineries, oil rigs, oil pipelines - all industrial processes in fact - all require energy, and currently that means CO2 emissions. No one has ever claimed otherwise. As for destruction of natural lands, you're onto a losing argument there. Visit an open-cast coal mine sometime and see for yourself.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                "Old energy sources are removed, new ones come online and are almost (T&Cs apply) always cleaner than the old ones."

                No, that's BS when demand for electricity increases 300% in 5 years: *every* coal plant will run on full steam.

                Once again "electricity comes from wall socket and we don't need to look any further" -ideology.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            "If you just used the same fuel in a big power station, you could run it much more efficiently and so create less CO2 per kWh than you would in the car."

            Yes. *At the power station*. Transfer losses are typically 30% before your energy from power station is at your home. From coal to electricity at the power station is about 70% efficient. Which is good, but losses accumulate fast.

            Also, EV loses another 20% of that in input/output cycle leaving 40% theoretical maximum efficiency. Which is not far from what turbodiesel gets, from fuel to mechanical energy actually moving the car.

            EVs are efficient *only* if you omit *all the losses involved*. Gee, I wonder why is that.

            1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

              Re: More mass = more energy, right?

              You are trying to describe "well to wheel" efficiency, which has been calculated before and by people that didn't just make up their numbers on the spot. Google it, you're way out.

              First, you've failed to account for energy cost of oil extraction (6.5%) and refining (8-10%) [1] and the fact that ICE cars average 16-20% tank-to-wheel efficiency. So total well-to-wheel for ICE is at best, 17%. I haven't accounted for distribution losses (ie fuel spent in tankers), it's variable depending on country - couple of percent perhaps.

              Second, coal accounts for 20% of grid power in Europe, and virtually none in the UK. Fuel mix makes a huge difference, for example in Norway or NZ it's mostly hydro. Even in the US, coal is only 50%. Grid losses are not 30%, they are 8% worldwide average, although that varies by location as well. And EVs don't lose 20% on charging - I've measured. My car loses 10% on AC and less on DC.

              If you're going to make sweeping generalisations about grid power you should first understand that it varies where you are on the planet. If your senators keep getting paid off to approve coal plants that's hardly a fair stick to beat EVs with.

              [1] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC85327/ttw_report_v4a_online.pdf - 150 page EU-funded report on the topic from 2014. More interesting than it sounds.

              1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

                Re: More mass = more energy, right?

                I have gone full data-geek and read the latest version (version 5) of the same report, from 2020. Some distilled numbers for you.

                Well-to-wheel efficiencies are (worst to best):

                * Petrol ICE (2015 tech): 212MJ/100km

                * Diesel ICE (2015 tech): 184MJ/100km

                * Battery EV (150km range, 2015 tech), powered from "EU mix 2015" of grid power: 135MJ/100km

                * Battery EV (150km range, 2015 tech), powered from 100% Coal fired plants only: 122MJ/100km

                * Battery EV (400km range, 2025 tech), powered from "EU mix 2025" of grid power: 100MJ/100km

                * Battery EV (400km range, 2025 tech), powered from 100% wind: 48MJ/100km

                That's extracted from (mostly) figures 21 and 35 of the above report. Petrol/Diesel 2025 figures are about the same, and both assume 0% ethanol - the report has figures for E85 etc. The "EU mix" is a representative mix of grid power sources that represents the EU average, but it will of course vary from country to country, and also time of year. In 2020 it was 41% combustibles (gas,coal etc), 24% nuclear, 15% wind, 14% hydro, 5% solar (source)

                Figures take into account oil refining and transportation, grid and charging losses and power losses at generation, and apply to small passenger vehicles only (the report covers HGVs too). The report includes CO2 emissions too, which I haven't shown: 100% coal might be more efficient than the EU mix, but in terms of emissions it's way worse.

                While it would be nice if this could finally put this issue to bed, I know it won't. But at least now I have some hard numbers I can refer back to for future debate.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More mass = more energy, right?

        "The push for EVs isn't about energy saving, it's CO2 reduction."

        Which won't happen either when said energy is done by burnng coal or gas. Which, in reality it is and EVs are just greenwashing.

        Also manufacturing of an EV creates double CO2 compared to ordinary car. Which of course is *not* counted into their emissions. You can drive an ordinary car 20 years and get *same* CO2 emissions as an EV has at factory gate.

        More proper greenwashing.

        1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

          Re: More mass = more energy, right?

          > Which won't happen either when said energy is done by burnng coal or gas. Which, in reality it is and EVs are just greenwashing.

          Yes, like many use their solar installation to charge their car and use the surplus in their home. Saving money and protecting environment in one go, a win-win.

          You are an "AC" for a good reason, Mr. or Mrs. "paid opinion".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More mass = more energy, right?

            "like many use their solar installation to charge their car and use the surplus in their home"

            *many*? the 1 promille? (in USA ... and I'm being generous here) In global scale absolutely irrelevant number.

            Here in North (60th North) 6kW solar installation gives ~200 watts in December, in the middle of the day. Assuming panels aren't covered with snow.

            Good luck on that.

            About 6kW in mid-June, so it works as intended, but latitude *is* significant.

  4. johnfbw

    American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

    They could of course put limits on the size of the ICE cars, but that would restrict FREEDOM!

    This problem would have come about with or without EV's, its just easy to blame them

    1. Joe W Silver badge

      Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

      C'mon, be fair! Car size has increased a lot everywhere - even ICE cars, the city-dwelling SUVs are a pest, both in terms of danger to squishy targets (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) and infrastructure. Parking lots are way too narrow, and I often see SUVs reducing the number of available spots - ok, we had eejits before that managed to park a Golf II on three parking spaces, but now it becomes physically impossible (even including curvature of space due to higher mass). Road construction on the highway has to consider the ever increasing width of cars, bridges and roads have to withstand greater loads. No sense to blame that on EVs.

      And then the rear windows of modern cars are shrunk down to narrow slits, so you see sweet FA.

      If you need something to pull trailers, to deliver bales of hay to your horses, to ferry lots of stuff between places: sure, there are applications for big cars. It's just that usually there is just one person driving them around in them (and often over very short distances).

      My first car was, I think, 850kg empty. It did fit four students for a quick holiday, or two persons on a longer camping trip. Sure, it was a gas guzzler beyond 120 km/h, but having spent a while in Switzerland this is an entirely reasonable highway speed. Yes, I am sure grateful for several things that are now standard (servo assisted steering, anti-blocking brakes), which add a couple of kg. Should not have sold it, would be able to run it as a classic car now.

      1. really_adf

        Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

        It's of course true cats have got bigger and, especially, heavier. Part of it is crash safety, part "mod cons" all adding up. EV batteries make the problem a double whammy.

        The only real solutions are fewer cars and better drivers. So we're fucked.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

          Two words: tax parking.

        2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

          It's of course true cats have got bigger and, especially, heavier

          Having you been looking at my cat's vets record?

          It's only two of them that are overweight - and one of them is a ginger tom so it's genetical (as my wife would say). The fact that he eats like he'll never see food again is irrelavent (rescue ex-farm cat - he has some excuse for his attitude. His sister is a very petite tortie that eats when she has to. He's still afraid of her though. And has the ear-notch to remind him why..)

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

          "The only real solutions are fewer cars and better drivers. So we're fucked."

          No, make lighter cars. And I mean *light*, like 2000lbs/1000kg. Even BMW 3 series, which was a good car, that. So it very possible,

          Then someone decided that it has to withstand crashing into a wall at 50km/h. Insane. Absolute insanity.

          Not only that, the person doing the crashing survives *to do it again*. And again. And again. Cars should be *unsafe*, no safe. If you crash, you die. Drive accordingly.

          Nobody has any issues when that applies to motorcycles, but somehow cars are different.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

            Crash safety doesn't require weight. There are 1000kg cars with top NCAP ratings.

            The increase in weight is mostly due to increase in overall size. The average car is much longer and wider than 20 years ago.

            To some extent, it's because of massive egos.

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

              "The average car is much longer and wider than 20 years ago."

              In the US, the width of a car has a maximum. The length is regulated too, but a passenger car as long as an articulated lorry would only be needed with somebody looking to father more children than Elon Musk.

      2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

        the city-dwelling SUVs are a pest

        That's not *entirely* fair - my C-HR is considered a crossover SUV and that has the footprint and manouverability of a standard saloon. The big standard Chelsea-tractor I would agree though. Pointless status symbols!

        (Oldest brother drives a LR Disco - but he's a tree surgeon/tree surveyor so he actually uses it offroad. And lives out in the country.. And it makes a good motorway cruiser when he has to travel for surveying work.)

        1. BeefEater

          Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

          I am trying to avoid getting annoyed at the references to "Chelsea Tractors"

          I used to drive a BMW 3 series saloon, but when it came to replace it the new model it would not fit in my garage.

          So I changed to an X3 as that had a SMALLER footprint and so did fit.

          It is also a lot easier to get in and out of and provides a more comfortable seating posture.

          Obviously there are larger SUVs than mine, but without any definitive data, my guess is that a there would be a similar comparison for those.

          Sure you can get smaller cars, but people that drive large large SUVs are unlikely to switch to Fiestas, they would drive BMW/Mercedes/Jaguar/etc saloons. Maybe they think that the status symbols do have a point, or maybe they are just more comfortable.

          1. ThatOne Silver badge

            Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

            > people that drive large large SUVs are unlikely to switch to Fiestas

            SUV driver for the record, and I agree I wouldn't change it for a Fiesta, because as I said further up my use is long trips, often through bad weather and difficult roads. Using a Fiesta for those trips would be doable, but uncomfortable and slightly crazy and/or dangerous.

            That been said, my SUV is small(ish), because I don't need a vehicle the size of a small family house, even to transport two adults and 2-3 kids plus baggages. And I have seen SUVs which literally dwarf mine! I'm pretty sure their occupants don't live in there, so I wonder what its extraordinary size is good for, except of course showing off and making sure everybody notices you.

    2. joed

      Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

      Id argue that such limits should be placed on both ice a electric vehicles. And get rid of stupid cafe loopholes for trucks. Only this would force maximizing efficiency. Simple a penalty for each # over total mass/average vehicle occupancy in eccess of standards set and updated periodically would take care of some of the problem. And no shifting co2 credits between gaz guzzler manufacturers and efficient or electric ones. And cars should be sold based on its own merit/value and no tax breaks mudding the water and benefitting those who could already afford theam at the cost to the rest of tax payers.

    3. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

      Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

      Not exactly fair. Not all Americans want larger and larger cars, but that's what is shoveled at us, mainly in the name of safety. Crash tests get tougher, cars have to be stronger, they add more and more nanny crap, and it's a mess. It's why I gave up. I have an SUV that weighs about 5200lbs. The same SUV 20 years ago weighed 4000lbs. There's no real reason it should weigh more, but it does. So, I bought an old one and when I finish rebuilding it, the beast goes. The new one will be faster, more efficient and a ton lighter. And, it'll be set up for an easy EV upgrade when the time comes.

    4. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: American cars are too heavy - solution blame electric cars

      "Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,

      65 tons of American Pride!

      Canyonero! Canyonero!

      [The Federal Highway commission has ruled the

      Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

      Canyonero!]"

      - Krusty the Clown's advertisment for a Canyonaro SUV, The Simpsons.

  5. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    This is an "Applies to USA only" article

    Everywhere in Europe people are instructed by professional licensed instructors. US: Parents, including learning their mistakes.

    Driving something above 3.5 tons (7720lb) required a "small truck" license. US: 26000 pounds, over 11 tons, with a standard license.

    Driving test is over an hour, usually, and the test covers many scenarios. US: Circle around the block, a small test course, parking... less than 10 Minutes in many cases.

    Accidents per 100'000 people in Germany: Less than three dead, about 370 injured, in ~2600 accidents.

    Accidents per 100'000 people in US: Every German number multiplied with 4 or 5.

    Result: It is too easy to get a license in USA, they are not taught the right way, and their "allowed car safety" is horror. Many US cars would be taken off street right away in Germany due to being in a bad condition. Changing that would be the usual "freedom" outrage, completely ignoring that the good for the masses should outweight the personal freedom in quite some circumstances.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      Never been to france, I take it.

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

        Oh yes, I forgot France and their different definition of an "accident". Dents are the norm. Still a lot less dead and injured per 100'000 than USA.

    2. david 12 Silver badge

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      The numbers are different, but the results are the same: heavier vehicles kill more people, cause more wear on roads, and damage bridges.

      I take your point that German roads are much tigher and smaller than American roads, and that even on the Autobahns, where the death toll is much higher than city roads, it's often choked instead of open. (One of my friends complained that even after though speed was unlimited, the only time he could open it up was 2AM on Sunday). But ~2600 accidents in Germany is going to cause more than 3 and 370 if and when cars are replaced by heavy-weight vehicles.

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

        You could not drive that car in Germany with your normal license. Getting a small truck license is tougher than the normal license.

        As far as unlimited speed is concerned: It depends which Autobahn you drive, but your friend indeed describes the usual situation - except for vacation traffic, which can block even at 02:00 Sunday. I don't get why they don't say "limit to 180 km/h". Why 180? Because that is the speed which might make it to a law due to usual nonsense resistance against a speed limit. If they'd made 180 the limit 40 years ago instead of constantly insisting to 120 without the will to budge the slightest bit we would already be at 140, subtracting 10 km/h every ten years. But now, even today, they insist on "120". But there is a probability that 130 as limit might come this decade due to the traffic density.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

        "on the Autobahns, where the death toll is much higher than city roads"

        Lower. A lot lower by any relative measurement. Did you invent that claim on the spot?

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      "Everywhere in Europe people are instructed by professional licensed instructors. US: Parents, including learning their mistakes."

      I mostly agree with what you say, except at least in the UK, anyone with a full driving licence can take a learner out on the road and teach/supervise their driving. I suppose, theoretically, you could take and hopefully pass a driving test without even going near a licenced driving instructor. Of course, it's a proper driving test in the UK too, unlike some US states where I've been lead to believe that in at least some locations, the test is barely more than a simple eye test and the ability to move the car 10-20 yds back and forth.

      In my case, I drove a lot with my dad beside me but still did about 8 lessons with a proper instructor too. Dad also made me read and learn the Highway Code properly, and tested me on it :-) (And yes, I do have a read and update every few years in case I've missed the public announcements of any new stuff)

    4. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      Nevertheless, cars got obese over the time, even in good ol' Europe.

      Car weight is definitely an issue, independent of the means of propulsion.

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

        This is why "SUV extra tax" is suggested now and then. It might end up being a "luxury tax", maybe depending on the PS/weight/consumtion triplet. 700 kg car with 150 PS? Extra tax. Audi A8 combi with 300 PS? Yep, that is the extra tax region too. A bully with 150 PS? Nope, that is the right size for a Volkswagen Transporter aka "bully".

    5. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      Also, the planning of many American towns is based on people driving, to the extent that it is difficult to not drive.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

        In many places, it's damned difficult even to walk. No sidewalks (pavements), or they're not maintained. No crosswalks. No room for pedestrians on bridges and the like.

        So, yeah. This is definitely a problem, and why it's easy to get a driver's license in the US (it's a state matter, but I don't know of any state that has particularly stringent requirements), and why many states don't impose any vehicle inspections at all; if you can get insurance, you can put it on the road.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

          Having seen the shocking state of some of the public buses and taxis in NY and Boston I couldn’t agree more!

          Rotten wheel arches peppered with rust that you could get a fist through on the buses and taxis with bald tyres in snowy conditions.

          If it had been a few maybe that’s not so bad but it was a common sight…

          1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

            Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

            Try German taxi. Every American should try a German taxi.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

          "f you can get insurance, you can put it on the road."

          That's provided that the vehicle started life as something built by a recognized manufacturer and hasn't been heavily modified. If you brew your own, you have to get it certified as road worthy and show it complies with size and safety requirements. You could start with a Ford and give it a taste of the cutting torch, welder and toss in an engine control mod chip and get away with it. That can end if you get caught and the police officer takes issue with those changes for not meeting minimum standards.

    6. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      taken off street right away in Germany due to being in a bad condition

      It amuses me that motorbike riders are respected in Germany (presumably because it's generally expensive to keep them due to the stringent condition and *horror* modification laws[1]).

      Unlike in the UK.. the memory of the 1960/70's biker gangs is still alive in some segment of the population.

      [1] Want a non-standard exhaust pipe? Fine - but in order to be deemed safe your bike has to go through safety tests (including noise tests) before your bike can be given a safety certificate.. I don't know whether that's still the case but it was in the late 90's/early 2000's - when we were touring over there they would be envious that we could modify our bikes without it costing a fortune..

    7. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: This is an "Applies to USA only" article

      "US: Parents, including learning their mistakes."

      Not entirely. I had driver's training in school from a "professional instructor", but got much better tuition from my parents. We'd go to a lonely section of a parking lot and practice parallel parking, reversing, etc. On the road I was shown how it's not safe to turn the wheels for a turn across traffic at an intersection so if hit from behind I wouldn't be pushed head first into oncoming traffic. The 'professional' never mentioned that. Many more lessons were based on where we lived and the sorts of conditions we had rather than just getting lessons by somebody following an approved curriculum.

  6. captain veg Silver badge

    history repeats

    Right into the 1950s there were steam trucks on the roads of Britain.

    In many ways they were ideal for the task. But really, really heavy. Which is, of course, only really a problem when they have to start and stop.

    If this is the discriminating criterion then compressed hydrogen or direct ethanol fuel cells would appear to be the answer.

    -A.

  7. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Old people want "safe" cars

    Older people want heavier and heavier cars for their perceived protection in crashes. Mandating a weight limit is probably the only way to go. These same people are future "wrong pedal" drivers that are going to launch their 700HP electric mammoths into others. You can't line every sidewalk in a city with bollards.

    Another problem is all the people buying Teslas believing that a future software update will turn them into limos before they kill themselves with poor driving skills. A white Tesla 3 is the new Prius - the car that you watch carefully because there's a higher probability of a confused driver. (Or worse - Autopilot is on)

    1. skeptical i

      Re: Old people want "safe" cars

      re: "Mandating a weight limit is probably the only way to go."

      One could try adding a per-pound fee to the annual vehicle registration process. This might be something to consider as states lose petrol tax revenues with increased electric vehicle use, and the per-pound fees can be dedicated to the increased amount of maintenance roads will require (the point is well taken that heavy commercial trucks are already messing up our roads, but they typically do not frequent residential streets -- this is where heavier electric family sedans will have a more noticeable effect).

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Old people want "safe" cars

        "This might be something to consider as states lose petrol tax revenues with increased electric vehicle use,"

        In the US, some states have already added an EV fee on the registration. It's actually more money than you pay in petrol taxes even in California vs. an economy car like a Toyota Camry or Honda Civic. One would have to drive way past the national average before paying the same in petrol taxes.

    2. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Old people want "safe" cars

      And taller cars.

      Old people who have mobility problems / recovering from a hip replacement also like taller vehicles, since the higher seats are are easier to get in and out of. SUVs fit this bill, as do people-carriers, and small van-like cars such as the Citroen Berlingo.

      Higher seats are also popular with parents of young children, since they don't have to stoop as low when securing their child to the seats. This has led to the new vehicle category of tall hatchback.

      Psychologically, I imagine one feels safer if seated higher up, too.

      This has an impact on the cross section, and this wind resistance, of the vehicle. Which is only a major concern if the vehicle is driven on faster roads.

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: Old people want "safe" cars

        like taller vehicles, since the higher seats are are easier to get in and out of

        [Waves hand]

        That's me - I would like to be able to use a lower vehicle[1] but it would be a pain (literally) to get in and out. Having had arthritis for 20+ years severely limits my mobility

        But fortunately, there are higher-riding cars that are not riduculously OTT - my C-HR[2] is one of them.. And there are lots of others (small people-carriers being one of them - but since there's only the two of us, I can't justify one..)

        [1] My wifes' Morris Minor being one of them - but at least that has a (relatively) strong door surrounnd so I can haul myself in and out. And, most of the time she's driving so I don't have the added 'too close to the steering wheel because the seat doesn't adjust' problem)

        [2] The clue is in the model code..

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Old people want "safe" cars

        Psychologically, I imagine one feels safer if seated higher up, too.

        It's probably not just psychological, once most of the other vehicles on the road are taller. Many drivers don't pay adequate attention to other vehicles as it is. And being able to see over the vehicle a little way in front of you is a significant factor.

        I like small cars myself, but I have to admit that when I had a '93 Honda Civic Coupe I often had some reservations about both my forward visibility, and my visibility to other drivers. And that wasn't a very small vehicle.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Old people want "safe" cars

          If you can’t see the vehicle in front of the next one - newsflash - you’re too close to the one in front.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Old people want "safe" cars

      "Older people want heavier and heavier cars for their perceived protection in crashes."

      In the US you can look up the figures and the bigger heavier cars fare much worse contrary to 'common' wisdom. Not only do they not protect their driver/passengers, they tend to injure and kill the people in the other car in car vs. car accidents. The land yachts tend to have a squishy suspension and are really fabulous for long road trips so you don't have to wear a kidney belt like you might in something 'sporty'. My old Buick (RIP) was super comfy to drive long distances.

  8. gecho

    Temporary Problem

    Solid state batteries expected within a few years should reduce battery size and weight by 30 to 50%, which in turn means weight can be removed from the vehicle structure as well. We're in the late early adopter stage for EVs. Most of the vehicle electrical systems are quite mature, it's just the batteries that need a bit more work before mass adoption.

    1. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Temporary Problem

      Don't forget cheap fuel cells and good old fusion being just 10 years away (always).

    2. Caver_Dave Silver badge

      Re: Temporary Problem

      If EV technology had advanced as much as ICE over the past 130 years, then your battery would be the size of your fist, you would just swap it at the forecourt and would last 1000 miles.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: Temporary Problem

        The Model T Ford got between 13-21mpg. A Ford Focus gets about 50mpg, about 3 times more efficient. A Humvee, however, gets about 20mpg, so no improvement over 130 years.

        Electric cars 100 years ago ran on lead-acid - I have no figures for this, but modern lead-acid batteries are about 30Wh/kg or 80Wh/l, so lets assume 20Wh/kg back in the day. Top speed was about 30km/hr, range about 60km. Modern LiFePo4 cells have an energy density of about 120Wh/kg or 320Wh/l, so about 6 times more energy/kg and 4 times more energy/litre. And that's just storage - the difference in transmission losses from an electrical system in 1900 to one in 2022? I can't even imagine. Orders of magnitude, certainly.

        In summation, your assertion is bollocks.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Temporary Problem

          Yeah, but the Model T was also a lot more comfortable and attractive than the Hummer.1 Hmm, that doesn't contradict your argument, does it?

          A 1980s CVCC Honda Civic got around 55 mpg too, and those are US gallons, so it handily beat any Focus model sold in the US. So simply in terms of fuel consumption per unit distance, there's no progress there.

          However, the modern Focus is heavier than the Civic. So the engines themselves are significantly better; it's just that rather than enjoy the savings, we've eaten them up with more safety2 features and gizmos, and more power – though admittedly a quick check of vehicle specs I could find online shows the base 2018 Focus has just about the same power/weight ratio as a top-of-the-line (US model) 1978 Civic CVCC. The Focus's lower official mileage rating will be due in part to changes in the testing method, and to higher speed limits on US highways now.

          But in any case: internal combustion engines have gotten much better over the years. The gains have been put to various uses, some of them dubious.

          1I've ridden in the back seat of an H2 a few times. I can't figure out where they put all the space. It certainly isn't in the passenger compartment. The vehicle is magically smaller on the inside than it ought to be.

          2For some value of "safety". I'm not convinced by the statistics that passengers are actually much safer, if the driver behaves sensibly. It's like child seats: people worry at great length about fitting them correctly and so forth, when actually the vast majority of the benefit was realized simply by getting children into the back seat and secured in some fashion, rather than perched on the lap of the front-seat passenger.

          1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

            Re: Temporary Problem

            > we've eaten them up with more safety² features

            > ²For some value of "safety". I'm not convinced by the statistics that passengers are actually much safer

            Look on youtube, many old vs. new crash comparisons. You don't want to sit in a 2000's vehicle after watching that, except for some hand selected specific brands... (Volvo was still Volvo in 2000's, and Mercedes were ahead of the time on that regard). A car from 1978? No way, you have to drive reallllyyyy passive!

            How the improvement came? Europe NCAP test, and the US benefit from it too. You cannot sell a car with at least for stars, even small ones. Yes, even cars like a SMART, or a Mitsubishi Space Star (Mirage for leftpondians) has four stars, so the security does not add that much to weight.

            And if you look at cars from 1960 vs todays cars: Those oldies look like they can take a hit, but they are real death traps folding, including the passengers, like a piece of paper.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Temporary Problem

              "You cannot sell a car with at least for stars, even small ones."

              Which means the "small" cars weight 1500 kilos/3000lbs and burns fuel accordingly. More than (European) luxury cars in 1980s.

              Also you don't get stars for durability in crashes, but irrelevant BS like "lane assist" and "stability control" and such: Pieces of software which actually have zero effect into safety: All of these cars crash as often as cars without them: Statistical impact is literal zero.

              Here in North we have tens of crashes yearly many of them fatal, because lane assist lost lane and steered the car to oncoming traffic, because some snow on the road. And that's "normal" according to manufacturer. You also can't disable said 'assist'.

              So, safety is irrelevant: It bans cheap and light cars out of the market and *that's* the reason it exists. Protectionism and theft.

              1. Richard 12 Silver badge

                Re: Temporary Problem

                Smart fortwo is 1095kg, Smart forfour is 1200kg.

                My C4 Grand Picasso seven seater is 1500kg, and is a five star NCAP vehicle, with more internal space than a Hummer.

                I assume they don't sell in the US, but that's a US specific problem.

                Most of the safety features weigh little to nothing, it's all about how it crumples - the safety cell holds shape while the rest of the car absorb the impact by deforming.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Temporary Problem

          "the difference in transmission losses from an electrical system in 1900 to one in 2022? I can't even imagine. Orders of magnitude, certainly."

          No. Probably the same, actually. There's literally so few pieces involved that there can't be 'orders of magnitude' changes, even in theory and even less in practise: Old electric cars didn't have any gearbox and the drive train is basically the same as what modern ones have.

          Having an axle from a to b has been the same since 1800s industrial revolution.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: Temporary Problem

            Electric motors are a lot more efficient than in 1900, and the motor controls even more so.

            Back in 1900 the magnets weren't as good, and the only speed control was a big variable resistor.

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Temporary Problem

          "Electric cars 100 years ago ran on lead-acid -"

          They were also very much 'city' cars. Nobody was demanding or even thinking of taking them on a 200 mile journey. A home on the outskirts of town was likely only 5 miles from the city center and rural properties where people likely weren't rich enough to afford a motor vehicle of any sort being further out. Lead-Acid batteries were just fine. EV's were also preferred since they were quieter and didn't need to be cranked to start making them suitable for ladies and those wishing to avoid a broken arm. The advent of the electric starter did in the early EV's.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Temporary Problem

        "If EV technology had advanced as much as ICE over the past 130 years, then your battery would be the size of your fist, you would just swap it at the forecourt and would last 1000 miles."

        If that happened, I'd go live in the woods away from those cars. The latent energy in petrol isn't ready for release until it's combined with oxygen so a tank full of fuel can be considered 'safe' for a certain value of safe. A battery the size of your fist would embody all of the energy to move a passenger vehicle 1,000 miles and not need to be combined with anything before releasing all of that stored potential all at once. Boom. I'm not going to do the math, but I expect that the battery would be more powerful than an equivalent volume of plastic explosive.

    3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: Temporary Problem

      which in turn means weight can be removed from the vehicle

      Except that the manufacturers will add extra cells to improve the range and so the weight will stay the same..

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Temporary Problem

        "Except that the manufacturers will add extra cells to improve the range and so the weight will stay the same.."

        I think with fleet vehicles, they wouldn't add more cells to keep the price down and win the contracts. My criteria is time between restroom visits. If an EV has enough capacity to get between two 'comfort' stops, that's about as good as I'd need so charging speed is more important. The vast majority of the time I'll be using far less than max range and charging at home so I don't fixate so much on EV's with the longest range. The Lucid being advertised with 600 miles of range (under very optimum conditions, I'm sure) holds no value for me. Not only would I need to stop to pee, it would be long past meal time and I'd be long past the need for a stretch and short walk. The Hyundai Ionic 5 with the ability to go from 10% to 80% charge in 18 minutes on a suitable charger is the bug's guts in my book even though I'd want one more like an estate.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Temporary Problem

      "Solid state batteries expected within a few years"

      ... and there will be fusion power to charge them.

      It also will appear within few years.

    5. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Temporary Problem

      "Solid state batteries expected within a few years should reduce battery size and weight by 30 to 50%,"

      Please provide a video of you holding your breath until then and a comprehensive white paper on what exactly defines a "solid state" battery.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting watching the mental gymnatics this triggered

    Like the author and the source, the core of this is just physics, and the issue is dead vehicle weight regardless of it being gas or electric. If heavy ev's are a problem, then heavy gas vehicles were already a problem. So just say we need to tighten up the weight limits right? But in a world where billions have been spent promoting dead weight slugs like the H2, Suburban, etc that are heavy beyond reason or functional purpose, the wordsmiths start playing games with phrasing to avoid the delicate sensibilities of people we shouldn't be listening to.

    A 2 door econobox with a big battery isn't magically better or worse than a gas vehicle with a few big boned Americans coming back from the hardware store with the supplies to build a pizza oven. If you are going to crack down on the top GVW offenders, great, but make the manufactures deal with the dead weight in both gas and EV models. Heavy is heavy, and sadly, many of these vehicles are sporting hundreds of pounds of dead weight because the manufacturers give no shits and it's cheaper to leave a hunded dollars of steel than to design/machine it out.

    Of course they have seen these rules coming, and they sold many of you the worst possible solution for your actual needs, knowing they could sell you another one if they tricked you into buying a giant tank in the 2020's. But that's only partly on them when you wrote the check or signed the loan. I have been down sizing for years now, and I never want to go back. My last station wagon towed as well as my last truck. My current passenger car can go 500 miles on a tank that is half the size, and has a 25 mile battery, so I generally only hit gas on the weekends. And it is only about 300lbs heavier than a gas ride. The "upgrade" trim ads 200lbs worth of bling and farkles i didn't need, so there is another area to target for weight savings. Another big one was the roof re-enforcements to meet current rollover standards, where instead of using a partial roll cage or bar supports, they just made the door posts so huge you can't see out of the cars, and the rear windows so small you need a backup cam even when you are driving forward. This was pure cheapskatery on the auto makers part, but it meant the least amount of retooling, even though it has killed pedestrians, bicyclists, and caused an increase in accidents and property damage due to people driving cars they can barely see out of. Aerodynamics is another one they have fought for years that has a huge impact.

    These are the fights and discussions we should be having, not this EV vs gas crap.

  10. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

    Aluminum graphene batteries

    will help solve this problem too. 3 times the energy density as lithium means 1/3 the weight for the same range.

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Re: Aluminum graphene batteries

      Ta for that. Just been reading some transcripts from GMG who are prototyping this, they're claiming they're already at 300Wh/kg which is very good, and that's just at prototype stage. LiFePo4 is currently heading towards about 230Wh/kg. So three times density might be a stretch but it's looking quite promising. At least part of the density increase seems to come from manufacturing in pouch form, and I don't know how well that will work in an EV.

      I suspect a significant aspect of the density of a pack is going to be the charging curve, as that will affect how effectively cells can be balanced. It will be interesting to see how existing algorithms can be applied to these new technologies.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: Aluminum graphene batteries

        More data, including a very useful looking charging curve graph: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gmgs-battery-significant-battery-performance-100000999.html

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Aluminum graphene batteries

        "At least part of the density increase seems to come from manufacturing in pouch form, and I don't know how well that will work in an EV."

        Is your question whether it's better to use cylindrical cells vs. pouch cells? Most manufacturers are going with the pouch cells. They can be temperature conditioned easier and have a better packing density. Sizes can be somewhat arbitrary so a compromise between redundancy and connection points to hook up can be balanced. If you go back and look at the AC Propulsion T-Zero using a huge mass of 18650 cells, it was days spot welding all of them together. The advantage was they were able to stuff cells in every available bit of space. That reminds me I haven't seen somebody I know that works(ed) there in ages. She showed me around the shop one day after we finished up playing with rockets one Saturday. Very cool stuff they do there.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Them heavy people

    I rarely drive my ICE vehicle with a load or even more than half a tank of fuel.

    It’s a big car but weighs less than your average EV SUV.

    Treat lightly people, follow your own path.

  12. xyz Silver badge

    It's Friday afternoon...

    And I'm just pleased the "concerned types" have something to worry about for the weekend.

  13. dhartsock

    Isn't that peachy? ICE SUVs and trucks are already a danger to normal-sized vehicles such as I drive.

  14. IGotOut Silver badge

    Easy fix.

    Ban any car over 2000kg from being within 500m of a school. Sales will crash and we'll be back to sensible sized cars in no time

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Easy fix.

      "Ban any car over 2000kg from being within 500m of a school.

      2000kg? More like 2000lbs/1000kg. *then* we are talking. 2000 kilos is a full sized SUV here in Europe.

  15. Binraider Silver badge

    If self drivers could be made to not hit things, all those tonnes of crumple zone, safety features etc would no longer be necessary.

    Personally, I am quite fond of the VW Samba Bus approach to driver safety: Stick a giant iron spike in the cockpit, so if you hit something, you WILL be impaled. Won't find a more careful driver than that.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "If self drivers could be made to not hit things, all those tonnes of crumple zone, safety features etc would no longer be necessary."

      Go on YouTube a hunt up some dash cam stuff from Russia. You could be the most careful driver in the world and it wouldn't stop the tire that just came flying off a HGV going the other way from slamming into your car. I swear that drinking and driving there must be a favorite past time after watching a few of those compilations.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like