> His reports have led to at least 2,721 penalty points, £168,568 in fines and, as he proudly displays in his X (Twitter) bio, “36 drivers DISQUALIFIED”.
I would like to borrow this guy for the road in front of my children's school.
(1) The pattern "It's not just a X---It's a Y" is super common in LLM-generated text for some reason. Complete with em dash. (I like em dashes and I wish LLMs weren't ruining them for the rest of us)
"Upgrading your CPU wasn’t a spec sheet exercise — it was transformative."
"You weren’t just a user. You were a systems engineer by necessity."
"The tinkerer spirit didn’t die of natural causes — it was bought out and put to work optimising ad clicks."
And in general a lot of "It's not <alternative>, it's <something else>", with or without an em dash:
"But it wasn’t just the craft that changed. The promise changed."
it's really verbose. One of those in a piece might be eye-catching and make someone think, but an entire blog post made up of them is _tiresome_.
(2) Phrasing like this seems to come out of LLMs a lot, particularly ChatGPT:
"I don’t want to be dishonest about this. "
(3) Lots of use of very short catch sentences / almost sentence fragments to try to "punch up" the writing. Look at all of the paragraphs after the first in the section "The era that made me":
"These weren’t just products. " (start of a paragraph)
"And the software side matched." (next P)
"Then it professionalised."
"But it wasn’t just the craft that changed."
"But I adapted." (a few paragraphs after the previous one)
And .. more. It's like the LLM latched on to things that were locally "interesting" writing, but applies them globally, turning the entire thing into a soup of "ah-ha! hey! here!" completely ignorant of the terrible harm it does to the narrative structure and global readability of the piece.
> And .. more. It's like the LLM latched on to things that were locally "interesting" writing, but applies them globally, turning the entire thing into a soup of "ah-ha! hey! here!" completely ignorant of the terrible harm it does to the narrative structure and global readability of the piece.
It's like YouTube-style engagement maximization. Make it more punchy, more rapid, more impactful, more dramatic - regardless of how the outcome as a whole ends up looking.
I wonder if this writing style is only relevant to ChatGPT on default settings, because that's the model that I've heard people accuse the most of doing this. Do other models have different repetitive patterns?
Out of curiousity, for those who were around to see it: was writing on LinkedIn commonly like this, pre-chatGPT? I've been wondering what the main sources were for these idioms in the training data, and it comes across to me like the kind of marketing-speak that would make sense in those circles.
(An explanation for the emoji spam in GitHub READMEs is also welcome. Who did that before LLMs?)
I think the Oxide computer LLM guidelines are wise on this front:
> Finally, LLM-generated prose undermines a social contract of sorts: absent LLMs, it is presumed that of the reader and the writer, it is the writer that has undertaken the greater intellectual exertion. (That is, it is more work to write than to read!) For the reader, this is important: should they struggle with an idea, they can reasonably assume that the writer themselves understands it — and it is the least a reader can do to labor to make sense of it.
The heavy use of LLMs in writing makes people rightfully distrustful that they should put the time in to try to read what's written there.
Using LLMs for coding is different in many ways from writing, because the proof is more there in the pudding - you can run it, you can test it, etc. But the writing _is_ the writing, and the only way to know it's correct is to put in the work.
That doesn't mean you didn't put in the work! But I think it's why people are distrustful and have a bit of an allergic reaction to LLM-generated writing.
> Best match is versatile which usually means: Capable of many different uses
with "multi-purpose", "adaptable", "flexible" and "multi-use" as the runner-up candidates.
---
Like you, I had no idea that tools like OneLook Thesaurus existed (despite how easy it would be to make one), so here's my attempt to look this up manually.
"Admitting a large number of uses" -> manually abbreviated to "very useful" -> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useful -> dead end. Give up, use a thesaurus.
Taking advantage of the fact my passive vocabulary is greater than my active vocabulary: no, no, yes. (I've spuriously rejected "multipurpose" – a decent synonym of "versatile [tool]" – but that doesn't matter.) I'm pretty sure WordHippo is machine-generated from some corpus, and a lot of these words don't mean "very useful", but they're good at playing the SEO game, and I'm lazy. Once we have versatile, we can put that into an actual thesaurus: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/versatile. But none of those really have the same sense as "versatile" in the context I'm thinking of (except perhaps "adaptable"), so if I were writing something, I'd go with "versatile".
Total time taken: 15 seconds. And I'm confident that the answer is correct.
By the way, I'm not finding "multifarious" anywhere. It's not a word I'm familiar with, but that doesn't actually seem to be a proper synonym (according to Wiktionary, at least: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thesaurus:heterogeneous). There are certainly contexts where you could use this word in place of "versatile" (e.g. "versatile skill-set" → "multifarious skill-set"), but I criticise WordHippo for far less dubious synonym suggestions.
'multifarious uses' -> the implication would be having not just many but also a wide diversity of uses
M-W gives an example use of "Today’s Thermomix has become a beast of multifarious functionality. — Matthew Korfhage, Wired News, 21 Nov. 2025 "
wordhippo strikes me as having gone beyond the traditional paper thesaurus, but I can accept that things change and that we can make a much larger thesaurus than we did when we had to collect and print. thesaurus.com does not offer these results, though, as a reflection of a more traditional one, nor does the m-w thesaurus.
So you weren't actually using the thesaurus as a reverse dictionary here. The thesaurus contains definitions, and the reverse dictionary was the search tool built into their website. It would work just as well against a dictionary as a thesaurus.
Importantly to the point being discussed, what you did does not work at all against an actual physical thesaurus book.
If the thesaurus had an entry for "very useful" (as WordHippo does), then yes, it would work against an actual physical thesaurus book. This whole cluster of words is coded into Wiktionary incorrectly – for example, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/utility#Synonyms is a subsection of "Adjective" despite listing synonyms for a sense of the noun:
> (state of being useful): usefulness, value, advantages, benefit, return, merits, virtue, note
where "note" is a synonym of distinction, not utility, and Thesaurus:utility has fewer entries than this. Versatility should be listed in Thesaurus:utility as a related concept.
Paper thesauruses (thesaurai?) won't have prefixes like "very" in their pages.
Furthermore, even if we allow "very useful", that's a far cry from "admitting a large number of uses". The latter requires a search engine to properly map.
Which they've been good at for a while. You could have googled "word meaning admitting a large number of uses" back in 2018 and gotten good answers.
My point is, the tools you've linked to are useful/versatile, but it's not the thesaurus that makes them so useful, it's the digital query engine built on top of the thesaurus.
Even if I don't know the word "versatile", I can go from the phrase "admitting a large number of uses" to the phrase "very useful". The original point I made (before I discovered OneLook Thesaurus) described the effectiveness of a procedure that was just manually looking things up in databases, as one might do in a paper thesaurus. (I could print out Wiktionary and WordHippo in alphabetical order, buy a Cambridge Thesaurus and some bookshelves, and perform the procedure entirely offline, with only a constant factor slowdown.)
They've got that information scattered around a few pages. The Help page says they use (a modified version of) Datamuse for lookup, with Wikipedia, Wiktionary and WordNet providing dictionary definitions. The Datamuse API (https://datamuse.com/api/) uses a variety of GOFAI databases, plus word2vec: it's all pre-2017 tech. OneLook additionally uses https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02783 for one of its filters (added 2022): more details can be found on the Datamuse blog: https://www.datamuse.com/blog/. https://web.archive.org/web/20160507022201/http://www.oneloo... confirms the "longer queries" support (which you described as "LLM-like") was added in 2016, so it can't possibly be using LLMs; though I'm not sure how it does work. There may be some hints in the OneLook newsletter (e.g. https://onelook.com/newsletter/issue-10/ (10 July 2025?) cryptically notes that "Microdefinitions are algorithmically generated […] they go through a series of automated cross-checks against public domain dictionaries, and the suspicious ones are vetted by humans"), but the newsletter isn't about that, so I doubt there's much information there.
Words are something made up to express whatever the speaker/author intends them to, so there is really no such thing as correct or incorrect there. A dictionary can hint at the probability of someone else understanding a word absent of other context, which makes for a useful tool, but that is something quite different to establishing correctness.
As for things that can actually be incorrect, that has always been impossible, but we accept the human consensus to be a close enough approximation. With that, verifying 'correctness' to the degree that is possible is actually quite easy through validating it across many different LLMs trained on the human consensus. They will not all hallucinate identically. If convergence is found, then you have also found the human consensus. That doesn't prove correctness — we have never had a way to do that — but it is equivalent to how we have always dealt with establishing what we believe is correct.
It is a fundamental property of the universe. Whether or not it is useful is immaterial. Humans are unable to read minds. They can only make up words and use them as they intend. There is no other way.
Despite your insistence, I think you will find that the human consensus is that it useful. The human consensus is especially biased in this case, I will grant you that, but it seems few humans wish they were bears in the forest. Our ability to so effectively communicate in such a messy, imperfect environment is what has enabled us to be unlike all the other animals.
It might not sound like it should work on paper, but in the real world it does.
Turns out that because we've defined "words" as a thing that means a thing, now there are rules around "language" and "words". So while you're welcome to invent whatever combination of sounds you prefer to mean what you like, those sounds can be "correct" or "incorrect" as soon as other people become involved, because now you've entered into a social construct that extends beyond yourself.
So again your conclusion is technically correct, in a navel-gazing "the universe is what I perceive" sort of way, but counterproductive to use as a building block for communication.
There is no correct or incorrect here, but I will say it looks perfectly fine to me — naturally, as anything goes. I don't understand it. Is that what you are trying to communicate? There are many words I don't understand; even ones used commonly enough to be found in the dictionary. That is nothing new.
Here's the magic: I don't need to understand. Nobody is born with the understanding. Where communication is desired, we use other devices to express lack of understanding and keep trying to convey intent until a shared understanding is reached. I don't yet understand what that means, but assuming you are here in good faith, I eventually will as you continue to work to communicate your intent behind it.
I know computer people who spend their days writing in programming languages that never talk back struggle with this concept, but one's difficulties in understanding the world around them doesn't define that world.
> there are rules around "language" and "words".
If you are trying to suggest that there is some kind of purity test, it is widely recognized that what is often called Friesian is the closest thing to English as it used to be spoken. What you are writing looks nothing like it. If there are English rules, why don't you follow them? The answer, of course, is that the only "rules" are the ones you decide to make up in the moment. Hence why English today is different from English yesterday and is very different from English centuries ago.
There's a joke that's not entirely a joke that the job of a Google SWE is converting from one protobuf to another. That's generally not very fun code, IMO (which may differ from your opinion and that's why they're opinions!). Otoh, figuring out and writing some interesting logic catches my brain in a way that dealing with formats and interoperability stuff doesn't usually.
We're all did but we all probably have things we like more than others.
I mean, I agree if it's really just "machine translate this code to use the approved method of doing this thing". That seems like a perfect use case for AI. Though one would think Google would already have extensive code mod infrastructure for that kind of thing.
But those aren't the stories you hear about with people coding with AI, which is what prompted my response.
They do and I think a lot of that is LLM'd these days, though that's just what I hear third-hand.
I do agree that this:
> What’s gone is the tearing, exhausting manual labour of typing every single line of code.
seems more than a little overblown. But I do sympathize with not feeling motivated to write a lot of glue and boilerplate, and that "meh" often derails me on personal projects where it's just my internal motivation competing against my internal de-motivation. LLMs have been really good there, especially since many of those are cases where only I will run or deal with the code and it won't be exposed to the innertubes.
Maybe the author can't touch type, but that's a separate problem with its own solution. :)
Some of the hardest parts of the compiler are optimization and clear error handling/reporting. If you forego those - because you're testing against a codebase that is already free of things that break compilation and have no particular performance requirements for the generated code - it's a substantially simpler task.
Making a basic C compiler, without much error/warn detection and/or optimizations, is as a matter if fact no so difficult. In many Universities is a semester project for 2 to 3 students.
And networking - we've almost always used standard SI prefixes for, e.g., bandwidth. 1 gigabit per second == 1 * 10^9.
Which makes it really @#ing annoying when you have things like "I want to transmit 8 gigabytes (meaning gibibytes, 2*30) over a 1 gigabit/s link, how long will it take?". Welcome to every networking class in the 90s.
We should continue moving towards a world where 2*k prefixes have separate names and we use SI prefixes only for their precise base-10 meanings. The past is polluted but we hopefully have hundreds of years ahead of us to do things better.
It really is eradicated - it's the only human disease we've truly eradicated. There are literally no more cases of smallpox in the wild, period.
The problem is that there are samples of viable virus in the labs of the US and Russia. So - it's eradicated but we have to keep stockpiles of vaccine around anyway. But nobody gets vaccined for it any more; it has an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio when the virus simply does not circulate. Smallpox kills ~30% of people who get infected with it; the first-generation vaccine had a mortality rate of about 1 in 1,000,000.
(There are newer-generation vaccines developed and being developed that have an even better safety profile but we still wouldn't use them because the cost - the literal cost and the side effects and general "meh, why get another shot?"-ness outweighs the benefit of protection against something you don't need protection against.)
mRNA vaccines go from sequenced DNA to vaccine without any need to store or culture the original virus in the lab.
We could destroy our existing stockpile of smallpox and be ready to produce vaccines based on it faster than we could thirty years ago.
We couldn't validate new vaccines without access to the live virus, but then, if we aren't willing to expose hopefully-volunteers to a disease with a 30% mortality rate, we weren't really validating it anyway.
But yeah, I think we could probably unilaterally "disarm" and destroy our smallpox samples, and from a national security standpoint, I don't think we'd be significantly worse off; if the weaponized strain is significantly different from the old strain, enough to bypass vaccination, we'd need samples of the new thing in any case.
I'm not even sure we'd be substantially limiting new research on it, given that smallpox doesn't infect animals, I'm not sure if there's even any animal testing we could do with a live virus.
It gets studied. EVs are often heavier, which is worse for tire wear, but use regenerative braking, which is better for brake dust.
Overall, EVs are likely a net win on the combination of these two things, and a big win on exhaust emissions, but it would be nice if we could shift to lighter and smaller vehicles and increase the mix of non-cars such as e-bikes and mass transit.
Plug-in hybrids are a wonderful middle point on the Pareto frontier.
Wikipedia lists the 3rd-gen Prius Prime at roughly 3,500 pounds curb weight, and the Tesla Model Y at 4,100-4,600 pounds, I assume depending on the battery it's equipped with.
The Prius Prime has 40+ miles of all-electric range, and it can reach highway speeds with the gas engine off. So your day-to-day driving is all electric, then you still have an engine for harsh winter days, power outages, and you have 600 miles EPA range on gas for sudden road trips.
People are really sleeping on hybrids. Even a used non-plug-in Prius will get 50 city and 50 highway MPG. No gas sedan can do that.
PHEVs are a very interim solution. There are some advantages while range anxiety is an issue.
Yes, EVs have a weight penalty of ~250-500kg of battery currently.
Battery technology is rapidly advancing, when Na-ion batteries are introduced more widely, the whole range anxiety issue will become moot, because a recharge will take as long as refueling an ICE vehicle.
The weight difference will also start to reduce, both due to newer batteries, but also moving to lighter weight construction and increased use of alternatives to steel.
Arguing for ICE technology in 2025 is like Blackberry/Nokia users complaining about the loss of keyboards & T9 texting.
I looked into PHEVs on my last vehicle shopping go-round, since few pure EVs met my cargo size requirements (stroller/baby life is a whole thing).
Ultimately, it was way more worth it to go all the way up to an F150 Lightning than to go with a good PHEV, partly due to up-front cost, but mostly due to ongoing cost: I will need to change the oil on the electric motors maybe every 150,000miles, and I never need an emissions test again. PHEVs require keeping the gas engine up, and getting it emissions-tested.
A whole category of cost just straight-up disappeared, for cheaper than I could get a RAV4 Prime too.
This will be met with consternation, not appreciation. The people who comment about brake dust in EV topics are the people who complain about birds when talking about windmills.
We know it is disingenuous because no one cares about this when discussing overweight trucks and SUVs. Good news about a reduction in pollution from EVs? Can't have that. It's like the "At what price" meme around headlines about China.
Going forward, I will downvote any comment about "brake pollution" and "tire pollution" that does not begin with - specifically - "This is a bigger issue for large, gas-powered trucks and SUVs", and invite you all to do so to. The association of these shitty comments with EV topics is as organic as lighter fluid.
The theory is that they're heavier so more brake dust ... but that is offset to a degree by regen braking (which hybrids have too). It's a silly argument though. Brake dust is definitely bad but the idea of keeping ICE cars to minimize brake dust doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Please don't downvote comments because you don't agree with the argument. Downvotes should be for comments that add little to the discussion.
I agree that discussing weight with regard to EVs, without acknowledging that (in the US) the fashion is for big heavy ICE cars is just as polluting is disingenuous.
That said, outside the US the trend is for smaller cars, and equally the weight of a small EV is not hugely dissimilar to a common ICE car.
Frankly I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about tire dust- cars need tires. EVs generate less brake dust. If there's a tire dust discussion to be had, then that discussion is independent of the vehicle fuel source.
And wouldn't you say that when a comment is made in bad faith, or misrepresents (deliberately or not) a major component of its argument, that it adds little to the discussion?
It's all well and good to have high-minded ideals of pure intellectual discussion, but in the real world, there are many people who are coming into the comments with a strong political agenda in mind, and are both willing and able to make disingenuous and bad-faith comments to support that agenda.
Presenting the increased tire dust of heavier vehicles as being an exclusive property of EVs—a bright-line differentiator between them and ICE cars—is disingenuous and misrepresents the facts. I think it's reasonable to say that makes it "add little to the discussion".
I understand that it can feel like you're having to make the same point over and over (I certainly feel like that sometimes) but personally I'm more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good faith.
Out in the world there are common misconceptions which are propagated by vested interests and believed by many at first glance.
Having the opportunity to see those arguments, and rebuff them , (over and over again) is key to balancing the public discourse.
I agree, some argue in bad faith, that's going to be true in some cases. But I think most times it's honest misconceptions.
As a personal policy, that can work: you can always choose which conversations to engage in and which to ignore.
As a site policy, it cannot. If you demand that everyone coming there in good faith treat everyone else as also operating in good faith, even when they open with arguments that are very common when sealioning people, you are telling every troll, every bad actor, everyone paid by a massive corporation or a foreign government to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about particular political or economic positions that this site is ripe for their use.
I've seen far too many people even on here "just asking questions", or using the Gish Gallop, or other techniques of bad faith debate, to believe that it can possibly be a good idea to treat everyone as if they are good-faith rational actors seeking open debate for the sake of finding the truth.
If you're still not convinced, do some research on Brandolini's Law [0], also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. It really does take massively more effort to refute bullshit with truth than it does to spin bullshit everywhere.
That literally makes no sense. There’s a point on the accelerator pedal curve where you are coasting (between it applying power or applying regen), you get used to staying around that position pretty quickly because you stop short of where you are aiming to stop otherwise. You basically only back off past that point and into regen when you would be braking in an ICE car, so there is really no difference.
You don't stay at the zero point. It's an impossibly small target. This is not news to anyone who drives an EV and keeps an eye on the readout showing current power usage/regen.
I don't think it's impossibly small. Maybe it depends on your software - you don't need to have a completely linear response across the full range of the pedal.
Braking from regen or braking from a brake pad has the same net impact on tire wear. EVs can coast too and don’t apply full regen the moment you apply brakes. Some even have brake coach alerts to get you to gradually apply the brakes to maximize energy return.
EVs could coast if a manufacturer chose to make one that allowed that without shifting into neutral. In practice, when letting off the accelerator, existing EVs will instead regen brake.
The default setting just moves the coast point to a slightly depressed accelerator. This is because EVs typically have lower drag, so this behavior mimics a higher drag vehicle. If you use the accelerator to achieve the desired speed, you will coast when possible. You can also monitor the display to see the coast point. My 2013 plug in hybrid only supports this style of operation.
Modern EVs have easy adjustment for this. The Hyundai/Kia EVs for example have shift style paddles for adjusting this on the fly which includes a mode for regen only when depressing the break pedal.
The Hyundai/Kia EVs do not have a mode that only regens when pressing the brake. The best you can do is limit the car to 2kW of regen braking when not touching the accelerator. You can't disable it entirely.
It's true though that using this mode will extend the life of your tires.
It hovers depending on how my foot modulates the speed. I don't want or need "exactly zero power readout", I only need to reach my target speed at my target spot on the highway, without having to action the physical brakes at any time.
Whether that is more or less efficient than a zero-power coast followed by some kind of braking exactly at the end... I assume the difference is so tiny that it makes no difference.
The difference is tiny from an energy efficiency perspective. But we're discussing tire wear, and the periodic regen followed by power that a human foot gives because it can't perfectly match the car's PID loop, wears the tires a bit each time. Which adds up over ten thousand miles.
Indeed it adds up, over ten thousand kilometers, to a lot less wear than the equivalent coast-then-hit-the-brakes in an ICE. If I follow your reasoning correctly.
What? No. We definitely didn't follow one another. I'm confused where we misunderstood one another now.
For the purposes of tire wear, applying regen braking in a car is the same as applying brake pads. Generating 5kW of electricity of 10 seconds vs generating 5kW of heat for 10 seconds, same same.
Let's say you're on the highway driving in an EV. You have cruise control on. You go down a hill. The EV's cruise control applies regen braking down the hill, using the tires to slow you to your desired speed.
Let's say you do the same in an ICE vehicle. You will coast down the hill, gathering speed. Cruise control in an ICE vehicle generally will not brake for you. So more of your energy from the hill gets removed as air resistance. When you slow due to air resistance it does not wear the tires.
The same logic applies each time you push the gas pedal slightly harder than you needed to and then back off.
"applying regen braking in a car is the same as applying brake pads"
That's an assumption I disagree with. Brake pads will always be less smooth than engine braking. For the same braking action, I assume more brake dust and slightly higher tire wear due to brakes not able to provide fine speed adjustment.
The down-the-hill scenario is interesting, it brings new comparisons: is there more tire wear from maintaining a chosen speed, vs letting the car overspeed and then braking? How does air resistance contribute in each case?
I maintain my earlier opinion that the differences between all these scenarios are minimal and can be ignored. But if you have some physical model that helps calculate these scenarios, it could be fun to play around with.
The tires and their dust don't care whether you're braking by regen or friction. The reason there's more dust is from the increased weight of the EV not because of regen braking. You can coast in EV as well, that is not exclusive to ICE.
> The tires and their dust don't care whether you're braking by regen or friction.
I'm aware. The point I'm making is that EVs apply more braking than ICE vehicles do, due to the specifics of the implementation of regen braking that all manufacturers have chosen.
> You can coast in EV as well
Not without literally putting it in neutral. If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amount of regenerative braking. It's not really possible to hold the accelerator pedal at the exact position where you are not applying motor power but also have 0kW of regen braking, certainly for any extended period of time.
If your point is that someone could make an EV to which regen braking contributes no more to tire wear than an ICE vehicle, you're correct. Unfortunately, no such EVs are currently manufactured. Even the ones that allow you to "turn off" regen braking will generally apply 1-2kW of regen if your foot is off the accelerator.
> I'm aware. The point I'm making is that EVs apply more braking than ICE vehicles do, due to the specifics of the implementation of regen braking that all manufacturers have chosen
Hyundai and Kia EVs have a 5 level setting for what happens when you lift up on the accelerator, either partially or fully.
At level 0 the regeneration is so low that I don't notice a difference between that and being in neutral. It slows down way less than an ICE does when not in neutral.
> If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amount of regenerative braking. It's not really possible to hold the accelerator pedal at the exact position where you are not applying motor power but also have 0kW of regen braking, certainly for any extended period of time.
Tire wear is not a linear function of acceleration. Is there any reason to believe that variations from not being able to hold your foot perfectly steady, assuming you aren't have spasms, will be big enough and/or last long enough to make a non-trivial difference?
The responses tend to be either "actually regen braking wears tires just as much as using brake rotors" by people who didn't actually read, or "surely manufacturers wouldn't do that, it doesn't match the mental model in my head" by people who've never paid close attention to the power readouts while driving an EV.
Your own response was "actually one manufacturer does have a setting that will avoid the effect if someone sets it, therefore the whole concept must be wrong".
The amount of braking force needed to take a car of X weight from Y miles per hour to zero in a given amount of time is the same whether by friction brakes or regen brakes.
You can reduce the total braking force needed by extending the time, in which case aerodynamic forces and rolling resistance will contribute some more to the reduction in speed.
In an EV with one-pedal driving you can still stop quickly or slowly. In an ICE car you can stop slowly with more coasting or quickly with more braking force.
I don't see how the drivetrain is going to make a difference to the amount of braking needed to stop and thus force exerted on the tire. The added weight of most EVs would be the larger factor.
But ICE vehicles can be in engine breaking mode. You pretty much never "coast" (e.g. put the vehicle in neutral or hold the clutch in). I get what you're saying but it feels like it's way in the margin if an effect at all. Do you have some reference? People keep talking about tire wear but my model 3 tires (which are relatively high performance soft tires) aren't wearing any faster than the wear I used to get on my Subaru before. I just don't drive aggressively. Flooring the accelerator must be the big difference. I don't think the weight difference is that large, certainly compared to trucks.
The amount of engine braking applied by an automatic transmission ICE vehicle when you take your foot off the gas is an order of magnitude less than the regen braking applied when you take your foot off the accelerator on your Model 3.
First off, my Renault Megane e-Tech has paddles that allow me to change the regen strength on the fly. I use it actively when driving.
But anyway, I find I drive differently with an EV. I don't let off the throttle unless I want to slow down. If I want to coast, I just reduce my throttle input to where its coasting.
I'll have to double-check, but as I recall it the lowest setting in Sports mode was off. But maybe just very, very low.
In any case, what's the problem with having it very, very low vs off? Like, what do you really need coasting for? Not something I've felt I've been missing.
I see that you later backed down from "no such EVs are currently manufactured", but for the record I've only driven 2 electric vehicles for a significant amount of time and they both have modes where you can absolutely coast with no regen. Polestar 2 and Mustang Mach-E. Perhaps you haven't driven enough vehicles yet to make such claims.
Adaptive cruise control lets you set a speed, usually the speed limit, and then you just have to steer.
In a gas car that means the car is using the brakes and gas engine (obviously) but it’s a jarring experience compared to a BEV or hybrid. The regenerative braking and smooth acceleration are much more pleasant.
I tend to agree with your overall point, but if we're talking about a 1-2 kW of "standby" regen, surely the rolling resistance of any kind of vehicle is in the same ballpark anyway (source: it takes multiple people to push a broken down car).
The bearings and whatnot that cause rolling resistance on an ordinary car also exist in EVs; this is 1-2kW on top of that, when the car is in Drive. Furthermore, it's common to use one pedal driving- it's generally much more than 1-2kW.
I would like to borrow this guy for the road in front of my children's school.
reply