Do ElectricCars have an Air Pollution Problem?

[SmallTown]

The increased use of EVs will also have an effect on the longevity of road surfaces. EVs generate maximum torque from zero and this combined with their greater weight will cause increased wear at road junctions. I expect it will be something that will be addressed through road fund license. There will probably be a point in the future where EVs will pay more Road Tax than ICE.

If people haven't looked recently some of the new EVs are becoming smaller and cheaper. The new Renault 5 in particular could be a tipping point for quite a few people (me included) to go electric at least for my every day car.

I think the road surface thing is a none issue really. Yes they produce maximum talk from zero but no one is flooring their car away from the lights every time*. It'll take about 2 days to adjust you driving so you're applying the same amount of power that you did in your ICE.

Agree with you on the second point. When peopel realsie the whole Anti EV "range" arguemnt is actually a none issue for most, people will be demanding better efficiency from their EV leading to smaller batteries and lighter cars. I'm even doing this myself. I'm failry certain my next car will be a Cupra Born and there is either a 54KWh or 78KWh battery available. All other specs the same, same kit, same power from the motor. So I'm definelty going for the lighter, better handling care, even if the range is 96 miles less.

The only long journey I do is from my house to Teesside and I worked out it will mean 4 minutes longer for the journey. Hardly worth lugging that extra battery around for an extra 4 minutes every few months









*I mean, I am, but not everyone has a performance EV!

 

[Andy_W]

The increased use of EVs will also have an effect on the longevity of road surfaces. EVs generate maximum torque from zero and this combined with their greater weight will cause increased wear at road junctions. I expect it will be something that will be addressed through road fund license. There will probably be a point in the future where EVs will pay more Road Tax than ICE.

If people haven't looked recently some of the new EVs are becoming smaller and cheaper. The new Renault 5 in particular could be a tipping point for quite a few people (me included) to go electric at least for my every day car.

The torque is only used if you ask for it, by putting your foot down (and then immediately braking for the car in front), the difference in like for like wear, at slow speed is probably nil, if people drive normal. The EV's do generally have more power though, as it's easy to achieve higher power, than with an ice engine. At slow speed though, momentum, and drag are low, all the forces are, you could drive a car 100 times over a piece of tarmac at 10mph and not do the same damage as 1 car going over it at 50mph etc, it's a lot less potential energy, so junctions are not going to wear out any quicker. Can see it in cities where they're never relaying tarmac unless they have to, it lasts forever if done properly and not disturbed by excavations or other features like manholes etc. It's the country lanes and windy less busy A roads which get riddled with potholes quickly, the country roads etc probably take a lot less traffic per area, but just get hammered by the loads they do see.

Road Tax for ICE will not be cheaper than EV until there are barely no ICE left, or ICE are not on sale, they want ICE cars gone ASAP. But I can see EV's being charged by their efficiency or power, as a money grab. It's a bit mad taxing this mind, as electric is already taxed and loads of people will be almost 100% renewable by the time that happens, or the grid will be 80% plus at least.

Smaller and cheaper EV's were always going to come, and it's good to see, and the stuff coming out of China will force this further. But as initial tech was expensive, like always, it was always going to be the higher class cars marketed first. People need to detach themselves from thinking they need 200, 300, 400 mile range though, when the vast majority really don't. Some EV owners are starting to understand this now, and it will eventually filter down. Lugging a big battery around, with more range than necessary is completely pointless. I'd swap my 270 mile range car now, for a 50-100 mile range 2 seater rocket, but it doesn't exist yet, and I don't think it's coming soon unfortunately.

 

[Andy_W]

Agree with you on the second point. When peopel realsie the whole Anti EV "range" arguemnt is actually a none issue for most, people will be demanding better efficiency from their EV leading to smaller batteries and lighter cars. I'm even doing this myself. I'm failry certain my next car will be a Cupra Born and there is either a 54KWh or 78KWh battery available. All other specs the same, same kit, same power from the motor. So I'm definelty going for the lighter, better handling care, even if the range is 96 miles less.

Haha, it's mad you were writing that the same time as me!

First EV I wanted 200 mile range, had that a year and wanted more (not sure why as I knew I didn't even need it then) and better car, got a 270 mile range, and now I'm thinking why am I lugging this battery and such a big car around

I hope they don't go and make the new Cayman 200-300 mile range or whatever, but I 100% bet they do. Polestar O2 Roadster or Polestar 6 comes out in 2026, and looks unreal but it's $200k ffs, and 280-320 mile range, stupid. I think Lotus have a 2 seater EV Elise/ Emira successor coming out in 2027, that has to be light and nimble surely.

 

[Norman_Conquest]

The two lines after the headline mention exploring myths around EV's so that kind of says a lot, but articles like this still end up peddling nonsense.

The article mentions that richer/ more modern cities have had air quality significantly improved since EV's came out, so there is that.

Like the article later says (after the misleading headline clickbait) EV's don't rely on friction to brake, but they don't give much detail about true use or how this is done. 99% of the braking is by the motor, if you're driving normally, and the motor is a sealed unit and brushless unit or it's using induction, none of these have friction with forward or stopping momentum, other than the inner bearing which is probably also a sealed unit with extremely minimal resistance. It's basically like magnets, which don't touch. From my 3 years experience I would say a set of EV brakes could last the life of the car, which is what 150k-200k miles expected, for most decent cars? They're probably more likely to need replacing due to rust, rather than use. So if a set of pads last 30k miles, and an EV even used as much as 80% less, then they're theoretically lasting 5x as long.

It's funny mind, as when I first got my second EV the braking was a lot more responsive at slow speeds, but I think they've changed the software so it uses regenerative braking even more now. I don't like it as much for this at slow speed to be honest, but efficiency and batter range have increased over the two years, so I'm ok with it. The EV before had 3 different modes of regen braking, which I preferred.

Sure, EV's do have more weight at the moment, like for like in range (not in power), but the reason for this is the batteries are heavy, and people think they need larger batteries than they actually do. I think people will eventually come around to the idea that smaller batteries and faster charging are the answer for most people. People seem to be very slow understanding this idea though, even a lot of EV owners, so it's a while away yet. Once this happens weight and tyres will be like for like, or better.

It's mad thinking about tyre particles now though (change the tyres if they're that bad?), compared to what ICE cars, oil refineries and power stations are kicking out, and have been doing for centuries. But the greener the grid goes, the greener EV's go, and it's only going one way. Plus we're still in the early days of EV's I suppose. In places of high emissions/ people/ bad air quality, like cities, speeds are low, so overall the wear or weight make less of a difference, as there is much less drag (the enemy of the EV, as it can't recover that energy back). Basically this means EV's are even better and more efficient for high pollution areas where as ICE are worse due to stop start/ idling and being inefficient at slow speeds etc. The EV is basically better the slower you're going, ICE cars are made to be more efficient at higher speeds.

In 5-10 years we really should have driverless cars/ taxi's (EV's), for common routes in cities etc, if the public understand it and the car makers can make enough money out of it. Doing this means we will be able to get away with smaller batteries and smaller cars for half the journeys which only need space for one or two people. It may mean the end of a lot of people "needing" their own car or second car, and will probably kill off buses, which are extremely inefficient (ice or EV) for the average passenger numbers. You won't have as many people doing 99 x 20 mile trips in a 300 mile range car, v the 1 x 400 mile round trip they do one weekend where they could own something more specific for their commute and hire something specific for longer journeys. Of course there could also be dedicated long range EV's or public transport doing the more regular routes up and down motorways and a-roads, feeding into more localised shorter range EV hubs etc. The tech is already there for the long trips, it's easy for driverless, but once that is accepted (people problem, not a tech problem) then it will move into busier towns and so on.

I think in truth, they have been running a series over several weeks to debunk the myths and prejudices people have over EV cars.

 

[RedAsABeetroot]

The increased use of EVs will also have an effect on the longevity of road surfaces. EVs generate maximum torque from zero and this combined with their greater weight will cause increased wear at road junctions. I expect it will be something that will be addressed through road fund license. There will probably be a point in the future where EVs will pay more Road Tax than ICE.

If people haven't looked recently some of the new EVs are becoming smaller and cheaper. The new Renault 5 in particular could be a tipping point for quite a few people (me included) to go electric at least for my every day car.

I'm sure I heard a report at the weekend that EVs were to be the first to move over to being taxed in terms of distance travelled. Can't remember where it was but I'll try and find it.

 

[Andy_W]

I think in truth, they have been running a series over several weeks to debunk the myths and prejudices people have over EV cars.

Yeah, that's a good thing, but the daft headline won't help. It seems to me to be a sort of clickbait headline, which are a nightmare these days when it comes to allowing people to make daft assumptions etc. Assuming the article was sort of meant to be pro EV, it didn't really do it in the right way for me, especially when you have those on the other side of argument making these ludicrous claims with no experience, reality or backup etc.

 

[Andy_W]

I'm sure I heard a report at the weekend that EVs were to be the first to move over to being taxed in terms of distance travelled. Can't remember where it was but I'll try and find it.

They already are, as the electric is taxed, just like petrol is taxed etc.

I can't imagine this change would happen anytime soon, but it might be on the horizon, as a way of going after those with Solar etc, who don't pay the grid/ tax. This would be a backwards step whilst we still have ICE cars though, and would be more and more the case as we still have ICE cars but gain more renewable power. Once ICE is gone they will start jacking the cost though, one way or another as they will still want their tax out of the motorist. Effectively I can't see them bringing in an additional mileage tax for EV's without also doing it for ICE cars, whilst ICE is still on sale.

Of course this is probably a Tory idea, and they're going to be out of power from the 2025-2029 at least anyway, and by 2029 there probably won't be many ICE options on sale anyway. The greens will probably end up gaining voters too along that time, and they will be against this of course.

 

[Muttley]

The torque is only used if you ask for it, by putting your foot down (and then immediately braking for the car in front), the difference in like for like wear, at slow speed is probably nil, if people drive normal. The EV's do generally have more power though, as it's easy to achieve higher power, than with an ice engine. At slow speed though, momentum, and drag are low, all the forces are, you could drive a car 100 times over a piece of tarmac at 10mph and not do the same damage as 1 car going over it at 50mph etc

That's not how physics works.

If you accelerate a two ton vehicle at the same rate as a one ton vehicle you will apply more torque. If you look at junctions you will find that there is more wear to the road surface. This is mostly caused by HGVs and other heavy vehicles, the torque applies a twisting force to the road surface and distorts it. The same if braking heavily. Tarmac is still slightly plastic even when set. Driving over a road at a constant speed is far less damaging/wearing to the road surface. So if you go to a situation where the majority of cars are EVs it will cause more degradation of road surfaces at junctions because of the combination of greater weight and torque. I don't know if this will be significant, I expect someone will do the maths.

 

[hobblewobble]

E v 's i would have to use public chargers impossible to use home electrics as nearest space is across the road.
If you had to pay at public charging points(no freebies) would you be so keen on electric?

 

[Andy_W]

That's not how physics works.

If you accelerate a two ton vehicle at the same rate as a one ton vehicle you will apply more torque. If you look at junctions you will find that there is more wear to the road surface. This is mostly caused by HGVs and other heavy vehicles, the torque applies a twisting force to the road surface and distorts it. The same if braking heavily. Tarmac is still slightly plastic even when set. Driving over a road at a constant speed is far less damaging/wearing to the road surface. So if you go to a situation where the majority of cars are EVs it will cause more degradation of road surfaces at junctions because of the combination of greater weight and torque. I don't know if this will be significant, I expect someone will do the maths.

Yeah, sorry I was wrong with the first part, EV's do start with higher torque and use that no matter what, but it's not the maximum as people assume, albeit it does get there extremely quickly, then the torque curve later drops off over higher speeds, and there's no way of increasing it (as you have no rev control), which is also why most EV's are crap top speed, unless they have more than one gear (my current one has two gears, but this is not common).

The way I understand it is ICE cars are like nil torque at 0 rpm, but then when you get to 1000 rpm or whatever it takes to move the car, and then 2000-3000rpm etc the torque is pretty much near it's peak, then you just have gears to extend that max torque/ power range and convert that into more speed.

Either way, to to turn an equally sized wheel at the same speed to provide the same momentum would require the exact same torque or effective power at the wheels as this is the only thing which can turn the wheel. Of course the extra weight (maybe 10-15%) will make a tiny difference, the same way it does with 2ltr diesels v 1.5 ltr petrol etc, but nothing compared to a wagon or a bus etc. But again a lot of this weight is due to a big battery and because people think they need 200-300 mile range or whatever, and the car companies are basically forced into doing it to cure peoples irrational range anxiety, or to cater for a range they won't even use. There should have been more emphasis on faster charging with smaller batteries, better all round, but it's coming.

A lot of the EV's had this torque and speed available easily though, and it was largely higher spec cars hitting the market, which is why they're pretty much all rapid, it was a major selling point. They can certainly make them with less torque/power/speed and add gears accordingly, but there's been no market for it as low speed road wear being slightly different is probably not in their minds. Maybey we think about it more as our roads are terrible?

I described that other point really bad too, and was very wrong the way I described it, all cars are probably equal travelling over the same tarmac in a straight line, regardless of speed, but I expect it changes quickly with turning at speed, especially at high speed as does the balance and momentum of the car, which is why the tyres wear out faster when ragging it around bends. This probably hurts cars with more roll due to higher COG or worse weight distribution, which maybe works in EV's favour but seems a small point, which I'm not pushing!

I see a lot of sinking at junctions where the tarmac has been laid poorly or the sub base has settled more due to the area being subject to more live load, a lot more often, but significant or noticeable wear through EV's just seems a bit far fetched to me. I've had an EV and a hybrid on a brand new tarmac drive (soft compared to a road) for two years and it's still pretty much immaculate all over, no difference from the wheel area to the other areas, and that's with two really big cars. I can't imaging it was laid exceptionally well either. This is one of the reasons also why I don't really think the "extra" wear is really a thing.

 

[Andy_W]

E v 's i would have to use public chargers impossible to use home electrics as nearest space is across the road.
If you had to pay at public charging points(no freebies) would you be so keen on electric?

Personally, if I had to charge more than 20% of miles at a public charger I probably wouldn't do it, even if it was free, but some manage with little to no disruption. The only way I would do this is if somewhere I went often had a plug, like work, the shops or whatever, but I've not even looked as I don't use/ need them to be honest and I WFH. I wouldn't want to rely on a public rapid charger which was costing north of 50p/kW either, that's a rip off when I can get it home for 4p, but about 70p/ kW is the break even with petrol I think, for an equivalent to my car.

I don't think I've been to a public charger in over a year, it ***** me off enough having to fill our lasses car with petrol once every couple of months

I wouldn't even think about it without home charging, not until there's infrastructure in place to support street parking at a reasonable rate.

I'm not being biased either mind, or trying not to be, my next car is possibly going to be a petrol as what I want for a year or two doesn't really exist in electric form yet, but it will only be when I'm on a waiting list for a new EV of what I want. I'll end up paying a lot more to run it, which might make me stick.

 

[SmallTown]

E v 's i would have to use public chargers impossible to use home electrics as nearest space is across the road.
If you had to pay at public charging points(no freebies) would you be so keen on electric?

Yes. I do and I am

 

[TheLodger]

The biggest benefit to our household owning an EV is running cost.

We bought our 10 month old C4 for £20k- that was her budget for her next car, it only has a 200 mile range, wife does about 200 mile a week. Running cost is about £4 in electric, free VED, it cost about £80 more a year to insure against her 2 year old Fiat 500.

Even if you don't care about the imminent death of the planet, you will at least save some cash if you invest in a EV.

 

[RedAsABeetroot]

That's not how physics works.

If you accelerate a two ton vehicle at the same rate as a one ton vehicle you will apply more torque. If you look at junctions you will find that there is more wear to the road surface. This is mostly caused by HGVs and other heavy vehicles, the torque applies a twisting force to the road surface and distorts it. The same if braking heavily. Tarmac is still slightly plastic even when set. Driving over a road at a constant speed is far less damaging/wearing to the road surface. So if you go to a situation where the majority of cars are EVs it will cause more degradation of road surfaces at junctions because of the combination of greater weight and torque. I don't know if this will be significant, I expect someone will do the maths.

One thing I've noticed in road damage that I don't really remember is roads splitting in the direction of travel to produce a gully. Its fairly obvious on Dixons bank and also on the road between the gables and cherry Hill. On the A66 round Darlington it looks as if the top layer of tarmac has been laid in 3 parallel strips and the join where the 3 strips meet is failing.

 

[Laughing]

Yeah, sorry I was wrong with the first part, EV's do start with higher torque and use that no matter what, but it's not the maximum as people assume, albeit it does get there extremely quickly, then the torque curve later drops off over higher speeds, and there's no way of increasing it (as you have no rev control), which is also why most EV's are crap top speed, unless they have more than one gear (my current one has two gears, but this is not common).

The way I understand it is ICE cars are like nil torque at 0 rpm, but then when you get to 1000 rpm or whatever it takes to move the car, and then 2000-3000rpm etc the torque is pretty much near it's peak, then you just have gears to extend that max torque/ power range and convert that into more speed.

Either way, to to turn an equally sized wheel at the same speed to provide the same momentum would require the exact same torque or effective power at the wheels as this is the only thing which can turn the wheel. Of course the extra weight (maybe 10-15%) will make a tiny difference, the same way it does with 2ltr diesels v 1.5 ltr petrol etc, but nothing compared to a wagon or a bus etc. But again a lot of this weight is due to a big battery and because people think they need 200-300 mile range or whatever, and the car companies are basically forced into doing it to cure peoples irrational range anxiety, or to cater for a range they won't even use. There should have been more emphasis on faster charging with smaller batteries, better all round, but it's coming.

A lot of the EV's had this torque and speed available easily though, and it was largely higher spec cars hitting the market, which is why they're pretty much all rapid, it was a major selling point. They can certainly make them with less torque/power/speed and add gears accordingly, but there's been no market for it as low speed road wear being slightly different is probably not in their minds. Maybey we think about it more as our roads are terrible?

I described that other point really bad too, and was very wrong the way I described it, all cars are probably equal travelling over the same tarmac in a straight line, regardless of speed, but I expect it changes quickly with turning at speed, especially at high speed as does the balance and momentum of the car, which is why the tyres wear out faster when ragging it around bends. This probably hurts cars with more roll due to higher COG or worse weight distribution, which maybe works in EV's favour but seems a small point, which I'm not pushing!

I see a lot of sinking at junctions where the tarmac has been laid poorly or the sub base has settled more due to the area being subject to more live load, a lot more often, but significant or noticeable wear through EV's just seems a bit far fetched to me. I've had an EV and a hybrid on a brand new tarmac drive (soft compared to a road) for two years and it's still pretty much immaculate all over, no difference from the wheel area to the other areas, and that's with two really big cars. I can't imaging it was laid exceptionally well either. This is one of the reasons also why I don't really think the "extra" wear is really a thing.

You are a long way out here Andy. It doesn't require the same torque to turn a wheel far from it.

With ice vehicles the max torque is for a very small range on the rev band and it is significantly less than an electric car.

Furthermore an electric car uses 100% of its torque from a couple of feet up to about 45 mph. In other words it's moving using max torque 99%of the time around town.

A petrol car, driven around town is using a lot less torque than than an eV.

No idea of the impact on roads though.

 

[SmallTown]

You are a long way out here Andy. It doesn't require the same torque to turn a wheel far from it.

With ice vehicles the max torque is for a very small range on the rev band and it is significantly less than an electric car.

Furthermore an electric car uses 100% of its torque from a couple of feet up to about 45 mph. In other words it's moving using max torque 99%of the time around town.

A petrol car, driven around town is using a lot less torque than than an eV.

No idea of the impact on roads though.

I'm not sure this is true though? Surely that's only if the driver fully depresses the accelerator? Asking for all the power and torque to be sent to the wheels?

My car, for example, has 639nM of torque. Surely if I apply all of that at a standing start it'll just spin the wheels?

 

[Andy_W]

You are a long way out here Andy. It doesn't require the same torque to turn a wheel far from it.

With ice vehicles the max torque is for a very small range on the rev band and it is significantly less than an electric car.

Furthermore an electric car uses 100% of its torque from a couple of feet up to about 45 mph. In other words it's moving using max torque 99%of the time around town.

A petrol car, driven around town is using a lot less torque than than an eV.

No idea of the impact on roads though.

I 100% get what you're saying, but if we assume we have two wheels of the same size, same tyre spec, same car weight (and everything else) and same take off speed, and turn the wheels at the same rpm (they have to or the car would go faster, or spin the wheels), then the turning force applied at the ground to break friction and get the car to move would be the exact same thing, wouldn't it? Whether one car has more torque available quicker than the other shouldn't really matter, it just breaks that friction earlier.

The EV 100% can break friction quicker as there is more torque available quicker, but they both have to break friction with the same turning force/ torque, it's the only thing which can break the friction. What else is there? Torque is the only thing turning the wheel, so if all those were the same for EV and ICE then the output to the tarmac would be the same? Obviously if the EV was heavier then it would take more torque to break friction, but this weight difference might only be 10%, but that could be the same with any heavier car? To me it's the weight having more of an impact than torque, as it's that dictating the turning force required to break friction .

It's not like EV's are wheelspinning every time they move, and most cars now have computer systems in place to prevent this. I can only spin the wheels on mine when I put it in launch mode, but all that seems to do is wreck the tyres, rather than the road

 

[Andy_W]

I'm not sure this is true though? Surely that's only if the driver fully depresses the accelerator? Asking for all the power and torque to be sent to the wheels?

It's also not so much what you ask for, it's what the computer/ car gives you too, in most modes on mine it's not possible to spin the wheels, so even if the torque from the motor was theoretically at max, that's not making it to the wheels, and the car only moves when it breaks friction.

My car, for example, has 639nM of torque. Surely if I apply all of that at a standing start it'll just spin the wheels?

Yeah, it would, the output is probably being controlled by stability management or something else, like you say it has to be or the wheels would spin and break friction far too quickly, and continue to do that, which doesn't happen.

Not that I'm saying it's not easier for the EV (or electric motor) to spin the wheels, if it wanted to, as it could, but it just doesn't unless you really specifically ask it to. To do that on mine means being at a stop, selecting the fastest mode of 4, holding in the brake, flooring the accelerator at standstill and then releasing the brake, and I've probably done that maybe three times. But even then, I doubt I can do doughnuts in mine, overcoming friction with too much torque, the car just probably wouldn't let me, where as you can probably do that fairly easily in any geared car with enough HP (which is derived from toque).

 

[Laughing]

I 100% get what you're saying, but if we assume we have two wheels of the same size, same tyre spec, same car weight (and everything else) and same take off speed, and turn the wheels at the same rpm (they have to or the car would go faster, or spin the wheels), then the turning force applied at the ground to break friction and get the car to move would be the exact same thing, wouldn't it?

The EV 100% can break friction quicker as there is more torque available quicker, but they both have to break friction with the same turning force/ torque, it's the only thing which can break the friction. What else is there? Torque is the only thing turning the wheel, so if all those were the same for EV and ICE then the output to the tarmac would be the same? Obviously if the EV was heavier then it would take more torque to break friction, but this weight difference might only be 10%, but that could be the same with any heavier car? To me it's the weight having more of an impact than torque, as it's that dictating the turning force required to break friction .

It's not like EV's are wheelspinning every time they move, and most cars now have computer systems in place to prevent this. I can only spin the wheels on mine when I put it in launch mode, but all that seems to do is wreck the tyres, rather than the road

Not quite. Torque isn't what spins the wheel but the force applied between the rubber and the road. What spins the wheel is the rate of speed of the wheel and inertia which is based on the amount of rubber in contact with the road. Essentially overcoming friction. The force applied to the road surface is key here.

It's easier to spin wheels with more torque, but it isn't necessary. My car has very little torque but I can spin the wheels with driver aids off. I can drift the b***r too. I think I have 288 nM. A standard model 3 has 420 nM. Performance EV's have insane amounts of torque.

If you think of torque as the amount of work an engine can do and horsepower how fast it can do the work. It's an anology but gets the point across.

You don't need to spin the wheels to be applying more torque. EV's apply high torque most of the time. It reduces at take-off and above 45 miles an hour. The rest of the time torque is applied. Even at a constant speed an electric motor applies all of the torque available to it. Not sure this has any additional impact on the surface thougheven if less torque was applied.

As I say I have no idea what effect this has on the road surface. What I would say is that breaking is breaking whether it's motor breaking or mechanical breaking. Negative deceleration will effect the road surface the same way that positive acceleration.

 

[Andy_W]

Not quite. Torque isn't what spins the wheel but the force applied between the rubber and the road. What spins the wheel is the rate of speed of the wheel and inertia which is based on the amount of rubber in contact with the road. Essentially overcoming friction. The force applied to the road surface is key here.

It's easier to spin wheels with more torque, but it isn't necessary. My car has very little torque but I can spin the wheels with driver aids off. I can drift the b***r too. I think I have 288 nM. A standard model 3 has 420 nM. Performance EV's have insane amounts of torque.

If you think of torque as the amount of work an engine can do and horsepower how fast it can do the work. It's an anology but gets the point across.

You don't need to spin the wheels to be applying more torque. EV's apply high torque most of the time. It reduces at take-off and above 45 miles an hour. The rest of the time torque is applied. Even at a constant speed an electric motor applies all of the torque available to it. Not sure this has any additional impact on the surface thougheven if less torque was applied.

As I say I have no idea what effect this has on the road surface. What I would say is that breaking is breaking whether it's motor breaking or mechanical breaking. Negative deceleration will effect the road surface the same way that positive acceleration.

Yeah, that's sort of what I'm getting at, but if the EV breaks friction at 0.2 seconds and the ICE 0.5 seconds, then the turning force on the wheel would still be the same when the friction is broken, the EV can just get to that point quicker. The same as before friction is broken (for those 0.2 or 0.5 seconds) there isn't enough turning force being delivered to move the car, so no damage is being done to the road etc?

I would assume the highest point of resistance/ damage to the road would be when the friction is broken, unless spinning the wheels, but both cars need to break that friction and do the same damage when they do that, all other things being equal.

I suppose I'm getting at how it's finally delivered to the wheels and then ultimately to the road would be no different, unless the weight was higher/ friction was higher etc.

Like a say, I'm not saying the EV motor couldn't tear up the road quicker, as it has a far easier potential to do this quickly, but it's definitely being limited along the line, as if you drive "normally" then every time you move off it's steady away.