Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

grist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 275 posts

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#21

Post by murderfs »

Eueudhsbsj32 wrote: post #16
reenorap wrote: post #8

It cost me $1600 to change the 4 tires for my Tesla because they are “energy efficient” and matched my original tires. I do not want the tires for my other car to be this expensive. I don’t care about efficiency those tires are literally 4X the price of my other car a Honda.

Are the wheels a weird size? What stopped you from replacing them with regular tires?

Not the OP, but for my EV, it was a combination of higher load rating because batteries are heavy, tread compound needing to be different (more expensive) because of high torque requirements, and rolling resistance and tire noise being much more important for EVs than ICE cars.

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#24

Post by burnt-resistor »

Typically, there's a trade-off between rolling resistance/energy efficiency and traction/low noise. It's very easy to make long-lasting, efficient tires that are unsafe. It's difficult to make them both categories and quiet.

Maybe single occupancy personal vehicles are wasteful and mass transportation should be invested in rather than shaming individual into token behaviors compared to large-scale waste and consumption sources elsewhere in the economy?

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#25

Post by Rebelgecko »

gosub100 wrote: post #9

I would like to see a rule added that requires embedding a uuid for each tire so if you litter it, or your trucking company loses a re-tread, the state can chase you down and bill you, even years later. Upon selling a vehicle or replacing tires, your name is taken off the liability list and transferred to the new owner or shop. The retreads alone cost the state quite a bit and are dangerous to remove from the traffic…

Do TPMSs have uuids? Although I suppose it would just be a matter of time until Flock tracks those too, if they don't already

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#26

Post by holgerschurig »

matchbok3 wrote: post #2

What a silly law. If a tire is "inefficient" and therefore "bad", why can't California just ban the sale of them? Instead there will be a new government funded office and rating system with "leaf" icons that 95% of consumers will ignore completely. Like all types of laws like this, the "$1B" claim will never be reviewed or judged to see how accurate it is. (It's not, at all)

Because things aren't as simple as you make up.

"why can't California just ban the sale of them" -- because that infringes freedom too much? There are probably lots of special machines with tires (e.g. in construction, farming, mining) that absolutely need "bad tyres". Because only they work, e.g. due to construction form or physical properties like maximum pressure.

If some armchair person now goes here and outright bans all tyres that don't match some efficiency numbers ... then all of the users of such equipment will be punished. THAT would be an overreaching government action.

However, having some labels that indicate to those customers that care (and can care, because they don't have to consider other constraints) is actually something that enlarges freedom. You get the info, you can act on it, but you're still free to NOT act on it should the circumstances for that be okay. And ultimately it's you that decides this, not some government authority.

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#27

Post by Melatonic »

reenorap wrote: post #8

It cost me $1600 to change the 4 tires for my Tesla because they are “energy efficient” and matched my original tires. I do not want the tires for my other car to be this expensive. I don’t care about efficiency those tires are literally 4X the price of my other car a Honda.

Isnt that because it has crazy torque, AWD, and high weight?

Same thing with ebike tires vs normal bike tires

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#28

Post by lukeify »

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #23

I’d be much more interested in particulate pollution limits for tires.

How much of this is a solvable problem, insofar to the best of my knowledge there is no fundamental workaround for the fact placing heavy objects moving fast on rough surfaces generates friction which leads to the erosion of surfaces?

I think particulate pollution would be an acceptable outcome if the tires themselves were biodegradable over 10+ years. But to my understanding the vulcanisation process that's employed makes it impossible.

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#29

Post by danans »

reenorap wrote: post #8

It cost me $1600 to change the 4 tires for my Tesla because they are “energy efficient” and matched my original tires. I do not want the tires for my other car to be this expensive. I don’t care about efficiency those tires are literally 4X the price of my other car a Honda.

The energy efficient tires for my Chevy EV are $800 for a set of 4. You're paying the luxury car parts tax.

Re: California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year

#30

Post by Schiendelman »

lukeify wrote: post #28
hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #23

I’d be much more interested in particulate pollution limits for tires.

How much of this is a solvable problem, insofar to the best of my knowledge there is no fundamental workaround for the fact placing heavy objects moving fast on rough surfaces generates friction which leads to the erosion of surfaces? I think particulate pollution would be an acceptable outcome if the tires themselves were biodegradable over 10+ years. But to my understanding the vulcanisation process that's employed…

The real changes are to make them less toxic! There are a bunch of approaches to take there.
Post reply on HN