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

51–60 of 275 posts

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

#51

Post by Drunk_Engineer »

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…

This company is working on a pollution capture device:

https://thetyrecollective.com

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

#52

Post by MBCook »

tzs wrote: post #45
Rebelgecko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They have a 32 bit ID, assigned sequentially during manufacture, with no coordination among manufacturers to avoid overlap. There will certainly be collisions. Those can often be disambiguated though because there is almost no standardization of anything else about the transmission. The closest thing to a standard is that most either operate in the 315 MHz band (which is mostly older ones in North America and Asia) o…

Aren’t they also removed when you get new tires, so you don’t have to replace them?

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

#53

Post by MBCook »

matchbok3 wrote: post #42
holgerschurig wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So about 1% of a 1% of a market. Got it. All of the information about the tires is already available. There is no new information, just duplicated. If a large number of consumers actually cared about their tires drag coefficient we wouldn't be having this conversation, because a large number of consumers already cared about their tires drag coefficient. But nobody does and this law will not change anything.

The fact that information is available somewhere is very different from making it available easily to the consumer right when they need it.

What possible argument is there against that?

Do you really think most consumers didn’t care? Or do you think most consumers don’t even know? Cause I’m willing to bet it’s number two.

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

#54

Post by jp57 »

tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

This. My wife and I both thought the low-rolling-resistance tires on our hybrids felt very unsafe in the rain. My Audi A3-etron's tires were also by far the least durable tires I have had on a car in my 40+ years of driving. I prematurely replaced or repaire more tires on that car in 8 years than on all the other cars I've had put together.

I eventually switched to a midsize truck, because I need to do some light towing sometimes, and my first thought was, it feels so much safer in the rain.

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

#55

Post by benji-york »

MBCook wrote: post #48
tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

Seems right to me. So what is the right way then?

Iterated games.

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

#56

Post by bb123 »

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.

I don't think it's just because they are "energy efficient". Teslas are heavy, powerful vehicles. The tires they need are usually rated for extra load (XL), and have a high speed rating (W/Y). If you went for EV tyres they likely contain an acoustic lining too as road noise is more noticeable in one. Unclear if that's really needed though. Either way it sounds like you went for premium tires which is probably the right choice for a ~400hp, 2 ton car.

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

#57

Post by deaton »

jp57 wrote: post #54
tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

This. My wife and I both thought the low-rolling-resistance tires on our hybrids felt very unsafe in the rain. My Audi A3-etron's tires were also by far the least durable tires I have had on a car in my 40+ years of driving. I prematurely replaced or repaire more tires on that car in 8 years than on all the other cars I've had put together. I eventually switched to a midsize truck, because I need to do some light tow…

I had some Michelin Energy Savers on my Chevy Volt for a while. Got 25k miles out of them before they were toast. They were awful, noisy, no grip, and I didn't realize how bad they were until I got some much better tires.

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

#58

Post by benji-york »

Schiendelman wrote: post #31
winrid wrote: post #19

TIL we have LED lightbulb rules but every bulb in home depot has terrible PWM that's bad for your eyes. Another 20 years and maybe the government will finally address that. On the tires topic, I'm fine with this as long as they don't ban the sale of anything. Let the consumer decide.

Can you get LED lightbulbs you like online?

Can you get (non-LED) lightbulbs you like online?

No. They are illegal.

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

#59

Post by RajuChacha108 »

MBCook wrote: post #48
tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

Seems right to me. So what is the right way then?

Let people buy whatever they want.

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

#60

Post by undersuit »

MBCook wrote: post #48
tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

Seems right to me. So what is the right way then?

Driving slower in the rain?
Post reply on HN