Live data from Hacker News

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

grist.org

61–70 of 275 posts

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

#61
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.

Also I would get tires changed in Nevada in this case.

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

#62

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 consumpti…

[flagged]

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

#64
post #54
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…

[flagged]

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

#65
post #28

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…

> insofar to the best of my knowledge there is no fundamental workaround

May I introduce you to the steel wheel rolling on a steel rail?

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

#66
The staff report [0] seems pretty reasonable. Essentially manufacturers measure their tires using ISO 28580:2018 [1] and self-report to a future state tire portal. I wish that test was available when I last bought tires and look forward to seeing it next go round.

Undoubtably, consumers will quickly adopt tires in an exempt category like "Specialty tires, including certain off-road tires, low-speed tires, deep-tread tires, winter snow tires, space-saver tires, and temporary-use tires" and the unintended consequence will be that vehicle energy efficiency as a whole will decline.

0. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=269612

1. https://www.scribd.com/document/915700524/ISO-28580-2018

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

#67

...“designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold in the state as original equipment.” My nose for unintended consequences says manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average. That being said, the quoted figures do sound good. Maybe less compelling in someplace like Texas with very low gas prices: The energy c…

These calculations cannot possibly be true. That extra cost is way too small when tires have such a wide range of prices.

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

#68
post #50
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. It seems like they will just give them one leaf marking and not outlaw them outright, though?

Right. If they wanted to ban things this would basically ban all knobby tires too wouldn’t it? This is a primarily a labeling law it seems so people don’t get accidentally screwed. Seems like a good idea to me.

> Right. If they wanted to ban things this would basically ban all knobby tires too wouldn’t it?

Those will be exempt from testing/labelling.

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

#69
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…

Fine, but in that case the trucking companies should also be able to bill the state for all damage caused to their vehicles by badly maintained roads. Maybe every pothole should have an ID so that damage caused by it can be traced back and billed to the state responsible for managing that part of the road? Better still, have rules about maintenance for both roads as well as vehicles, use regular (yearly, past-the-win…

That's backwards, trucks are the cause of most road damage in the first place. Trucking companies should pay enormous fees to use the roads given the disproportionate amount of damage they do to them[1].

It should be cost prohibitive to use trucks for anything but local deliveries. Before you say "this will increase costs for consumers," recognize consumers are already paying for these roads.

1. https://roadtax.carlitelb.org/

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

#70
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.

https://flickeralliance.org/ will help you find good quality bulbs
Post reply on HN