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

71–80 of 275 posts

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

#71

Post by legitster »

There are basically three major trade-off when it comes to tire compounds: rolling resistance, traction, and tire wear. You can pick 2 of the 3.

When you shop for tires, manufacturers will try to make this eminently clear in the marketing - you pay a premium for tires that maximize on one or two of these features.

The changes that California is proposing basically means you are going to have to choose between traction and tire wear when shopping. Either super slippery tires, or tires that wear out quickly (hence why manufacturers are potentially behind the proposal).

> The rule also comes with exemptions including snow tires and those used in competition. All-weather tires are also excluded, but the state will track them, as that growing segment may be regulated in the future.

All-Weathers are excluded! Realistically this is a program that would only be effective in California.

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

#72

Post by Gabrys1 »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #3

...“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…

the original tires on my 2016 mazda 6 I bought new from a dealer in California were quite bad. Dunlop something. Bad on wet, okay on dry, lasted for short time. Replaced them after 2 years if I recall correctly. I wonder if original tires are any better 10 years later...

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

#73

Post by butvacuum »

winrid wrote: post #35
diggernet wrote: post #34

"...adopt a replacement tire efficiency program “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 on new passenger cars and light-duty trucks.” Replacement tires are those purchased by drivers to replace existing tires." Tires are not car-specific. This sounds like you couldn't just go out and buy some random tir…

It's "on average", so no, you still can. And what are they gonna do if you just go to the tire store and say I want X tires? So of course none of this will be enforced. It's just to provide the little leaf indicator.

It is already difficult to get most aftermarket parts in california- especially things in the combustion path. Can't even buy them off ebay.

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

#74

Post by AlexandrB »

legitster wrote: post #71

There are basically three major trade-off when it comes to tire compounds: rolling resistance, traction, and tire wear. You can pick 2 of the 3. When you shop for tires, manufacturers will try to make this eminently clear in the marketing - you pay a premium for tires that maximize on one or two of these features. The changes that California is proposing basically means you are going to have to choose between tractio…

Yeah, it's a weird move to legislate this kind of trade-off, especially when one of the competing factors is tire wear. Making new tires takes energy too! If I was paranoid, I'd say the tire lobby was involved here and looking for an excuse to sell more lower durability tires.

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

#76

Post by Gabrys1 »

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 is measurable and actionable. Some tires pollute more, some less

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

#77

Post by cucumber3732842 »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #3

...“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…

>My nose for unintended consequences says manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average.

They already do. They mostly do it for handling and NVH though. And tire makers compete pretty seriously to be the OEM tire on a given car because it's a guaranteed-ish number of sales plus subsequent sales from all the people who just buy the same thing because clearly those work fine why think about it.

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

#78

Post by Gabrys1 »

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.

So, your Honda is worth $400?

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

#79

Post by advisedwang »

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).

The article seems to contradict this:

> Reducing the rolling resistance of a tire isn’t technically that difficult, said Fadie. Incorporating more silica, for example, improves not only efficiency but traction as well. Rubber chemistry and tread designs can also lead to gains

and the quoted opposition never mentions this fact either, which you'd think they would.

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

#80

Post by hnuser123456 »

legitster wrote: post #71

There are basically three major trade-off when it comes to tire compounds: rolling resistance, traction, and tire wear. You can pick 2 of the 3. When you shop for tires, manufacturers will try to make this eminently clear in the marketing - you pay a premium for tires that maximize on one or two of these features. The changes that California is proposing basically means you are going to have to choose between tractio…

If they're looking to improve tire energy efficiency with regulation, shouldn't they also make it a citable offense to drive with tires inflated below 30psi? You could probably even train a ML algorithm to recognize images of vehicles with underinflated tires, and send the driver a reminder!
Post reply on HN