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

111–120 of 275 posts

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

#111

Post by mikestorrent »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #80
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!

Doesn't TPMS take care of that? Though, it seems like it's being done in software now to save costs...

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

#112

Post by phainopepla2 »

kingnothing wrote: post #70
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.

https://flickeralliance.org/ will help you find good quality bulbs

The linked page works fine for me, but when I navigate to any of the other pages (for example: https://flickeralliance.org/collections/flicker-free-light-b...) it just shows me an ad for an Indonesian online casino. Anyone else getting this?

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

#114

Post by mdasen »

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…

Yes, there are trade-offs, but you can get really great tires on all three. The Michelin CrossClimate2 tires are arguably the best traction tires, Consumer Reports estimates 95,000 miles of tread life in their testing (higher than basically anything else), and they got a 4/5 for rolling resistance on Consumer Reports' dynamometer testing.

There's a lot of tires that are poorly made and just bad tires. For example, one tire got 2/5 for rolling resistance, tested to 55,000 miles for tread, and 2/5 and 3/5 ratings for the traction categories like wet braking, snow traction, ice braking.

I'm not arguing that there aren't trade-offs, but tire companies have been working to make better tires that minimize the trade-offs and produce better tires on all three.

> The rule is “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.”

It sounds like the rule isn't exactly that strict. This (combined with the fact that all season tires aren't covered) presents a very low bar. But there are tires that are just garbage - they're bad at all three. It doesn't sound like this rule would impact good tires that have very long tread life and amazing traction. It sounds like it'd impact the tires that are a pile of garbage.

There's a difference between a tire that trades off a small portion of rolling resistance for traction and tire wear and tires that are poorly made and are trading off a huge amount of one or two of those categories because they're just bad tires.

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

#115

Post by nrclark »

phainopepla2 wrote: post #112
kingnothing wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://flickeralliance.org/ will help you find good quality bulbs

The linked page works fine for me, but when I navigate to any of the other pages (for example: https://flickeralliance.org/collections/flicker-free-light-b... ) it just shows me an ad for an Indonesian online casino. Anyone else getting this?

Same for me.

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

#116

Post by surfmike »

jwr wrote: post #63

The EU has been using a single mandatory tire-label system that has an "efficiency" category, among others, so that you can see the tradeoffs, since 2021. But of course, the EU is over-regulated, let's laugh at the EU :-)

California is also over regulated.

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

#117

Post by frevib »

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…

There are trade-offs, but there huge differences in quality between say a Michelin or Pirelli and a cheap Chinese brand.

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

#118

Post by sageinventor »

phainopepla2 wrote: post #112
kingnothing wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://flickeralliance.org/ will help you find good quality bulbs

The linked page works fine for me, but when I navigate to any of the other pages (for example: https://flickeralliance.org/collections/flicker-free-light-b... ) it just shows me an ad for an Indonesian online casino. Anyone else getting this?

same here

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

#120

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

winrid wrote: post #33
Schiendelman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you get LED lightbulbs you like online?

Yeah, the Philips EyeComfort Flicker Free bulbs. Which HD used to sell. Now it's 90% a couple other brands. The problem is landlords and normal people just go to home depot so every time I move it's a giant replace bulbs fiasco (or even replacing fixtures).

Sounds like the problem is HD/Lowes driving all other alternatives out of business.
Post reply on HN