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

141–150 of 275 posts

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

#141

Post by tzs »

MBCook wrote: post #52
tzs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They are usually attached to the base of the valve stem, so if you are just putting on new tires they don't even need to be touched.

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

#142

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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…

Which will just mean that people stop tossing them places they're easy to see and instead throw them into bodies of water or holes in the ground.

You wanna stop people littering tires, make it easy/cheap to get rid of them the right way. Pretty much all the problems in the municipal solid waste industry trace back to some shortsighted "environmentalists" trying to financially punish people for not behaving how they prefer, distorting the market and thereby keeping various types of waste from getting into the hands of the relevant disposal industries.

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

#143

Post by cucumber3732842 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #134
hnuser123456 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

That’s probably sooner than you think. DOTs are intercepting trucks with drones and measuring wheel temperatures and other metrics to do targeted enforcement rather than pulling over every truck. There’s also pilots of road sensors that can weigh trucks and perhaps other metrics.

Which really is just a revenue game but one with a good eough pretext you can sell it to average dumbass voter. All the "serious" overloading is non-CDL box trucks anyway and has been forever. The road scales are easily gamed, or just avoided.

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

#144

Post by serf »

mdasen wrote: post #114
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, on…

>Yes, there are trade-offs, but you can get really great tires on all three.

there is another metric at play with Michelin, they're consistently one of the most expensive options in every segment.

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

#145

Post by mlsu »

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.

I replaced all the bulbs in my house with incandescents.

They use more electricity, but I don't really care. If we're going to build ten thousand gigawatt datacenters for every corporation on earth to stuff AI up my ass I will do as I please with the lighting in my own home and I rest easy about it, because of the very pleasant, warm, full spectrum glow that incandescents give off when dimmed.

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

#146

Post by testing22321 »

raspasov wrote: post #99

California has about 30 millions cars. $1B total fuel savings are … $33 per year, for a whooping less than $3 of fuel savings per car, per month. Thing of all the places you can go with that extra half a gallon, all the work you can accomplish with that large SBUX coffee. It’s all totally worth it.

Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page)

You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road.

Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now.

This is why the US doesn’t have nice things. You really can’t see past yourself.

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

#147

Post by happyopossum »

gopalv wrote: post #83
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).

> energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance This is a labelling law, not a "You can't buy the bumpy tires" law. This improves the quality of my choice here, because I already look for the little snowflake on tires when buying them for the 3 weekends I drive in the snow. I'd be revolting too if they banned all season tires over this, because I am not swapping winter tires for thanksgiving weekend, X…

> This is a labelling law, not a "You can't buy the bumpy tires" law.

No, the labeling part seems to be mostly secondary:

FTA

"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"

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

#148

Post by nomel »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #143
Spooky23 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s probably sooner than you think. DOTs are intercepting trucks with drones and measuring wheel temperatures and other metrics to do targeted enforcement rather than pulling over every truck. There’s also pilots of road sensors that can weigh trucks and perhaps other metrics.

Which really is just a revenue game but one with a good eough pretext you can sell it to average dumbass voter. All the "serious" overloading is non-CDL box trucks anyway and has been forever. The road scales are easily gamed, or just avoided.

> The road scales are easily gamed, or just avoided.

How are they easily gamed, without being able to shift the load as you roll over the scale?

And, at least in California, the scales are placed so that, to avoid them, you have to add a bunch of time to most routes.

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

#149

Post by esalman »

testing22321 wrote: post #146
raspasov wrote: post #99

California has about 30 millions cars. $1B total fuel savings are … $33 per year, for a whooping less than $3 of fuel savings per car, per month. Thing of all the places you can go with that extra half a gallon, all the work you can accomplish with that large SBUX coffee. It’s all totally worth it.

Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice…

Unfortunately I agree with this.

For example, CA has very strict environment protection laws and many people hate it.

But it's also the reason we get beautiful sky and nature all year round. When I was first landing on US soil in LA in 2015, I saw a layer of light gray smog out of the window. These days it's non-existent.

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

#150

Post by Aurornis »

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…

It's even worse than that. Rain performance and rolling resistance are conflicting goals. A good rain tire will need more voids to channel the water, but adding a lot of voids increases rolling resistance.

California is a large market. Tire manufacturers probably won't make many California-specific tires. They're going to try to adjust their tires to meet the California guidelines. The most populous areas of California aren't known for demanding a lot of rain tires.

So if you live somewhere with a lot of rain, your tire choices are about to get worse to appease regulations in a state you don't live in.

Post reply on HN