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

161–170 of 275 posts

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

#161

Post by tonymet »

When WA launched the CCA , claiming it would cost only pennies, it ended up costing a lot more per tank. The claimed emissions reduction was very large, and the actual reduction was negligible.

This program claims 2 MMT reduction per year, but that assumes 100% adoption , after they move past the voluntary restrictions , into mandatory restrictions, and will eventually require on-road tread enforcement.

Are you okay with being pulled over for the wrong tread? it's annoying enough to face snow chains enforcement.

The only way to reach 100% adoption is with highway tread enforcement. Like we do for highway emissions enforcement.

What do you think they will use the Flock cameras for?

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

#162

Post by jerlam »

AlexandrB wrote: post #74
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.

Apparently many new cars come with tires with less than normal tread, one of the reasons is to have greater fuel economy.

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

#163

Post by Lwerewolf »

legitster wrote: post #133
mdasen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's worth pointing out the CrossClimate2 tires are all-seasons and exempt from the requirement. The 4/5 is specific to Consumer Reports all-season category - actual efficiency is going to be noticeably lower than the high efficiency tires they are talking about in the article. But you're not wrong in general. There are a lot of garbage tires. And that's not even considering the intentionally "bad" tires like the kno…

You just need social stigma on bad tires. It's the single most important thing on your vehicle, for literally all the reasons out there.

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

#164

Post by lokar »

fearmerchant wrote: post #159
hadlock wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They don't perform as well as winter tires in the winter, and A lot of people don't live in climates where winter tires are even sold; particularly California, Texas, Florida, three of the most populous states. Many people in those states aren't even aware "winter tires" are even a product category. That's like complaining the Walmart in Anchorage, Alaska doesn't carry SPF 50 sunscreen.

You're gonna want SPF 50 in Alaska too.

And also a dedicated set of tires for the winter, that have studs in them.

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

#165

Post by lokar »

Aurornis wrote: post #150
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 Californ…

It's hard to imagine median driver performance is SoCal being any worse in heavy rain than it already is.

I'm not sure the tires matter all that much if you don't alter your driving at all.

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

#166

Post by kingnothing »

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?

That's unfortunate. I've found it to be a valuable resource in the past. Hopefully they are able to recover their site.

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

#167

Post by lokar »

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!

We are part way there, gas stations are required to provide free air and a gauge to customers buying gas.

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

#168

Post by jerlam »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #120
winrid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Although I only found the highly-rated Philips Ultra Definition bulbs at Walmart, of all places.

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

#169

Post by scottbez1 »

parineum wrote: post #131
winrid wrote: post #36

Probably the weirdest thing about this is the state doing something that results in it getting less tax money. This was lobbied for by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I assume you mean about buying less (taxed) gas. Never fear, California is also talking about shifting to a mileage baded road tax because EVs (which they heavily incentivized) saving money on gas can't go untaxed.

Gas tax has always been a proxy metric for mileage in order to implement usage based costs to help offset the many billions of dollars California spends maintaining roads every year.

Gas as a proxy for mileage breaks down with widespread EV usage, so even though they are a benefit for many reasons with incentivizing, they still require expensive road upkeep so should not be immune from usage taxation.

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

#170

Post by lokar »

mlsu wrote: post #145
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.

You can buy really good LED lights. Pretty much everything sold at Home Depot is junk, not just light bulbs.
Post reply on HN