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

Post by KetoManx64 » Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 11:18 PM UTC

Lwerewolf wrote: post #163

legitster wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ragall » Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 11:32 PM UTC

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…

Post by cucumber3732842 » Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 11:51 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #175

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then people will drive around with them at 60psi (i.e. doable but not great for a car tire) and wonder why they keep breaking belts.

Because that could not also be a citable offense?

Post by testing22321 » Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 11:55 PM UTC

missinglugnut wrote: post #176

testing22321 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Discount tire estimates 70% of the current tire options will be illegal to sell in CA. Millions of people will be pushed into different tires than they have based on a limited list of options. Many of those as alternative tires will wear out faster, causing increased particulate pollution and wasting people's money. Many of those tires will cost more money than they save in gas. The limited options on less common siz…

Post by winrid » Wed, Aug 19, 2026, 12:42 AM UTC

parineum wrote: post #200

scottbez1 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or, spitballing here, let the gas tax reprieve be the incentive and don't offer a rebate for EVs. Regardless, gas tax is a stupid way to pay for roads. Everyone uses roads, whether they drive on them or not. And, they won't be repealing the gas tax. They'll be adding a mileage tax on top of the gas tax.