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

241–250 of 275 posts

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

#241

Post by kelnos »

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.

> And, they won't be repealing the gas tax. They'll be adding a mileage tax on top of the gas tax.

If that incentivizes more people to buy EVs and drop their gas vehicles, that's great. And I say this as a driver of a gas-powered car with not-the-best MPG.

Of course, the problem with this is that new EVs are expensive, and the kinds of people who drive older, inefficient ICE cars are the kinds of people who probably can't afford a new EV. (Not sure what the used market is looking like, though.)

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

#242

Post by WarmWash »

VorpalWay wrote: post #190
lokar wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As a Scandinavian that sounds normal, and has been my entire life. In fact you don't need to buy gas to use the free air or water, it is just out in the open in a service cabinet or on the side of the building. (There is sometimes a sign that the water is only for cleaning your windows / mixing windshield fluid from concentrate, not for filling up RVs, and the flow is very slow.) I'm curious, do they actually check t…

We have some free air stations in the US around me, but they are rare, and people absolutely beat the shit of them. Half the time they're broken :(

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

#243

Post by WarmWash »

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).

It's not that they go to home depot, it's that they buy whatever is cheapest because "LED bulb = LED bulb", and then talk about how LED bulbs are trash.

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

#244

Post by WarmWash »

LoganDark wrote: post #239
preg_match wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know that they are illegal, but they are legitimately useless. You can get high-quality LED bulbs and very warm LED bulbs. All my LEDs are about as warm, maybe even warmer, than incandescents. Like orange in color. LEDs are universally better. They use way less energy and last way, way longer. The end result is you save a shit ton of money.

I don't like warm lighting and especially orange lighting. But it's nearly impossible to find cool lighting that doesn't flicker like mad. Even adjustable color temperature fixtures usually don't reach anywhere near their rated brightness at the coolest color temperature...

https://store.waveformlighting.com/products/centric-daylight...

Pricey but they are flicker free

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

#245

Post by scotty79 »

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…

Tires that wear out quickly don't sound good for the economy or the environment. So that probably should be constrained too. So the companies can finally focus on delivering maximum grip for bounded wear and efficiency instead of juggling all three to the music played by marketing.

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

#246

Post by scotty79 »

angiolillo wrote: post #156

Too bad they didn't just require manufacturers to publish a rolling resistance efficiency score for tires, like the EU does, rather than a mandate with so many unintended consequences and loopholes. (That would be especially effective at influencing consumer behavior if paired with higher carbon fees.)

Manufacturers should be forced to publish basically everything about the products they introduce into the market. Freedom of information laws should apply to large manufacturers.

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

#247

Post by LoganDark »

WarmWash wrote: post #244
LoganDark wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like warm lighting and especially orange lighting. But it's nearly impossible to find cool lighting that doesn't flicker like mad. Even adjustable color temperature fixtures usually don't reach anywhere near their rated brightness at the coolest color temperature...

https://store.waveformlighting.com/products/centric-daylight... Pricey but they are flicker free

Not actually as pricey as my current bulbs, but undimmable and about 70% less lumen output (visually about 30% less bright). It does have a MUCH better CRI though.

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

#248

Post by randerson »

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…

My Mach-E came with CrossClimate2 tires and I am not impressed. I've accidentally lit up all 4 tires under hard acceleration on a dry road, despite 5000 lbs pushing them into the ground and some amount of traction control still active.

I have a lighter sports car making similar power, on Michelin Pilot 4S summer tires. That car just grips and goes with barely a squeal. Good summer tires also have far better wet performance than CC2s, and they provide better feedback.. you feel more planted and in control.

I am impressed overall with the CC2's ability to be a true all-rounder that is usable in snow, but it is still an exercise in trade-offs and it'll never be as good as any purpose-built tire is at its purpose.

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

#249

Post by fellowniusmonk »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #222
ahartmetz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about when the market fails customers, still no government involvement? Food and drugs regulation, environment stuff (you are here) and so on?

The US military-industrial complex is the single largest institutional hydrocarbon consumer and greenhouse gas emitter on the planet. It would be pretty stupid for me to listen to the government's advice about how best we should preserve the environment.

So the issue is under regulation, yeah, agree on that point.

Sounds like the only reasonable solution to the problem you raise is that the part of our government that's responsible for defense should be put under the seperate part that is responsible for protecting our environment instead of being exempt. I can't see any other real way of resolving that issue can you?

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

#250

Post by frumper »

lokar wrote: post #165
Aurornis wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure about your imagination. If people had worse tires then it would be even more difficult to go straight from the far left lane to the offramp 20 above the flow of traffic. /s
Post reply on HN