California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by mikestorrent » Wed, Aug 19, 2026, 11:23 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #228

kuerbel wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Northern Germany so a temperate climate all in all, although nowadays it gets really hot during the summer. Well everyone says they are a good driver, and probably they are not. But I like to drive in a way that I rarely if ever have to engage the breaks. I also try to spread the regen distance if that makes sense, so it doesn't do a hard stop but slows down... gently over a longer distance. And when it com…

Every time you enter regen, you're engaging the brakes as far as the tires are concerned.

Somewhat true, but you don't get brake fade from it, and since the slowdown is more gradual you shouldn't be asking anywhere near as much from the tires as you would be under real braking.

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

#262

Post by mikestorrent » Wed, Aug 19, 2026, 11:24 PM UTC

ohlookman wrote: post #127

mikestorrent wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Californians could dream up a stupid program like this and pretend that it's environmentally protective to send a ton more tire particles into the ecosystem, while costing consumers more, and probably increasing their carbon footprint at the manufacturing level, just to get shitty tires that might make a car a tiny bit more efficient. I had a set of these low-rolling-resistance tires stock on an early FWD EV I h…

> probably increasing their carbon footprint at the manufacturing level This is auto consumers carbon footprint; not just you but you too. There is little value to physical reality segmenting rhetorically between "rich and poor" or "consumers and businesses". The carbon footprint is due to human activity full stop. Trying to live in rhetorical bubbles is trying to maintain social moats; stick to the script and you're…

> This is auto consumers carbon footprint; not just you but you too.

I know that, no need to be patronizing, if you read what I said, I clearly want a lower carbon footprint all around. Sorry if you read weasel words into my statement. Wasn't the intention.

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

#263

Post by lazide » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 12:55 AM UTC

testing22321 wrote: post #260

lazide wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, clearly you have no experience with California and these types of decisions.

lol, better just give up and accept no improvement then.

The point is, it is no actual improvement.

But then, you likely are fully aware of that eh?

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

#264

Post by simulator5g » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 1:29 AM UTC

larkost wrote: post #186

asa400 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely has good aspects, no doubt, but nothing about this is unquestionable. It’s significantly grayer due to all kinds of second order effects, even if you really believe in the problem and want to solve it. Depends on how many more accidents worse-gripping tires cause that result in more totaled vehicles that require replacement and what people replace them with. Depends on how much faster people have to rep…

You have started out with the assumption that these higher efficiency tires are worse gripping. However, the article states that the manufacturer-supplied tires are generally more efficient (in order to get the milage numbers they advertise), and that it is the third-party replacements that are worse. So either the manufacturer-supplied originals are more dangerous than replacement tires, or your argument is missing…

"the assumption that higher efficiency tires are worse gripping" This is fact not assumption. Ironically you are the one who made an assumption here. People who don't understand a topic should not attempt to regulate it based on assumptions.

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

#265

Post by moogly » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 4:21 AM UTC

hamdingers wrote: post #65

lukeify wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of this is a solvable problem, insofar to the best of my knowledge there is no fundamental workaround for the fact placing heavy objects moving fast on rough surfaces generates friction which leads to the erosion of surfaces? I think particulate pollution would be an acceptable outcome if the tires themselves were biodegradable over 10+ years. But to my understanding the vulcanisation process that's employed…

> insofar to the best of my knowledge there is no fundamental workaround May I introduce you to the steel wheel rolling on a steel rail?

Railway dust contains quite a bit of PM2.5, PM10 and NOx.

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

#266

Post by fellowniusmonk » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 5:21 AM UTC

KetoManx64 wrote: post #258

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because government self regulation totally works and the resources used up and the size of the government has not grown by such magnitudes that would make the founding fathers rethink the whole idea of democracy?

Ok, so no particular disagreement or pragmatic pitched alternative, great! I agree, structurally improved government and regulations is the only definable way forward for me too.

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

#267

Post by dmitrygr » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

Hugsbox wrote: post #253

dmitrygr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe single occupancy personal vehicles are wasteful and mass transportation should be invested in rather than shaming individual no amount of shaming will make me not consider my family's safety. mass transit in CA (eg: https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/nobody-feels-comfortab... ) is not safe due to lack of serious policing. my family is prohibited from taking mass transit in usa. It is ok in japan and singap…

I'd imagine a serious effort to invest in mass transportation would include an investment in safety. Are you suggesting Japan and Singapore are just inherently safer, without having actively done anything to make it that way? "my family is prohibited" christ almighty

The dirt (ground) of japan and singapore is not magic and does not confer safety, if that is what you are asking. It is a factor of something else

> "my family is prohibited" christ almighty

Yes, I take their safety seriously.

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

#268

Post by butlike » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC

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…

You should have grippy tires when traversing those mountains.

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

#269

Post by ragall » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 8:45 PM UTC

AngryData wrote: post #259

ragall wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tire manufacturers tend to have different compounds for Europe (focused on lower rolling resistance) and North America (focused on traction and a wider range of working temperatures). I'd guess that California will now simply get the EU variants instead of the NA variants.

I would assume US tires also focus more on milage too. Europeans don't drive as far and you don't really want a bunch of old aged tires still driving around even if they got the tread.

Precisely because NA drivers drive a lot more, NA compounds are more focused on durability rather than increasing car mileage. EU drivers are alright with less durable compounds because rubber gets cooked after a few years and would have to be replaced anyway.

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

#270

Post by shaboinkin » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 8:47 PM UTC

Slightly tangential, but I wonder how much energy savings could be had if street light timings factored in the energy it takes to get cars moving from a stop to the posted speed limit from one intersection to the next. Terrible light timings around my area mean 20-30 cars all start getting to move only to stop a short distance later because one car on a side street happened to approach the sensor when a larger intersection turned green, which leads to a snowball affect where the timings at the next major intersection don’t consider the odd side street breaking the flow, causing more and more timing issues. This affects not just gas/electricity usage but also tire and brake wear.