Live data from Hacker News

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

grist.org

101–110 of 275 posts

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

#101

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…

[deleted]

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

#102
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems right to me. So what is the right way then?

Let people buy whatever they want.

Tire wear is the largest source of micro plastic pollution and is likely the cause of a salmon population collapse in several PNW watersheds.

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

#103

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.

lol does $3 even buy you one small black coffee at Starbucks? I think it’s close to $5 for anything on their menu.

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

#104
post #103

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.

lol does $3 even buy you one small black coffee at Starbucks? I think it’s close to $5 for anything on their menu.

Watch out, though. That coffee may contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm!

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

#105
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let people buy whatever they want.

Tire wear is the largest source of micro plastic pollution and is likely the cause of a salmon population collapse in several PNW watersheds.

1. This is in California, not the PNW.

2. There are many other ways to help salmon and their habitat. If the goal is to help them, California’s massive budget could be applied in many more targeted and effective ways to helping the fish.

3. There’s no evidence that this specific piece of regulation will help salmon in any way.

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

#106

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.

This was 100% pushed by a lobby. Name me one legislator who has any detailed knowledge about tires, rolling resistance, traction, tread wear, and fuel economy. I guess there might be single-digit numbers of them in a state as big as CA but even there I'd be surprised.

And even if this was originated by an eco lobbiest group, tire manufactures would love regulation that forces everyone to buy more expensive tires.

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

#107
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So about 1% of a 1% of a market. Got it. All of the information about the tires is already available. There is no new information, just duplicated. If a large number of consumers actually cared about their tires drag coefficient we wouldn't be having this conversation, because a large number of consumers already cared about their tires drag coefficient. But nobody does and this law will not change anything.

The fact that information is available somewhere is very different from making it available easily to the consumer right when they need it. What possible argument is there against that? Do you really think most consumers didn’t care? Or do you think most consumers don’t even know? Cause I’m willing to bet it’s number two.

The argument is it's a waste of time, energy, and money that could be used elsewhere. If the creators of this law really thought this would change behavior, they would put a "review" into the law in 5 years with clear success metrics. But they don't, because this law, like many others, is all about signaling, and not results.

And no, most consumers do not care. Do you know how many people buy used tires because they can't afford new ones?

Sure, the information is more readily available. But what do you think the overlap is of people who care about very, very, very small improvements to tire efficiency and those who can't spend 10 seconds to look up the information themselves?

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

#108

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…

Hmm, I have these tires on my Model 3: https://www.contimediacenter.com/eulabel/en/03143300000/

After 15,000 km, they haven't worn down by 2 mm. And that's despite being an EV. I think it really depends on how you drive.

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

#109

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…

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 had a few years ago and they were not only trash in terms of getting grip whenever there was even a hint of rain, but they also had awful stopping distance. Swapping them out for a set of all-weathers vastly improved everything about the car.

Consider the carbon footprint impact of a vehicle accident that totals both cars (never mind the human impact of this!). Probably cancels out hundreds of cars worth of carbon savings from using these shitty tires. Avoiding vehicle accidents has to be job one and tires are the single greatest factor in your stopping distance that you can simply buy an upgrade on. Combined with automatic braking technology - a great addition - you can seriously change the course of your life with a set that's only a couple hundred bucks more (in the sense that your life will be hella changed if you have an accident and end up with chronic pain).

Every car has powerful enough brakes, braking upgrades are mostly just for racing needs; but stock tires are still very often just total garbage and the first thing you should replace.

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

#110

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…

Hmm, I have these tires on my Model 3: https://www.contimediacenter.com/eulabel/en/03143300000/ After 15,000 km, they haven't worn down by 2 mm. And that's despite being an EV. I think it really depends on how you drive.

Well, how do you drive? And in what climate?
Post reply on HN