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

81–90 of 275 posts

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

#81

Post by cityofdelusion »

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?

Not frictionless, so it will also slowly degrade over time. It just has so much mass built-in that it’s not obvious.

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

#82

Post by advisedwang »

Gabrys1 wrote: post #78
reenorap wrote: post #8

It cost me $1600 to change the 4 tires for my Tesla because they are “energy efficient” and matched my original tires. I do not want the tires for my other car to be this expensive. I don’t care about efficiency those tires are literally 4X the price of my other car a Honda.

So, your Honda is worth $400?

Don't be obtuse. He was saying 4x the cost of the tires.

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

#83

Post by gopalv »

tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

> energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance

This is a labelling law, not a "You can't buy the bumpy tires" law.

This improves the quality of my choice here, because I already look for the little snowflake on tires when buying them for the 3 weekends I drive in the snow.

I'd be revolting too if they banned all season tires over this, because I am not swapping winter tires for thanksgiving weekend, Xmas and ski week.

Also efficient tires don't mean driving becomes boring, a GT86 is on skinnies and that makes it more fun at 35mph in a tight corner than a BMW with pilot sports.

I think they're only calling out cost, because the skinny tires cost more money overall, but there is a net payoff period on bills.

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

#86

Post by AlexandrB »

winrid wrote: post #35
diggernet wrote: post #34

"...adopt a replacement tire efficiency program “designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold in the state as original equipment on new passenger cars and light-duty trucks.” Replacement tires are those purchased by drivers to replace existing tires." Tires are not car-specific. This sounds like you couldn't just go out and buy some random tir…

It's "on average", so no, you still can. And what are they gonna do if you just go to the tire store and say I want X tires? So of course none of this will be enforced. It's just to provide the little leaf indicator.

This kind of "average" nonsense in the form of CAFE[1] standards is why we have endless SUVs and crossovers on the road now. I expect that this will lead to similar unintended consequences.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

> A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values.[10] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint.

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

#87

Post by mmooss »

adolph wrote: post #66

The staff report [0] seems pretty reasonable. Essentially manufacturers measure their tires using ISO 28580:2018 [1] and self-report to a future state tire portal. I wish that test was available when I last bought tires and look forward to seeing it next go round. Undoubtably, consumers will quickly adopt tires in an exempt category like "Specialty tires, including certain off-road tires, low-speed tires, deep-tread…

> Undoubtably

We need a better argument than that.

HN are obsessed with the 'unintended consequences' argument against regulation, a very general idea applied to an actual situation, and as if people can't and don't anticipate and make effective plans.

The world turns, things work, regulations work - not everything in the world, but we accomplish a lot. My roads, medications, air traffic, etc. etc. work; people's planning and ideas succeeded.

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

#88

Post by cucumber3732842 »

jp57 wrote: post #54
tlogan wrote: post #47

The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires). Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

This. My wife and I both thought the low-rolling-resistance tires on our hybrids felt very unsafe in the rain. My Audi A3-etron's tires were also by far the least durable tires I have had on a car in my 40+ years of driving. I prematurely replaced or repaire more tires on that car in 8 years than on all the other cars I've had put together. I eventually switched to a midsize truck, because I need to do some light tow…

Once you control for tread (which you're already mostly doing by restricting the comparison to run of the mill road tires) most of how it feels in the rain comes down to tire pressure and shape of contact patch.

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

#89

Post by legitster »

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.

This is 100% how legislation gets written when none of reps have experience and the only calls they take are from lobbyists.

It's easy to imagine the manufacturer reps are playing games with the lawmakers. "Oh no, this is going to be really hard on us! It's going to cost us so much money! But I guess we can comply if we have to."

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

#90

Post by klaff »

spullara wrote: post #75

since this is about fuel consumption I assume that it doesn't apply to EVs

EVs are already using tires which are optimized for low rolling resistance because when you make the car that much more efficient, smaller losses become more visible.
Post reply on HN