Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-12-2020, 08:12 AM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding flying lizard
 
Daschicken's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 724

Cibbie - '88 Honda CBR 250R
Motorcycle
90 day: 48.79 mpg (US)

Rarity - '06 Honda Accord EX V6
Team Honda
90 day: 36.79 mpg (US)

Baby viff - '86 Honda VFR 400R
Motorcycle
90 day: 42.15 mpg (US)

Latios - '08 Suzuki SV650SF
Motorcycle
90 day: 68.32 mpg (US)

Mazda 3 - '14 Mazda 3 i Sport
90 day: 44.34 mpg (US)
Thanks: 580
Thanked 257 Times in 172 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
I got a set of "LRR tires" that were euro "C" rated.
They killed the range on my leaf.
They got better after a few thousand miles.
Need up replacing them with new energy saver A/S tires. Those energy savers at 36psi appeared to be as efficient as the worn out ecopia tires at 44psi.
That’s good news to me, I’ve got Ecopias right now, planning on replacing with energy savers.

__________________
-Kaze o tatakaimasen-

Best trip in V6: 52.0
Best tank in V6: 46.0
Best tank in CBR: 61.3
Best tank in VFR: 62.5
Best tank in SV: 83.9

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
You can lead a fashion-conscious horse to unusual-looking water...

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-12-2020, 08:15 AM   #22 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: ireland
Posts: 102
Thanks: 8
Thanked 52 Times in 34 Posts
They also skip it on commercial vehicles.

https://www.oponeo.ie/blog/everythin...ing-resistance.

In Europe there are loads of tyres being sold that have "ECO" in their name yet only have E and G ratings. You really have to do your homework when buying tyres.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2020, 03:34 PM   #23 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 760
Thanks: 2
Thanked 353 Times in 217 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenTDI View Post
How is it possible that wider tires with the same rim size score better on rolling resistance according the EU tire label? For example, I can't imagine that 205/45 is more fuel efficient than 185/60. And yet the first gets an A label and the second gets a B.
Rolling resistance is a function of 3 things: The amount of deflection (basically controlled by the inflation pressure), the amount of rubber being deflected, and the hysteretic properties of the rubber. Let's ignore the last one, because the answer to the question is in the second factor.

Most of the rubber being deflected is in the tread area. A wider tire has a factionally smaller tread width - that is, if the tread width is 70% of the section width, an increase in width of 10mm only results in 7mm wider tread.

But the load carrying capacity goes up in direct proportion to the width.

So the amount of rubber deflected per unit load is slightly smaller = better RRC.
__________________
CapriRacer

Visit my website: www.BarrysTireTech.com
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CapriRacer For This Useful Post:
California98Civic (06-12-2020)
Old 06-13-2020, 11:25 AM   #24 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
GreenTDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Belgium
Posts: 222

GreenTDI - '11 Skoda Fabia Estate R3 1.2 CRTDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
Diesel
90 day: 65.02 mpg (US)
Thanks: 53
Thanked 84 Times in 66 Posts
Optimal tire pressure is the key here, I think. A narrow tire requires a higher pressure. Pretty all eco-cars are delivered with narrow rock-hard tires.
But is the label as reliable as it comes to fuel savings. RRC is only one part of the story.
Again, in my case, the 205/45 gets a better score than the 185/60. But I can imagine that a narrower tread weighs less, and also causes less air resistance.

A narrow tire at maximum pressure (= often higher than the wide one) should be more fuel efficient. Despite a higher -theoretical- rolling resistance
__________________
Skoda Fabia Estate R3 1.2 CRTDI
See my thread: https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...mpg-38318.html
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenTDI For This Useful Post:
California98Civic (06-14-2020)
Old 06-14-2020, 09:43 AM   #25 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 760
Thanks: 2
Thanked 353 Times in 217 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenTDI View Post
Optimal tire pressure is the key here, I think. A narrow tire requires a higher pressure. Pretty all eco-cars are delivered with narrow rock-hard tires.
But is the label as reliable as it comes to fuel savings. RRC is only one part of the story.
Again, in my case, the 205/45 gets a better score than the 185/60. But I can imagine that a narrower tread weighs less, and also causes less air resistance.

A narrow tire at maximum pressure (= often higher than the wide one) should be more fuel efficient. Despite a higher -theoretical- rolling resistance
I don't think we know enough to say that.

Consider that a 4 psi increase in inflation pressure results in only an 7% decrease in rolling resistance, while a change from a 205/75R15 to a 225/60R16 (same diameter, same load carrying capacity at the same inflation pressure) results in a 3% decrease in RR.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that there are interactive variables. You can't just go wider without compensating for the increase in load carrying capacity by reducing the inflation pressure.

Or should you keep the overall tire diameter the same? - which means decreasing the aspect ratio.

One has to be very careful when making these comparisons.

Further, the range of RR within a given tire size is like 60%. So it is much more important to carefully select the make and model tire than it is to worry about tire size.
__________________
CapriRacer

Visit my website: www.BarrysTireTech.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2020, 10:18 AM   #26 (permalink)
Cyborg ECU
 
California98Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,151

Black and Green - '98 Honda Civic DX Coupe
Team Honda
90 day: 66.42 mpg (US)

Black and Red - '00 Nashbar Custom built eBike
90 day: 3671.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,328
Thanked 2,064 Times in 1,404 Posts
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it seems like you two are talking past each other and post 24 and 25.
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.



  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2020, 07:51 AM   #27 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 760
Thanks: 2
Thanked 353 Times in 217 Posts
Another 6 months go by and still no Fuel Economy Regulation on tires:

https://www.transportation.gov/regul...report-archive
__________________
CapriRacer

Visit my website: www.BarrysTireTech.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2020, 10:01 AM   #28 (permalink)
home of the odd vehicles
 
rmay635703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,467

Silver - '10 Chevy Cobalt XFE
Thanks: 388
Thanked 733 Times in 548 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic View Post
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it seems like you two are talking past each other and post 24 and 25.
The elephant in the room are the “other” forms of friction that may or may not exceed RR.

Capri doesn’t Wind resistance
Just like that Julie guy doesn’t RR or template


That said it is disappointing that there isn’t a size based RR comparison for US tires

Maybe allowing the European standard in leu of our refs?

Too bad we have no way of comparing two identical tread sizes currently
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2020, 05:44 PM   #29 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,307

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 224
Thanked 3,037 Times in 2,369 Posts
The euro standard is what I used.
Only problem is right now it has some tires on it that aren't sold here and there are tires here that aren't sold in Europe so they're not on there.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2020, 06:24 AM   #30 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 760
Thanks: 2
Thanked 353 Times in 217 Posts
https://www.rubbernews.com/governmen...ards-plt-tires

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California has taken a first step toward a possible statewide Replacement Tire Efficiency Program that would ensure that replacement passenger and light-duty truck tires sold in California are at least as energy efficient as OE tires on vehicles sold in the state.

The California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission recently directed the state's Energy Commission (CEC) "to adopt and implement" standards to this effect, citing the "potential to significantly reduce fuel consumption by California drivers."

The proposal, if it eventually results in standards, would be in addition to regulations covering commercial truck tires promulgated by the California Air Resources Board in 2013 that require commercial trucking operations to equip all their vehicles with tires and/or retreads that meet the Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay verified low-rolling-resistance requirements.

The commission cites authority granted by California Assembly Bill 844, passed in 2003, for its action, which sets into motion a series of fact-gathering initiatives that will serve as the basis for determining whether and how to proceed to rule-making.

Specifically, the CEC is directed to develop and adopt:

* - a database of the energy efficiency of a representative sample of replacement tires (based on test procedures adopted by the CEC);
* - a rating system for the energy efficiency of replacement tires; requirements that manufacturers report the energy efficiency of replacement tires;
* - minimum efficiency standards for replacement tires; and consumer information requirements, including readily accessible point-of-sale information.

The first step in the process is an Order Instituting Informational Proceeding, which sets the stage for proceedings designed to gather and access information to assist the CEC in formulating policies.

The commission's order suggests the OII should provide a platform that could lead to rule making by as early as spring 2021.

The order directs the commission to "facilitate collaboration and information exchange with industry stakeholders, including, but not limited to, tire manufacturers, retail tire businesses, tire test labs, consumer information organizations, environmental interest groups, electric utilities and government agencies."

In a statement, the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA)—one of the targeted stakeholders—said it "looks forward to participating collaboratively in the OII process as a stakeholder. USTMA is committed to assuring that the (CEC) accesses reliable and credible data and information regarding this important topic."

This order is the third attempt by California to promulgate rule making on the fuel efficiency of tires. The first were in 2003 and 2008, neither of which resulted in rule making. In 2012 California paused its rule-making process on the matter in deference to a federal directive to the National Highway Traffic Administration to establish federal rolling resistance ratings.

That initiative later was incorporated into the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015 but, according to the California commission, the NHTSA halted proceedings on that action in 2017 after initially starting rule-making.

With federal action on the matter suspended indefinitely, the commission "desires to reinitiate" its own action on this program.

The commission plans to hold meetings starting in early 2021 to gather "data, information and comments" from various stakeholders covering items such as:

* - sales and cost of tires, efficient technologies, tire safety, tire life and tire recycling;
* - performance testing of low rolling-resistance tires sold in North America, Asia and Europe since 2012;
* - market research on options to display tire-efficiency data at physical or online points-of-sale in California; and
* - any other information necessary to develop recommendations for rating and setting standards for fuel-efficient tires.

The CEC encourages public participation in this process. Further information can be found at energy.ca.gov/tire.

************************************************** ******

Editorial Comment:

While commendable, this is a path that has been tried before - without success. As mentioned, they deferred to the Feds - and I predict they will again.

But it will be interesting to see what new information comes out.

__________________
CapriRacer

Visit my website: www.BarrysTireTech.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com