Tire Fuel Effeciency Consumer Information

[oil pan 4]

California is stupid. Mandating which tires people can put on their car isn't going to do anything towards fixing them owning the top 7 or so spots for most air polluted cities in the US.
I guess they just want to look like they are doing something.

They really think forcing people to buy a certain tire will "significantly reduce fuel consumption" wow they are really on something. We already know going from an economy class tire to the best or one of the best fuel economy tires only nets about a 5% gain. On a pickup or SUV going from the worst mud tires to a highway tire nets less than 10%.
As we have established people who wear out set after set of mud tires or aggressive all terrain tires with 99.99% highway miles don't care about fuel economy at all.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

California is stupid. Mandating which tires people can put on their car isn't going to do anything towards fixing them owning the top 7 or so spots for most air polluted cities in the US.
I guess they just want to look like they are all.

OEM Only is about as bad as Europe with all their extreme “only 4 “ requirements and checks

Getting places to just mount a blasted tire in place of a failed one is hard enough out here in the sticks with all the self imposed made up rules.

Walmart didn’t want to replace one of my tires with a hole in it because my spare was a different brand. They ended up putting the tire in the wrong position leaving the tire with the hole in it on the car and I had to refuse to take it and they didn’t want to mount a tread in place of the failed tire was like fighting a crew of mental midgets.

[MeteorGray]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

California is stupid. Mandating which tires people can put on their car isn't going to do anything towards fixing them owning the top 7 or so spots for most air polluted cities in the US.
I guess they just want to look like they are doing something.

They really think forcing people to buy a certain tire will "significantly reduce fuel consumption" wow they are really on something. We already know going from an economy class tire to the best or one of the best fuel economy tires only nets about a 5% gain. On a pickup or SUV going from the worst mud tires to a highway tire nets less than 10%.
As we have established people who wear out set after set of mud tires or aggressive all terrain tires with 99.99% highway miles don't care about fuel economy at all.

Yep, most of the miles on my Jeep's mud tires have been on pavement. That's because it takes a ratio of 10 miles of pavement to 1 mile of mud to reach the hunting spots.

On the pavement, the mud grips are a waste of energy. Off the pavement, anything less would be a waste of time.

[CapriRacer]

Another 6 months go by and still no Fuel Economy Regulation on tires:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites...t02072020r.pdf


Further, the California Energy Commission was supposed to start hearings on tire efficiency. I signed up for email updates, but have not yet received any.

[CapriRacer]

Update: There is a January 2022 report on rulemaking out of the US Federal government - US DOT. This is the first update since Aug 2019.

The report says that there will be a rule published Sep 30, 2022. What usually happens after that is a comment period where anyone can critique, comment, praise, etc. the rule. Followed by a revised rule based on those comments.

It's not much, but at least there appears to be some movement.

Please note: The original rule was presented in March, 2010, but was withdrawn after the comment period.

[CapriRacer]

Update: On Feb 14, 2023, the California Energy Commission will present its proposal on tire rolling resistance:

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1Ni...153911824768-l

Highlights:

They are using the same scale as the European Union, except instead of using letters and colors, they are using stars.

They plan on having a database populated by the tire manufacturers which would include the RRC value (Rolling Resistance Coefficient), and Peak Friction from the UTQG traction test (Currently the UTQG rating is based on the sliding value), and the MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price) - along with a whole lot of the usual stuff like size, make/model, etc.

They plan on implementing the rule on Jan 1, 2026 - and plan on banning any tire in the 1 and 2 star range. (I suspect that is a bargaining position)

I see lots for the tire manufacturers to object to. I don't think the rule will be implemented as published.

On a side note: NHTSA has indicated they plan on publishing a rule on May 23, 2023. This would be the 5th or 6th time they've had a date that came and went. I wonder what they will do now that California has acted.

[Daschicken]

The information part sounds great, about time! The banning part, less so.

[aerohead]

If California does it, it potentially provides data globally.
If one buys the 'house', the manufacturer is obligated to reveal it's square-footage, and whether it has weather stripping, attic ventilation, or any thermal insulation in it or not.
Kinda like a SEER rating or Munroney decal.

[CapriRacer]

Update:

This month (June 2024) NHTSA was supposed to issue a new regulation covering rolling resistance in tires and how that would be displayed - according to a report of pending regulations published by DOT in Sep 2023. That has not happened. If you read back in this thread, you will see that they (NHTSA) has repeatedly postponed the issuing of the regulation starting in 2010.

I expect them to kick the can down the road again. I think the only reason they published a date was because Cailfornia was threating to issue their own regulation. It is now clear that California isn't going to do that.

Speaking of California, the last action taken was to accept an agreement of confidentiality from the USTMA (US Tire Manufacturers Association) for a data file in Sep, 2023. That file contained an analysis of all the data presented to the California Energy Commission (CEC). Part of that analysis was sure to contain the fact that over 90% of tires currently for sale would be banned if the regulation went forward without revision - and that, of course, is not workable. Unfortunately, the law that the CEC was working against did not allow for any alternatives. Since I have not seen anything since then I suspect the issue is dead. I suspect the California legislature would need to issue another law to fix the problem - and I don't think they will.

Meanwhile the state of Washington's legislature was working on a law very similar to the California law. They obviously ran into the same problem California did, but in this case the law never made it out of committee, so it's dead as well.

I'll provide any updates if there are any.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by CapriRacer

Update:

This month (June 2024) NHTSA was supposed to issue a new regulation covering rolling resistance in tires and how that would be displayed - according to a report of pending regulations published by DOT in Sep 2023. That has not happened. If you read back in this thread, you will see that they (NHTSA) has repeatedly postponed the issuing of the regulation starting in 2010.

I expect them to kick the can down the road again. I think the only reason they published a date was because Cailfornia was threating to issue their own regulation. It is now clear that California isn't going to do that.

Speaking of California, the last action taken was to accept an agreement of confidentiality from the USTMA (US Tire Manufacturers Association) for a data file in Sep, 2023. That file contained an analysis of all the data presented to the California Energy Commission (CEC). Part of that analysis was sure to contain the fact that over 90% of tires currently for sale would be banned if the regulation went forward without revision - and that, of course, is not workable. Unfortunately, the law that the CEC was working against did not allow for any alternatives. Since I have not seen anything since then I suspect the issue is dead. I suspect the California legislature would need to issue another law to fix the problem - and I don't think they will.

Meanwhile the state of Washington's legislature was working on a law very similar to the California law. They obviously ran into the same problem California did, but in this case the law never made it out of committee, so it's dead as well.

I'll provide any updates if there are any.

Under the Federal, Clinton-era, 'Mutual Agreement on Investments' ( MAI ), the State of California ( taxpayers ) would likely be obligated to compensate tire makers for any lost profits from the curtailment in sales of certain products, 'banned' under conditions spelled out in the 'policy.'
And these payments would continue into the future, perhaps over some proscribed phase-out period, like Asbestos, Fen-Fen, DDT, Heroin, Opium, Coca, Oxycontin, Tetraethyl lead, CFCs, Red Dye#2, Cyclamates, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ( MTBE ), Diesel de-sulfurization, etc..
'Contracts' are sacrosanct in the USA, and corporations cannot be expected to 'eat' losses on fixed-assets, tooling, R&D, inventory, assembly lines, etc., stemming from what would be experienced as some ex-post-facto ruling, directly impacting extant, 'lawful' operations.
Sacramento would become the venue for the World Heavyweight Championship, attracting corporate lobbyists from around the globe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt, the attempted LRR mandate is part of the State's carbon-neutral calculus. And it's perfectly logical, if one is trying to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. LRR = reduced methane, carbon-dioxide, ground level ozone, etc.
If public education taught 'reading, writing, 'rithmetic, critical thinking, and a primer on capitalism, consumers might 'see' the 'wisdom' in 'thrift', more with less, savings, net worth, risk avoidance, credit...................
Consumption habituation would organically change with the 'knowledge', and the complexion of the 'market' would evolve along with the 'free hand'.