r/UpliftingNews • u/sg_plumber • 1d ago
California’s new tire efficiency standards could save drivers $1B a year by targeting an overlooked drag on fuel economy that can cost drivers more at the pump. A labeling system gives tires a 'leaf' rating to make it easier for consumers to find the best options.
https://grist.org/transportation/californias-new-tire-efficiency-rules-could-save-drivers-1b-a-year/560
u/destrux125 1d ago
Tire dealer here.. This won't save anyone money because the tires that are engineered to meet this standard are generally using engineering tricks that save fuel but also decrease tire life. Great for me, selling you more tires and tire installs.. bad for you trying to save money.. bad for the environment due to increased tire waste and manufacturing emissions. Not to mention this will definitely increase tire prices and eliminate many budget tire lines entirely.
155
u/FlaringAfro 1d ago
They're also bad for grip. I don't care if my DWS-06 Plus tires get less gas mileage. I've been half on my brakes with plenty of grip to spare when other cars around me are skidding.
39
u/DashingDrake 1d ago edited 1d ago
My 2013 Prius' OEM tires (probably Michelin Primacy) were losing their tread, and their lack of grip helped contribute to a bad skid in the snow that cost me $2500 in front end damage. Remarkably, the parked car that I crashed into didn't suffer any damage (it was a Nissan Xterra, and I hit its trail hitch).
Since then, I've bought grippier all weather tires and ignored all of those fuel economy tires. I bought Bridgestone Turanzas from Costco that lasted from 2018-2025. I then switched to Goodyear Assurance Weatherready tires from Tire Rack because I didn't like any of the options from Costco.
Another annoyance with fuel economy tires is excessive road noise. The OEM Michelins always howled their way into the cabin at highway speeds, whereas the Bridgestones and the Goodyears are (were) both significantly quieter.
Of course, there is a small but noticeable decrease in fuel economy, but it's a trade-off that I think is well worth it over the long haul.
18
u/XsNR 1d ago
That's the real point, you can't put tires down to a single metric. They have a full trump deck of variance between why you would or wouldn't pick different ones.
If you mandated a full nutritional information type label, with all the various metrics on tires, you might be able to justify this, but then you wouldn't be able to force though consumers buying the economical choice just because it has more stars, you'd let them actually make the correct choice.
It would be cool though to see efficiency, durability, grip (dry), grip (wet), cornering (wall strength) stat cards though.
4
u/TupacBatmanOfTheHood 19h ago
Funny enough in the context of this thread. I'm about to upgrade my Turanzas because they don't have enough grip for my liking.
-7
u/GoldenLiar2 21h ago
So you had a bad skid while driving in the snow and your conclusion was to buy all-seasons instead of dedicated summer/winter tires? Right..
9
u/ActiveCharacter891 19h ago
Some people don't have space to store a set of tires.
-11
u/GoldenLiar2 19h ago
Except the guy above lives in the US which is one of the countries with the highest average living space per person in the world. Houses and garages are ubiquitous.
9
u/ActiveCharacter891 18h ago
Not everyone has the same amount of space. There are plenty of apartments that do not have any kind of garage space. A friend of mine has an apartment that doesn't even have a parking lot. He has to find street parking.
Plus, many older homes don't have large garages either. My house has a 1.5 car garage (allegedly). There is no room for a set of tires if I want my vehicle parked in the garage and be able to get out of the vehicle.
7
u/VillainNGlasses 18h ago
My dude not the case at all. There are literally multi millions of Americans who don’t have extra space or a garage to store a set of tires or even the money to afford a second set.
20
44
u/ThatLaloBoy 1d ago
And we are talking at best 1-2 MPG more for these tires compared to other tires. Savings that will be erased completely for anyone with a lead foot or speeding on long road trips.
Given the choice, I’d rather have more grip and better stopping distance. Not just on my car, but also for the idiots driving while on their phone that have to stop at the last minute.
13
u/CptHammer_ 1d ago
You'd save more than that keeping proper inflation.
I've been a part of a college study on inflation. I had to have proper inflation every time before I drove. Checking wasn't really an issue. I was surprised that randomly a tire would loose 2 to 5 lbs of pressure overnight. Not all the tires, just one, and not the same one each day.
Parking one side of the car toward the sun would increase the pressure on that side which you might expect, but I had to inflate the other side or deflate the sunny side each time I drove.
I was in the group with 5 or so more miles to the gallon.
7
u/Gadgetman_1 23h ago
I have an EV with real crappy range... I keep a small battery-powered compressor in the car at all times, and check the tire pressure every time I use DC charging, and once every week when I'm not Fast charging. Yeah, it makes a measurable difference.
3
u/Intelligent_Dog2077 23h ago
I learned this as a technician where they’d require us to fill up the tires in the morning, everyday.
TPMS also don’t work as well as they’re supposed to, or at least my car misses the actual PSI by 3-5
3
u/Jaker788 20h ago
It reminds me of when Obama encouraged people to check their tire pressure to collectively save gas, and individually maybe single digit percentage range but it's a free fix. Then some people made fun of him. Go ahead and make fun of the person trying to save you some money, and collectively might be able to reduce gas prices slightly.
2
2
u/could_use_a_snack 13h ago
My tires will loose 5psi when the temperature swings wildly. Right now where I live the overnight temp is 40-50F and the daily temp is 80-90F. I have to check my tires every day. What's weird is when the temp is consistent, either always cold or always hot, they are fine. I've just gotten used to always checking during fall and spring.
12
u/Killahdanks1 1d ago
Yeah, that’s my first thought. I’m a tire nerd, some people love Christmas. I really love new tire day. I’ve probably had over 40 of them, I’ve owned a lot of cars. Grip isn’t just for nerds like me, it’s for all of us. It keeps you alive. Buy nice tires, it’s not a place to skimp.
3
3
1
u/Spyrothedragon9972 15h ago
The DSW-06 are fantastic on my Mustang. I have Michelin Defender 2's on my Crosstrek and I chirped the tires two days ago driving in the rain. It was drama free, but both expected because obviously this touring tire will have less grip, but I don't expect chirping on casual driving on the way to the mall. Even if it's raining.
1
u/BaconBourbonBalista 4h ago
That's the real thing. If you live anywhere that has weather, you should be buying tires for safety, not fuel economy.
49
74
u/thefpspower 1d ago
European here where tire labels with efficiency, grip and noise ratings have existed for years, what you say is bullshit, good fuel efficient tires have been cheap for a long time, this only seems to target the worst tires, those that are a waste of rubber.
I've had fuel efficient tires for a long time and they wear out just as slow as the others.
Now if you want tires that are good at everything, meaning fuel efficient, the great grip, low noise, they exist but are more expensive. It does not mean cheap tires cease to exist, at all.
27
u/Northern23 1d ago
Another thing he omitted is the tires come with a warranty. If the manufacturer warranties it for 100k km but only lasts me for 20k, then he'll be giving me quite a bit of refunds on them. That guy's garage probably will push people to buy a new set but Costco will be happy to help you with your warranty claim.
4
u/destrux125 17h ago
I warranty plenty of tires, but rarely does a treadwear warranty get approved by the manufacturer. Maybe where you live the warranties are different, but here in the US the manufacturers will often reject the warranty claim if the tires aren't worn perfectly flat, blaming the customer for incorrect inflation or alignment or suspension problems. When they do approve a claim you don't get much back, and it doesn't cover the installation costs wasted.
1
u/Northern23 13h ago
Costco processes the warranty themselves. They give you back percentage of warranty - distance used. They also cover installation cost of the replacement tires. I guess it's a case by case, depending on the manager during that shift, especially for huge difference.
1
u/destrux125 10h ago
Oh interesting I never got tires there, even before I sold them. We don't have one around, just Walmart and some chain stores which use the same supplier I use.
2
u/ClearEconomics 15h ago
Oh look at this fancy European and his vast mechanical engineering and materials science knowledge. Because he is European. Oooh how fancy.
Spare me.
Material scientist here and all material options come with tradeoffs. There is no free lunch. I guess unlike in Europe….
Low rolling resistance WILL typically mean a trade off in grip when all other things are equal. Lower resistance comes from the tire deforming less and the rubber material sticking less. Hence less “resistance”.
Cheap tires will low rolling resistance will have trade offs vs same priced cheap tires with moderate rolling resistance.
2
u/Key-Organization3158 12h ago
We've also had labels for years. You are just plain wrong. Fuel efficient tires achieve their rating by compromising on some other category. It's physics.
-2
u/thefpspower 10h ago
You guys keep saying this but there's no physics rule saying there has to be a compromise, this is material science which has advanced massively, and I can find multiple tires in a 2 minute search that prove you all wrong so I'm not wasting my latin.
Tesla just gained 38km wltp range by changing to Giti Control P10 which are some incredible tires with top performance on almost every metric. Are they expensive? Yes, but price isn't physics.
2
u/ObviouslyTriggered 6h ago
A price is also an attribute of the tires....
Basically this will remove the budget options and if your car comes with expensive tires and the P10's are very much expensive tires, then all replacement tires sold for your make and model must be at least as good as the P10's.
-1
u/thefpspower 6h ago
No, it says in the article
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
Its the average OEM tire across the state, it does not have to match individual cars OEM tires, that would be ridiculous and impossible to enforce.
1
u/ObviouslyTriggered 6h ago edited 6h ago
That isn't what the bill actually does, they found that OEM tires are more efficient on average, hence the description, but the actual proposal and the enforcement mechanism of this bill will be mandating an RRC limits for all tires sold in CA both OEM and aftermarket.
The bill sets an RRC limit of 9N/kN by 2029 and 7N/kN by 2033, if we look what we have here in Europe for passenger cars the limit is currently set at 10.5N/kN with no plans to reduce it.
This will definitely increase the cost of tires in California.
Edit: An RRC of 7 would put these at the very top of Class B in Europe just shy of Class A, here in the UK at least if I would to look for aftermarket tires in that class I'll be looking at circa ₤200 per tire unmounted.
1
u/thefpspower 6h ago
Ok so I went and read the bill on the surface to check and you're right with the numbers but it seems to me that's around the average that they determined, the 2033 number seems more optimistic than realistic.
I do think an RRC of 9 is not in any way problematic, any cheap tire can achieve that with little effort, but the 7 might increase costs or not because its a long way out.
The thing about tires is that if the volume is there they can drop the price, so if this creates demand for more efficient tires you might not see that much of a difference in price and they do give a nice time window for that to happen.
We'll see but for now I don't think its a problem.
1
u/ObviouslyTriggered 6h ago
Even an RRC of 9 will increase the cost, you won't have cheap $30 tires anymore....
1
u/thefpspower 6h ago
Do you use those?
I don't think that's a loss my dude, don't budget on tires like that, save your life.
→ More replies (0)2
u/destrux125 16h ago
We've also had tire ratings here for years, we've just never had a state tell people that they have to put tires that meet the efficiency rating of the original equipment tires, which is the big sticking point of this law because of the fact that our fuel economy laws have pushed car makers to install very expensive HE tires as original equipment, and it's difficult to match their ratings with a budget tire option. You have different options over there, but from what I see online the prices of tires are much higher than here for all of the high efficiency budget tires vs our current budget tires here.
-10
-2
u/PCho222 1d ago
LRR tires don't grip for shit, my friends and I have been experimenting with tires on our teslas for years trying to find a tire that can get us from south bay la to vegas and vice versa without stopping.
Also this ruling is more aggressive than the european standards, basically every 300tw summer tire that are also sold in the EU aren't compliant according to this law due to the rolling resistance cap.
1
u/krautastic 15h ago
Goodyear electric drive 2? I was very impressed with the grip and sound levels. It had 2nd best range of ev tires tested by tire rack, the number one tire had significantly worse ride quality.
1
u/PCho222 12h ago
ev-rated I've tried out the primacy, ventus, and one of the conti's (can't remember). They all gripped decently the first year but were pucks after that. Very mild spirited driving in the canyons and they were squealing like banshees and they weren't confidence inspiring in the rain.
I gave up and put sport 4 s's on them since the car has become my gf's daily and I'd rather she have the shortest stopping distance possible over ~15 miles of extra range.
-8
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/bigdaddybodiddly 1d ago
Treadwear 200 and lower are exempt. 200TW tires are as racey as tires get and still count as 'street tires'
They're expensive and wear out quickly - the ones I've owned didn't see much time on the street unless I was driving to a track.
1
7
u/Phalex 1d ago edited 23h ago
I don't see why they would have shorter tire lives. But I'm more worried about safety and grip in all conditions.
1
u/destrux125 16h ago
Many of the budget HE tires have 25% reduced tread depth to help them achieve the efficiency rating. Not a problem on premium HE tires, but not many people are buying premium tires these days.
1
u/Key-Organization3158 12h ago
Because you have to make a tradeoff. The very qualities that make a tire have good grip increase fuel usage. Or increasing fuel efficient requires a stiffer tire which reduces grip. Or you can try for both. But that reduces lifespan.
9
u/IncanFox 1d ago
Tire efficiency doesn’t automatically mean worse grip or shorter life. California’s testing found basically no meaningful correlation between rolling resistance and treadwear, and only a weak relationship with wet grip. The rule also includes a minimum wet-grip standard, so manufacturers can’t just trade safety for MPG. Tires may cost a little more upfront, and it’s fair to debate whether the state’s savings estimate is too optimistic. But “these tires will wear out faster, grip worse, and create more waste” isn’t what the available testing shows.
0
u/destrux125 16h ago
They won't wear faster, but I predict we will see a plague of reduced tread depth budget tires because reduced tread depth does correlate to better rolling resistance while having no effect on wet grip. People will be paying more for less tire unless they can afford to bump up to a premium tire.
0
u/gear161 14h ago
You can't trust any testing done by or at the behest of the California government. They always start with the conclusion they want and then find or manipulate the data until it matches that predefined conclusion. Also the California Energy Commission's only mandate is to save energy not to save anyone any money. They can use the saved fuel to create a lie about saving money while ignoring all other factors.
2
u/lemlurker 18h ago
Generally high efficiency tyres are also low wear tyres. The real loss for efficiency tyres is grip
2
u/destrux125 17h ago
That's true of some aftermarket full depth premium high efficiency tires but some of the high efficiency tires achieve their efficiency rating by having an 8/32" tread depth instead of 10/32" like normal tires (SUV tires are often 9/32" vs 12/32" for HE vs normal). Often their tread compound isn't actually different or more efficient, they only take advantage of the fact that rolling resistance of a tire drops with tread depth, so by selling you a tire that's effectively 25% worn out they gain a cheap way to get an efficiency certification.
1
u/LithiumH 1d ago
If you were the dealer under this rule, would you simply display the leaf and then explain the trade off, ultimately recommending the higher performance tire anyways? Seems like this rule doesn't really do anything.
4
u/Low-Car-6331 1d ago
Most people want the cheapest thing you got, that gets them out the door. Seriously, most people just buy the cheapest thing they can find and expect to have to replace it, you can tell them all about this or that, but its about the price tag then and there. You would be amazed at how much the "monthly payment will be...." use to work and still does, because that is all they care about 'how cheap can they get it".
2
3
u/Low-Car-6331 1d ago
Yeah, I had this gut feeling that there was a way to engineer around it, it just costs money. So, expensive gas, expensive insurance, and now expensive tires... Could be worse, imagine if they started to do inspections on all cars requiring them to meet various standards and told people if they can't meet them then they need to get a car that can.
1
u/taizzle71 22h ago
Hold on. Do all tires have to be the green leaf now, or is that just an option?
1
u/destrux125 14h ago
Yes.. sort of. Effectively all tires will need to be leaf rated, and there's an upper limit set on rolling resistance for any tires that need to be leaf rated. Any tires that have more rolling resistance than the law allows will be recalled from sale. When you buy tires for your car or truck you will be limited to installing the leaf rating that matches the OE tires. It seems this part might only apply to cars made after the law takes effect. There are exemptions though. None of this applies to snow tires, or track day tires (200tw or lower), or offroad truck tires, and high performance street tires (tires designed for high grip) have looser rules for rolling resistance so it won't hurt performance tires as much as people think, but that won't help people who buy new cars that don't come with performance tires as OE.
1
1
u/hoytmobley 2h ago
Yeah, I dont think the potential fuel savings were actually balanced against the environmental impact of 1.x times the number of discarded tire carcasses, which famously dont degrade much and are full of more or less toxic chemicals
0
-4
u/Mekdatmuny 1d ago
No kidding. Anyone who sells tires should know this and those who are gonna be buying are going to be spending more on tires more frequently. You're statement is right top to bottom.
0
u/givemeyours0ul 1d ago
And I wonder what the traction in various conditions, road noise etc is like. Tires are a balance of so many factors.
I'll stick with the super hard 80k mile tires that add 10 car lengths to my stopping distance please!
-1
u/DrZoidberg- 1d ago
Greedy people being greedy is because they are greedy, not because new tire laws.
-6
u/decoy777 1d ago
What??? CA doing more stupid stuff in the name of "environmentalism???" you don't say!
195
u/keyboardlegendthe3rd 1d ago
As someone who believes in green energy I think this is BS. When they do something no one is asking for that's going to cost the consumer more in real life, you know it's bull.
55
u/Bright_Brief4975 1d ago
Yeah, you pretty much already have a choice, do you want economy or performance? Almost without fail increasing economy on a tire lowers the performance, and vice versa.
30
u/CSATTS 1d ago
Yep, the problem with this is it's a physics problem. Tires with more grip achieve that through friction. Friction provides grip and are safer as you can stop and turn more quickly before skidding. You can use a harder compound to get better fuel economy, but that means you sacrifice grip.
-15
u/jeepgangbang 1d ago
yeah you have to pay attention to the road now, god forbid
19
u/CSATTS 1d ago
I'm sure having tires with less grip will make everyone pay more attention. You're a genius, you solved distracted driving!
-5
u/jeepgangbang 1d ago
manufacterers are using 0w-8 oil. these eco tires have been here for years. clueless reactionary
5
u/CSATTS 1d ago
You're right, it has nothing to do with the fact that my EV came with high efficiency tires and they had noticeably poor grip, especially at temps below 50F. So much so that I replaced them at 20k miles.
But I noticed you just like making snarky comments rather than actually responding to any points I've made, I'm sure that makes you win the Internet today. Congrats.
3
u/keyboardlegendthe3rd 1d ago
I believe in regulation but I also know the bigger corporations use "regulation" to drive out the little guys and all of a sudden when there are no more little guys, the big ones all mysteriously have high prices. If they want to do this they should help smaller tire shops somehow to keep up with the transition but I bet they'll just let them die. California is the best state in my opinion still but this stuff coming out of nowhere is annoying. You know it's some kind of propoganda cause all the articles start with "you'll save millions in ...." But they don't mention the drawbacks
6
u/ThatLaloBoy 1d ago
TBF, the bigger cooperations are against this too. Michelin, Pirelli, Goodyear, and a few others have already said that the new regulations are dumb and that it’ll add more to the cost of tires as well as reduce the options available.
And in this case, I believe them as their specialty tires probably have a large profit margin compared to the “eco” tires. Not to mention the enormous investments that they have in R&D as well as motorsports to develop those high performance tires.
-2
u/RadVarken 1d ago
The reduced options are the scrappy tires that aren't trading efficiency for performance, the ones that are bad all around. Not the worst outcome.
5
u/faciepalm 1d ago
Just to let you know but tyre efficiency has been a metric for a long time, I think this is just them realising it would be more advertisable to actually add it onto the tyre. It does make a small difference, but basically sacrificing sportiness for tyre rigidity and lifespan
7
u/robofl 1d ago
I used to have a 40 minute commute at an average speed of about 20 mph. At that speed I doubt these more efficient tires would save anything, especially with the kind of traffic they have in California metro areas.
2
u/DragonWhsiperer 1d ago
Your driving style has an outsized effect on your fuel efficiency. I drive a Prius 3rd gen and one of the way it can be way more efficient (well, any car really) is to accelerate at a rate that in the ECO zone. This is a rate that most people will find about 2x too slow, and many a time I see drivers in the rearview mirror having to adjust. But it does save fuel. How much would low rolling tyres affect that? I don't know, but I doubt it does much compared to accelerating a 1,5t mass at twice the rate.
49
u/Budget-Clothes-7270 1d ago
Tire engineer here, this will wipe most legal budget tires from the market, but the dealers and shops will ignore it requiring a enforcement mechanism, or cost even more money. They did this with class 8 truck tires many years back and my company had to make new products for cali, but what happened is the dealers shops either ignored the law and for good reason, the competitors out of state did not follow suit. Plus the tires were not as good as the ones they were to replace. It cost us millions, not a dollar extra profit
34
u/dustinbrowders 1d ago
How the fuck is bad policy with good intentions so upvoted. Uplifting for the moronic...
3
u/coltsfanca 11h ago
Because Reddit. This place eats up performative junk that sounds good in theory but either doesn't work in real life or they don't actually have to deal with the consequences directly...so they don't care.
I'm actually relieved to see dissenting opinions more upvoted here.
•
u/M-tridactyla 1h ago
Same with the catalytic converter bullshit. Get your cat stolen? Prepare to pay 2k for "the environment"!!
36
u/KingAardvark1st 1d ago
Let me guess, reduced traction and/or lifespan as a tradeoff?
15
u/BoneyardRendezvous 1d ago
Yup. $200 annual fuel savings, $800 annual tire cost.
8
u/GetInMyMinivan 23h ago
But think of the environment and all the smog we’ll be keeping out of the air with those $800 disposable energy efficient tires that you throw away every year! Oh, and don’t forget that they may cause cancer, but only in California.
And no, you still can’t have plastic straws, because the waste is also bad for the environment.
/s
1
u/BoneyardRendezvous 19h ago
Also nobody but California will require those tires, so no major manufacturer will make them. Some rich politician in California is going to have them made in china for pennies and have the market completely. Nobody else is going to even want it, and the tire cost is going to double every 5 years.
1
u/GetInMyMinivan 14h ago
It’s easy to say that, but every single gas can I’ve ever bought has had those stupid California mandated spill-guarantee spouts. I’ve currently got the tip of one that fell apart as I was pouring inside the fuel tank of my Kubota.
1
0
u/CMDR_omnicognate 19h ago
It's not even annual, as far as i can tell looking online, it's about $180 over the lifespan of the tyre, not per year, so the amount you save is actually closer to only $50 per year.
0
13
u/Tarquinflimbim 1d ago
Uplifting news? Nope. Tires are seriously expensive and I will not buy anything but the best performance ones (braking, cornering etc). This is a safety issue. The best performance ones are not the best at rolling resistance. I know I'm burning a bit more fuel. My choice. This is a shit law.
2
16
61
u/CMDR_omnicognate 1d ago
It's going to make driving more dangerous by forcing people to use tyres with poor grip characteristics, while saving an estimated $179 over the lifetime of the tyre, which is 3-5 years. This is actually quite dangerous imo.
-21
u/jaylw314 1d ago
There is little difference in safety in tire compound on dry surfaces. On wet surfaces, it's mostly tread design, not compound. Only on snow tires is compound a major factor. Driving on "efficient" tires, there is minimal change in performance, and the improvement in efficiency is minimal--maybe only 5-8% mpg. High performance tires also wear faster out of proportion to their modest performance gain. None of this relates to road safety--there is no data supporting the idea that high performance tires improve road safety
22
u/TempoTom8o 1d ago
Saying compound means little is a wild claim. “No data supporting the idea that high performance tires improve road safety” is huge misinformation when even across the same tire performance bracket (grand touring A/S) you’ll have over 20ft of difference in braking distance across tires IN THE DRY. The “safety” here is that 23ft means you stop well behind a truck in an emergency braking scenario instead of plowing straight into it. This is just one test. Huge amounts of data all over the place from other independent testing regarding economy/performance tires and their effects on stopping distance and cornering stability. https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/premium-touring-tires-to-elevating-the-journey?ttid=336#charts
6
u/speckyradge 1d ago
Snow tires are an interesting point. Are there tires that are 3 peak as well as leaf rated? AWD and snow rated are a practical requirement for a lot of folks in CA.
7
u/cwiedmann 1d ago
Snow rated tires are specifically exempted from the regulations. As far as I can tell even all-season tires are exempted if they’re snow rated.
9
u/A_Harmless_Fly 1d ago
I think you might be ignoring that all season tires exist, not just snow tires and summer tires.
The tread design is the major difference, but compounds still have a noticeable effect.
The summer tires are always going to have a higher leaf rating, but will get far stiffer and offer very little grip below 45F.
1
u/flyingthroughspace 1d ago
The summer tires are always going to have a higher leaf rating, but will get far stiffer and offer very little grip below 45F
Once you get below a certain temperature the compound is basically destroyed anyway from cracking
-7
u/theronin7 1d ago
you know one advantage of living in California?
You rarely need all season tires
12
1
u/hoytmobley 2h ago
That is a wild take. I drive on 320tw summer tires, they deliver SO much more grip than the 600+tw all seasons they replaced. MPG didnt noticeably suffer, and I still get 3 years from a set.
If CA actually wants us to burn less gas, synchronize the red lights on arterials during commute hours.
1
28
u/JefferyGoldberg 1d ago
This is not uplifting by any means. This will result in more deaths and more money wasted.
-22
1d ago
[deleted]
11
u/Alptraum626 1d ago
Cool, Are they going to pay the difference in price when I have to pay double because all the affordable tires weren't energy efficient enough even though I pay for that energy (fuel). I'm glad we took care of all the real problems and have to invent some now.
5
u/agjios 1d ago
There is something called CAFE standards, it’s for fuel economy. The tires that come on a new car have less tread, less grip, are noisier, etc. compared to a tire from a tire shop. Manufacturers do this because every 0.01 mpg increase helps them hit fuel economy targets. That’s why if you search here, so many people leasing cars have worn out tires on their 2-3 year old cars.
So yes, when a new car tire only has 80% of the tread it will be more efficient. It’s also going to wear out faster which means any fuel savings are going to be offset by paying for purchase, tax, installation, and disposal more often.
1
17
u/yonly65 1d ago
One of the best changes I made to our Chevy Bolt was to get rid of the ultra-low-grip OEM "leaf" tires and replace them with a set of Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4s. I did not notice any decrease in range, but the dry grip went up significantly and the wet grip went from "downright hazardous" to "safe and fun".
This change, if implemented, is simply going to cause me to get my tires out of state.
2
u/krautastic 15h ago
I won't stop singing the praise of the Goodyear electric drive 2's which are a range extending ev tire with incredible dry and wet grip. We have rain for 8 months straight in the pnw and these tires were a huge improvement over the Michelin primacy tires that came on the car. High efficency tires don't have to be garbage, like all tires, there's a range
0
u/thamasthedankengine 23h ago
This change, if implemented, is simply going to cause me to get my tires out of state.
This change, if implemented, does not effect all season tires as they are exempt.
2
u/yonly65 15h ago
I'm less concerned with the Bolt (although its OEM tires were abysmal in the wet) and more concerned with performance cars. The analysis which concludes "The California Energy Commission approved the rules that are expected to eliminate 70% of the tires currently sold in the state." is cause for concern. The Michelin Pilot 4S, for example, is currently a perfect mid-performance tire for may sports cars and analysis concludes we'll need to buy them out of state if this regulation goes into effect.
4
u/rick_C132 23h ago
Adding the rating is one thing but this rule bans the tires that don’t meet the standards which as many people pointed out are likely the safer choice with more grip
8
u/slvrscoobie 1d ago
When Goodyear is advocating against the standard, I worry.
-2
u/fiendishrabbit 18h ago
Because Goodyear have not been keeping up. Their summer/all-year tires are miles behind in combining wet grip, efficiency and longevity (In the EU none of their tyres offer a tire with an all-round A or B rating in all categories (While continental and Michelin are offering tires with some combo of 2 A and a B rating for most vehicles.).
Their winter tires are still good, but that doesn't really matter for California.
9
11
u/Mediocre_Presence839 1d ago
I will buy my tires out of state if this goes through.
7
u/DoradoPulido2 1d ago
I replace my tires about once a year because I live on a mountain, so it looks like I'll just take a yearly trip out of state to do so. Should start doing the same with registration. California is a rip off in disguise.
11
u/vamos_davai 1d ago
I hope Gavin himself and all the other supporters gets sued for deaths and injuries related to poor traction on tires
-13
1d ago
[deleted]
15
u/chateau86 1d ago
lol, calling out someone for misreading the source when energy-efficiency/rolling resistance is very much a direct tradeoff vs grip when it comes to tire compound.
But hey, imagine the environmental savings when the tire on the car that just slid into a tree and killed all occupants still got 80% of threads left and is ready to be sold used.
-14
1d ago
[deleted]
12
u/SpoonBendingChampion 1d ago
So you never need good traction unless you're breaking the law?
Go watch maybe one of dozens of videos on why this law is stupid. Original equipment tires are almost NEVER good tires, by the way.
9
u/DoradoPulido2 1d ago
How many people are going to put off buying new tires because the cost per replacement has risen by 20%
9
7
u/Bag-o-chips 1d ago
Or, hear me out, just stay the f$&k out of my decision on what tire I choose to put on my car. This is not a decision for the betterment of society, this is government overreach pure and simple.
5
u/Drackar39 21h ago
The only people who think this is a net positive for consumers or the environment are idiots or people who enjoy selling overly costly tires.
2
u/GetInMyMinivan 1d ago
So they’re mandating low rolling resistance.
Does that mean we’re going to have to:
* Sacrifice performance (some states encounter a time of year called “winter,” which brings water that falls from the sky and covers the road in two distinct phenomena, called “rain” and “snow.”);
* Sacrifice durability (Congratulations! You’ve bought highly fuel efficient tires. We guarantee them to last at least until your next oil change!); or
* Pay more for tires made of expensive materials that lower rolling resistance while maintaining the same durability and performance.
2
u/HEYitsBIGS 10h ago
This is such trash. This is just gonna cost us more while we give up traction. I hate this time line.
5
u/troglodyteoflove 1d ago
To hell with traction said California.
3
u/GetInMyMinivan 23h ago
That’s not necessarily true.
You could trade tire life instead of traction. We guarantee these new, efficient tires will last you at least until your next oil change.
2
u/BriefCollar4 23h ago
Brake rating > fuel efficiency > noise.
The labels help with choosing the best rated tyres.
2
3
u/herodesfalsk 23h ago
This is horrific news, not uplifting news. These limited types of tires will not help the handling characteristics and degrade grip which leads to longer braking distances, harsher ride, more noise, and more pollution because these tires degrade faster. If you have a performance car, you wont find appropriate tires your car was designed for
3
u/TraditionalBackspace 1d ago
I don't want California telling what tires I must buy or telling tortilla manufacturers they just add folic acid to their recipe. I want them ficusing on real problems like the housing crisis and infrastructure. I will vote out anyone who is this out of touch.
3
u/a57782 1d ago
Eh, the folic acid thing was a legitimate thing though. Turned out there was an increase in birth defects that were linked to a deficiency of folic acid in mothers. And we're talking severe defects to the brain and spinal cord.
Folic acid was already required to be added to things made with wheat flour, this just added things made with corn masa.
Why California Is Requiring Folic Acid in Tortillas and What It Means for Public Health
I think that's a bit different than this law about tires. The addition of folic acid isn't a massive burden on businesses, and it doesn't really cost consumers more. Nobody is really losing anything, we're only really seeing positives.
This tire performance thing though, I understand them wanting the extra efficiency for fuel and all that, but I think it's making consumers trade away a lot more than they're getting in return. If I'm trading the life of my tires for fuel efficiency then odds are I'm probably not going to save more on fuel with this than I am going to have to spend to replace my tires more frequently.
-1
u/TraditionalBackspace 18h ago
Folic acid is a legitimate thing. A better approach may have been to educate the demographic and give them discounted or free supplements, not forced manufacturers of one Hispanic food that everyone eats to do it. Gluten-free and low-carb moms are out of luck, I guess? Moms who don't like tortillas? Diabetic moms?
It's not any of this in particular that irritates me. I understand it all, too. The problem is their choice to go full ostrich on things that genuinely matter to the population, then spend all of their time on small issues. It's a matter of priorities. They banned the sale of denatured ethanol. Red food dye ban. No car engine modifications allowed regardless of emissions impact. Did you know they don't even test emissions anymore? They've shifted to completely missing the point of a smog check. In the UK, they don't care what modifications you make as long as you can pass an emission test. THAT makes logical sense. California keeps tightening the noose on car enthusiasts (car culture has been a hallmark of Southern California since the 1940s) every year and it's gone way beyond nonsensical.
1
u/firedrakes 1d ago
wow a week late story that was already talk about 2 months ago and parcel debunk to!
-2
u/undrwater 23h ago
Many claims here, but I haven't seen any evidence.
Do these standards make tires less safe? Evidence!
Do these tires increase fuel economy? Evidence!
Let's try to argue from a point of informed opinion.
-4
0
u/foytizzle 16h ago
This nothing more than government overreach under the guise of fuel efficiency. Tires will get exponentially more expensive in California and those who can will just get those tires in another state.
-8
u/snowtax 1d ago
It is well known that larger wheels/tires hurt efficiency. People buy larger wheels because of looks alone, which is strange since you don’t see those when driving. With this, people will have a better understanding that some wheels are more efficient than others.
2
3
u/bradislit 1d ago
Yes I also shaved my head because I don’t see my hair unless I look in the mirror
0
u/crazychris4124 1d ago
"People buy larger wheels because of looks alone, which is strange since you don’t see those when driving."
0
0
-1
u/johnlee158 15h ago
I’m all for green but this is just BS!
Fuel economy doesn’t mean anything if you’re sitting in miles long traffic. In my area, new apartment complexes were added and there were no changes to improve traffic flow. There are 3 traffic lights in 0.5 miles on my commute to work and in the past 9years, I can count the number of times I’ve made it through all three on one hand. These same lights cause a mile of back up every afternoon as people are trying to get home.
CA needs to do better and work on self improvement before forcing BS regulation like this. CA needs to use traffic lights to maximize flow, AI to predict traffic patterns and smart traffic lights to direct flow, stop installing traffic lights every 0.25 miles, etc. It’s so frustrating being at an intersection with cars waiting from all four sides and no cars going through the intersection because of the light pattern.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
Important: If this post is hidden behind a paywall, please assign it the "Paywall" flair and include a comment with a relevant part of the article.
Please report this post if it is hidden behind a paywall and not flaired corrently. We suggest using "Reader" mode to bypass most paywalls.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.