19 ms·
California's new tire efficiency rules could save drivers $1B a year
- enahs-sf 2mo agoLooking forward to picking up new pilot sports in Nevada.
- winrid 2mo agoSame. It seems like they will just give them one leaf marking and not outlaw them outright, though?
- MBCook 2mo agoRight. If they wanted to ban things this would basically ban all knobby tires too wouldn’t it? This is a primarily a labeling law it seems so people don’t get accidentally screwed. Seems like a good idea to me.
- adolph 2mo ago> Right. If they wanted to ban things this would basically ban all knobby tires too wouldn’t it? Those will be exempt from testing/labelling.
- matchbok3 2mo agoWhat a silly law. If a tire is "inefficient" and therefore "bad", why can't California just ban the sale of them? Instead there will be a new government funded office and rating system with "leaf" icons that 95% of consumers will ignore completely. Like all types of laws like this, the "$1B" claim will never be reviewed or judged to see how accurate it is. (It's not, at all)
- kube-system 2mo ago> If a tire is "inefficient" and therefore "bad", why can't California just ban the sale of them? Instead there will be a new government funded office and rating system Isn’t it doing both?
- exabrial 2mo agoIt'll never get reviewed. They'll distract them with something other piece of news. And don't be shocked if a bunch of California government officials bought a bunch of Goodyear stock right before this.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoI understand how the article could make it sound like they're doing some kind of complicated matching process, but what California is doing here is pretty close to just banning the sale of them. They're establishing the rolling resistance coefficient as the state's official measure of tire efficiency, attaching a leaf ranking to different ranges, and through 2031 phasing in maximum values which tires must meet to be sold.
- holgerschurig 2mo agoBecause things aren't as simple as you make up. "why can't California just ban the sale of them" -- because that infringes freedom too much? There are probably lots of special machines with tires (e.g. in construction, farming, mining) that absolutely need "bad tyres". Because only they work, e.g. due to construction form or physical properties like maximum pressure. If some armchair person now goes here and outright bans all tyres that don't match some efficiency numbers ... then all of the users of such equipment will be punished. THAT would be an overreaching government action. However, having some labels that indicate to those customers that care (and can care, because they don't have to consider other constraints) is actually something that enlarges freedom. You get the info, you can act on it, but you're still free to NOT act on it should the circumstances for that be okay. And ultimately it's you that decides this, not some government authority.
- matchbok3 2mo agoSo 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.
- MBCook 2mo agoThe 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.
- matchbok3 2mo agoThe 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?
- 3eb7988a1663 2mo ago...“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.” My nose for unintended consequences says manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average. That being said, the quoted figures do sound good. Maybe less compelling in someplace like Texas with very low gas prices: The energy commission calculated that more efficient tires cost between $6 and $26 more per set, but that increase is more than offset by reduced fuel consumption. It put net savings at $85 to $153 over the lifetime of the tire when gasoline is $4.60 a gallon, though the savings could be 25 percent higher with this year’s price spikes.
- kube-system 2mo ago> manufacturers could start selling cars with worse tires to bring down the average. OEMs do the opposite already because their official MPG ratings are calculated using the OE tires. OE tires are sometimes criticized as prioritizing fuel economy too much at the expense of longevity and performance. I don’t see a reason that a car manufacturer would be incentivized to help tire manufacturers sell the cheapest tires on the market
- paddy_m 2mo agoCar manufacturers watch the cost of every piece of the bill of materials. Cars compete on price, and the assortment of pieces which add perceived value to consumers. Outside of performance and very highend luxury cars, tires are an afterthought to the average car buyer.
- kube-system 2mo agoYes, which is why most optimize tires primarily for price, fuel economy, and NVH, because those are the things which a consumer notices the most when buying a vehicle: "what's the price, what's the EPA estimate, and did I like the test drive?" Some manufacturers even source tires that have lower tread depths than typical replacement tires, in order to decrease noise and increase MPG at the direct detriment to tread life. Tesla is one of the manufacturers that does this, which is one exacerbating factor for their notoriously poor tire life. They literally come with less tire!
- throwitaway222 2mo ago[flagged]
- protocolture 2mo agoSo normal US background noise?
- vibcdingenjoyer 2mo agoNot exactly. You can own fully automatic “machine guns” here, but you have to purchase an exorbitantly priced tax stamp. There are special triggers you can add to your AR-15 that allow full auto via legal loopholes. But they’re banned on a regular basis after the ATF catches wind. Your best chance at hearing a machine gun sound is at a car meet up where the young hoodlums have aggressive pop tunes (explosions bang and pop out of the exhaust) or at a shooting range that rents out actually fully automatic rifles.
- reenorap 2mo agoIt cost me $1600 to change the 4 tires for my Tesla because they are “energy efficient” and matched my original tires. I do not want the tires for my other car to be this expensive. I don’t care about efficiency those tires are literally 4X the price of my other car a Honda.
- dawnerd 2mo agoMine are really close to needing to be replaced and I’m not looking forward to the 1500+ it’ll cost. I’ve gone further than the est lifespan at least.
- heathrow83829 2mo agoyou can cheaper ones. i'm shopping for them on discount tires.com and there;'s some for like 100$ per tire. Look for low rolling resistance. chat gpt helps with this a lot
- kube-system 2mo agoMy Honda’s energy efficient tires are cheap. Your Tesla tires are expensive because of their lower volume and high performance design. They have different compound and more durable construction to handle the weight and torque better, and have noise dampening inserts. An energy efficient tire for a Honda is just a mid priced tire for a Honda, and probably cheaper to install because they likely use just a $0.50 rubber valve stem too.
- hagbard_c 2mo agoThey're different, yes, but not that different from the others. The price difference mostly comes from the fact that those who can afford pricey EVs also can afford pricey EV tires and as such they're priced the way they are. Once EVs come down in price to match or go below ICE-powered cars tire prices will go down as well.
- 486sx33 2mo ago
- gosub100 2mo agoI would like to see a rule added that requires embedding a uuid for each tire so if you litter it, or your trucking company loses a re-tread, the state can chase you down and bill you, even years later. Upon selling a vehicle or replacing tires, your name is taken off the liability list and transferred to the new owner or shop. The retreads alone cost the state quite a bit and are dangerous to remove from the traffic lanes.
- Rebelgecko 2mo agoDo TPMSs have uuids? Although I suppose it would just be a matter of time until Flock tracks those too, if they don't already
- shibapuppie 2mo agoYep! That's how your car picks it's own four tires out of a parking lot full of tires yelling their pressure.
- gosub100 2mo agoThat would be too easy to remove. I'm thinking something like a tiny ribbon with a barcode embedded in the tread. Otherwise it would be trivial to cut the spigot (assuming that's where the sensor is located)
- shibapuppie 2mo agoThe sensor is stuck to the inside of the wheel and can't be removed without unmounting all 4 tires.
- tzs 2mo agoThey have a 32 bit ID, assigned sequentially during manufacture, with no coordination among manufacturers to avoid overlap. There will certainly be collisions. Those can often be disambiguated though because there is almost no standardization of anything else about the transmission. The closest thing to a standard is that most either operate in the 315 MHz band (which is mostly older ones in North America and Asia) or the 433 MHz band (there are restriction in Europe with the 315 MHz band). Most worldwide are now in the 433 MHz band. Tesla switched to using BLE, and others are starting to support that. For the 433 MHz (and I'd guess 315 MHz) there is pretty much no standard beyond that. It is a lot like the situation in wireless weather sensors and other non-WiFi/non-Bluetooth IoT devices. Different manufacturers use different modulation (AM or FM), different ways to encode bits, and different packet structures. These can definitely be tracked. I have an RPi with an RTL-SDR dongle that runs rtl_433 and logs the output. I pick up TPMS sensors from cars other than my own that are at least 18 meters away. This was using the small antenna that comes with many RTL-SDRs. I've now got a much better antenna that is picking up many more things on 433 MHz so probably am getting cars farther away now. There was a study that explored this [1]. They put a network of 433 MHz sensors along roads and in parking lots. They captured 6 million packets from 20k cars. They found groups of IDs that came and went at the same time to fingerprint individual cars and were able to map out driver's daily routines and commute schedules. Note that unlike cameras and automatic license plate readers this requires no line of sight, so is much less bothered by heavy rain or fog or dirty plates. Use a good antenna and you should be able to make this work at up to maybe 100 meters or if the cars are in concrete parking structure. [1] https://networks.imdea.org/your-cars-tire-sensors-could-be-used-to-track-you/ https://networks.imdea.org/your-cars-tire-sensors-could-be-u...
- winrid 2mo agoTIL we have LED lightbulb rules but every bulb in home depot has terrible PWM that's bad for your eyes. Another 20 years and maybe the government will finally address that. On the tires topic, I'm fine with this as long as they don't ban the sale of anything. Let the consumer decide.
- Schiendelman 2mo agoCan you get LED lightbulbs you like online?
- winrid 2mo agoYeah, the Philips EyeComfort Flicker Free bulbs. Which HD used to sell. Now it's 90% a couple other brands. The problem is landlords and normal people just go to home depot so every time I move it's a giant replace bulbs fiasco (or even replacing fixtures).
- 486sx33 2mo ago[dead]
- BigTTYGothGF 2mo agoSounds like the problem is HD/Lowes driving all other alternatives out of business.
- jerlam 2mo agoAlthough I only found the highly-rated Philips Ultra Definition bulbs at Walmart, of all places.
- WarmWash 2mo agoIt's not that they go to home depot, it's that they buy whatever is cheapest because "LED bulb = LED bulb", and then talk about how LED bulbs are trash.
- benji-york 2mo ago
- OptionOfT 2mo agoDual feeling about this. Non-OEM tires are usually louder, because they trade in efficiency for noise. OTOH I had a car that came with Michelin Super Ports and it was a much better ride on Michelin PS4S.
- hooloovoo_zoo 2mo agoI’d be much more interested in particulate pollution limits for tires.
- lukeify 2mo agoHow 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 makes it impossible.
- Schiendelman 2mo agoThe real changes are to make them less toxic! There are a bunch of approaches to take there.
- Drunk_Engineer 2mo agoThis company is working on a pollution capture device: https://thetyrecollective.com https://thetyrecollective.com
- lukeify 2mo agoVery cool.
- hamdingers 2mo ago> 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?
- cityofdelusion 2mo agoNot frictionless, so it will also slowly degrade over time. It just has so much mass built-in that it’s not obvious.
- burnt-resistor 2mo agoTypically, there's a trade-off between rolling resistance/energy efficiency and traction/low noise. It's very easy to make long-lasting, efficient tires that are unsafe. It's difficult to make them both categories and quiet. Maybe single occupancy personal vehicles are wasteful and mass transportation should be invested in rather than shaming individual into token behaviors compared to large-scale waste and consumption sources elsewhere in the economy?
- RajuChacha108 2mo ago[flagged]
- dmitrygr 2mo ago> Maybe single occupancy personal vehicles are wasteful and mass transportation should be invested in rather than shaming individual no amount of shaming will make me not consider my family's safety. mass transit in CA (eg: https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/nobody-feels-comfortable-taking-bart-anymore https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/nobody-feels-comfortab...) is not safe due to lack of serious policing. my family is prohibited from taking mass transit in usa. It is ok in japan and singapore.
- Hugsbox 2mo agoI'd imagine a serious effort to invest in mass transportation would include an investment in safety. Are you suggesting Japan and Singapore are just inherently safer, without having actively done anything to make it that way? "my family is prohibited" christ almighty
- dmitrygr 2mo agoThe dirt (ground) of japan and singapore is not magic and does not confer safety, if that is what you are asking. It is a factor of something else > "my family is prohibited" christ almighty Yes, I take their safety seriously.
- diggernet 2mo ago"...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 tires, you could only buy tires that are designated for your specific vehicle. And that owners of two vehicles with the same size tires would have different allowed tire choices, depending on what their OEM tires were. Put another way, is this saying you can't buy wider than OEM tires, and that you can't buy all-terrain tires for something that came with street tires?
- winrid 2mo agoIt'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.
- butvacuum 2mo agoIt is already difficult to get most aftermarket parts in california- especially things in the combustion path. Can't even buy them off ebay.
- winrid 2mo agoYes, but for tires, they explicitly make exceptions for summer tires etc here.
- AlexandrB 2mo agoThis 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 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.
- winrid 2mo agoProbably the weirdest thing about this is the state doing something that results in it getting less tax money. This was lobbied for by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
- parineum 2mo agoI assume you mean about buying less (taxed) gas. Never fear, California is also talking about shifting to a mileage baded road tax because EVs (which they heavily incentivized) saving money on gas can't go untaxed.
- scottbez1 2mo agoGas tax has always been a proxy metric for mileage in order to implement usage based costs to help offset the many billions of dollars California spends maintaining roads every year. Gas as a proxy for mileage breaks down with widespread EV usage, so even though they are a benefit for many reasons with incentivizing, they still require expensive road upkeep so should not be immune from usage taxation.
- parineum 2mo agoOr, spitballing here, let the gas tax reprieve be the incentive and don't offer a rebate for EVs. Regardless, gas tax is a stupid way to pay for roads. Everyone uses roads, whether they drive on them or not. And, they won't be repealing the gas tax. They'll be adding a mileage tax on top of the gas tax.
- winrid 2mo agoGas tax is how we originally built the whole highway system actually (that and bonds).
- kelnos 2mo ago> And, they won't be repealing the gas tax. They'll be adding a mileage tax on top of the gas tax. If that incentivizes more people to buy EVs and drop their gas vehicles, that's great. And I say this as a driver of a gas-powered car with not-the-best MPG. Of course, the problem with this is that new EVs are expensive, and the kinds of people who drive older, inefficient ICE cars are the kinds of people who probably can't afford a new EV. (Not sure what the used market is looking like, though.)
- tlogan 2mo agoThe 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).
- MBCook 2mo agoSeems right to me. So what is the right way then?
- benji-york 2mo agoIterated games.
- RajuChacha108 2mo agoLet people buy whatever they want.
- zardo 2mo agoTire wear is the largest source of micro plastic pollution and is likely the cause of a salmon population collapse in several PNW watersheds.
- Dig1t 2mo ago1. 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.
- undersuit 2mo agoDriving slower in the rain?
- jwr 2mo agoThe EU has been using a single mandatory tire-label system that has an "efficiency" category, among others, so that you can see the tradeoffs, since 2021. But of course, the EU is over-regulated, let's laugh at the EU :-)
- surfmike 2mo agoCalifornia is also over regulated.
- leobg 2mo agoIIf you’re over-regulated, you’re bound to get something right every once in a while. To over-regulate and get 100 % of regulations wrong would require someone in the system to be able to tell good from bad, aka competence. :)
- c0decracker 2mo agoI think with regulations "right" is highly subjective and also time dependent. "Right" today is wrong tomorrow. "Right" for one group is wrong for another today and it might switch up tomorrow.
- adolph 2mo agoThe 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 tires, winter snow tires, space-saver tires, and temporary-use tires" and the unintended consequence will be that vehicle energy efficiency as a whole will decline. 0. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=269612 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=269612 1. https://www.scribd.com/document/915700524/ISO-28580-2018 https://www.scribd.com/document/915700524/ISO-28580-2018
- mmooss 2mo ago> 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.
- adolph 2mo ago> We need a better argument than that. I'm not arguing for or against this consumer information regulation. It would not surprise me if most tire industry folks support it since a acknowledged standard increases consumer trust in the claims of a premium product. Good regulation creates wins for both consumers and producers. Bad regulation typically tries to nudge either consumers or producers in a direction contrary to the prevailing culture and/or economics. To the extent that CA will attempt to reduce consumer choice, different methods will exploit the regulation's leaks, like which tires it does not cover. A direct corollary is US fuel economy standards leading to the rise of the SUV as an vehicle format. People may disagree on causes, but "[t]here is some evidence that this happened with an increase in market share of lower fuel economy light trucks and SUVs and decline in passenger car sales, as a percentage of total fleet sales, as car buying trends changed during the 1990s. . ." [0] Another fun example is the development of "trunking." I'm not a CA teen so lack direct experience, and things are undoubtably overhyped, but enough people started doing it for a law to be passed specifically criminalizing the practice. Why would anyone ride in the trunk of a car? Because CA outlawed passengers in cars driven by teens. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy 1. https://www.ocregister.com/2007/01/03/trunking-law-for-the-dumb-and-dumber/ https://www.ocregister.com/2007/01/03/trunking-law-for-the-d...
- legitster 2mo agoThere 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 traction and tire wear when shopping. Either super slippery tires, or tires that wear out quickly (hence why manufacturers are potentially behind the proposal). > The rule also comes with exemptions including snow tires and those used in competition. All-weather tires are also excluded, but the state will track them, as that growing segment may be regulated in the future. All-Weathers are excluded! Realistically this is a program that would only be effective in California.
- AlexandrB 2mo agoYeah, 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.
- legitster 2mo agoThis 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."
- SoftTalker 2mo agoThis 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.
- 2mo ago
- spullara 2mo agosince this is about fuel consumption I assume that it doesn't apply to EVs
- klaff 2mo agoEVs 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.
- dmitrygr 2mo agoEnergy consumption. EVs being heavier, it actually matters more for them
- spullara 2mo agothe energy consumption of EVs is already massively below gas vehicles. also, as others have pointed out, their tires already are within the regulations.
- dmitrygr 2mo agothis regulation is about replacement tires, which people buy... EV owners could (before this) also buy tires that no longer comply with this new regulation
- whatgoodisaroad 2mo agowhat an unbelievably hostile cookie banner
- raspasov 2mo agoCalifornia 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.
- Dig1t 2mo agolol does $3 even buy you one small black coffee at Starbucks? I think it’s close to $5 for anything on their menu.
- kotaKat 2mo agoWatch out, though. That coffee may contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm!
- 0x457 2mo agoActually, Prop 65 specifically exempts coffee from the warning requirement.
- raspasov 2mo agoI have seen that goofy warning in SBUX stores, for whatever it's worth haha (not on the coffee cup).
- 0x457 2mo agoKinda my problem with that label: you have no idea what's it about when you see that label. The spectrum of what got that label is so broad that it's not very useful IMO. Coffee specifically used require Prop65 warning because it releases acrylamide during roasting process, but after a lenghty legal battle coffee got an exeption.
- 2mo ago
- somecalitechguy 2mo ago[dead]
- likelybot 2mo ago[dead]
- dogscatstrees 2mo agoOk, does anyone have a list of these new tires that I can source from Costco?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- hadlock 2mo agoTwo of my cars wear specialty tires, one is a citroen that uses specialty Michelin Pilot-X tires designed exclusively for Citroen (and a handful of Renault) of that era, the other wears very limited production tires designed to go on spoke rim with center nut spline hubs. Pretty concerned I am going to have to "manually import" these from Nevada as they need replacement every ~3 years.
- angiolillo 2mo agoToo bad they didn't just require manufacturers to publish a rolling resistance efficiency score for tires, like the EU does, rather than a mandate with so many unintended consequences and loopholes. (That would be especially effective at influencing consumer behavior if paired with higher carbon fees.)
- scotty79 2mo agoManufacturers should be forced to publish basically everything about the products they introduce into the market. Freedom of information laws should apply to large manufacturers.
- tonymet 2mo agoWhen WA launched the CCA , claiming it would cost only pennies, it ended up costing a lot more per tank. The claimed emissions reduction was very large, and the actual reduction was negligible. This program claims 2 MMT reduction per year, but that assumes 100% adoption , after they move past the voluntary restrictions , into mandatory restrictions, and will eventually require on-road tread enforcement. Are you okay with being pulled over for the wrong tread? it's annoying enough to face snow chains enforcement. The only way to reach 100% adoption is with highway tread enforcement. Like we do for highway emissions enforcement. What do you think they will use the Flock cameras for?
- whyenot 2mo agoIt seems like the idea is that we get more fuel efficient tires but at the price of having tires that wear out more quickly? That seems like a pretty lousy proposition, especially when you factor in externalities like all the micro-particle pollution that tires produce and the chronic health effects they can cause.
- bsimpson 2mo agoRidiculous regulations have been California's MO since at least the middle of the last century. Why in the hell should the government be regulating this?
- larkost 2mo agoYour first statement is pure opinion (and a prejudiced one at that), so I will skip that. Your second statement is a question worth investigating: why should the government be involved here? The simple answer is that the market has not moved for the problem of tire efficiency. There is a quote in the article that goes to the heart of this: “It’s very difficult or impossible for consumers to know how energy efficient their tires are going to be, as a result, many people unknowingly buy tires that cost them more money than necessary”. Large imbalances (like this) in information are one of the things markets do not work well in. So the solution here is to (gradually) put a floor under how inefficient tires can be. This is one way to solve the market inefficiency (since it treated this as an externality). I would rather have had them use an approach more like the EnergyStar system, where it requires a simple rating for the efficiency, including average savings and where this sits in comparison with competitors (in that range). I would even add to that a green/yellow/red system that would be allowed to slide the ranges over time to reflect what the market can currently produce.
- hnburnsy 2mo agoThe rest of the story... >California’s New Tire Rule Could Wipe Out 70% of What’s on the Shelf — And Sacramento Sat on the Law for 23 Years https://theautowire.com/2026/08/18/californias-new-tire-rule-could-wipe-out-70-of-whats-on-the-shelf-and-sacramento-sat-on-the-law-for-23-years/ https://theautowire.com/2026/08/18/californias-new-tire-rule...
- tsycho 2mo agoThere seem to be some knowledgeable commenters here. How does a noob (asking for a friend) figure out what tires to buy? What should my friend be looking for?
- nothercastle 2mo agoI don’t understand why anyone wants tires rated for much more than 40k miles. Inevitably you will have to replace damaged tires from road hazard much earlier than their rated life
- shaboinkin 2mo agoSlightly tangential, but I wonder how much energy savings could be had if street light timings factored in the energy it takes to get cars moving from a stop to the posted speed limit from one intersection to the next. Terrible light timings around my area mean 20-30 cars all start getting to move only to stop a short distance later because one car on a side street happened to approach the sensor when a larger intersection turned green, which leads to a snowball affect where the timings at the next major intersection don’t consider the odd side street breaking the flow, causing more and more timing issues. This affects not just gas/electricity usage but also tire and brake wear.