backtop

Print 52 comment(s) - last by lco45.. on Jun 24 at 12:13 AM

Goodyear, Michelin (pictured here), and other tire companies all brag about their fuel efficient tires, but how efficient are they really? A new Californian rating system proposes to answer that question scientifically, ranking the competition and putting the data in the hands of the consumer. Tire companies aren't happy with the measure.
Gas guzzling tires be gone!

California is a state that is deep into the world of energy savings.  From its alternative energy initiatives that have helped the state gain numerous solar installations, from private rooftops to large farms, to hybrid car efforts, to programs to stomp out "power guzzling" television sets, California has taken the effort to lower our power footprint to new heights.

The latest Californian legislation proposes a fuel efficient tire rating system based on rolling resistance.  Proposed by the California Energy Commission's (CEC), the measure is currently incorporating in feedback from the tire manufacturer representatives and tire industry association personnel.  The new system would rank all tires of the same size and load index against each other.  The proposal would require manufacturers to test all consumer tires using the ISO 28580 test protocol.

States the CEC, "The foundation of a government administered product rating system is a comprehensive database providing reliable test results and objective information accessible to everyone. A solid analytical basis combined with full disclosure and transparency inspires the confidence required for a rating system to be successful.  A ranking system driven by the 'best in class tire' can ignite a competitive spirit."

It recommends, "All tires with an RRF (Rolling Resistance Force) within 15% of the lowest RRF reported tire for that combined tire size designation and load rating will be rated 'fuel efficient tire.'"

The tire manufacturers aren't huge fans of the proposed system, arguing it will bring them $20M USD in new costs.  They instead advocate five-star rating system based on a static scale for measuring rolling coefficients (not a competitive system).  They argue this will make the data easier for the customer to assimilate, as opposed to a ranking system by tire model.  The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), an industry group wants "self certification" as well.  

They also want to test fewer tires.  Finally, the industry is complaining that a California-only standard may be bad idea.  They point out that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently drafting a national RRF standard.

Typically manufacturers use pricier fuel efficient tires to raise their fuel economy, but replacement tires have been less fuel efficient.  Tire companies like Goodyear have begun to slowly offer the more fuel-efficient tires to the masses, and the new standard looks to recognize and evaluate these efforts.  

Fuel efficient tires cost approximately $8 more for a set of four tires, an investment that is typically returned within 3 months, according to a study (PDF) by the National Academies of Science.  At $2.50/gallon gas, typically you'll save $100 over the 3 and 1/2 year life of the tires. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Tire efficiency
By TheSpaniard on 6/15/2009 4:29:49 PM , Rating: 3
so it costs only $8 for more fuel efficient tires... thats great.

but thats like looking at truck and street tires for your f150.

do you really want to give up the ability of the tire for the fuel efficiency? some do some don't...




RE: Tire efficiency
By DigitalFreak on 6/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Tire efficiency
By tjr508 on 6/15/2009 5:20:26 PM , Rating: 4
I guess you don't understand anything about materials.

The point is extremely valid. Pavement friction allows a vehicle to do things like brake and make turns. The lower this friction is, the lower a vehicle's capabilities are to perform such actions. Hybrid attempts can be made to lower straight rolling friction while retaining lateral and deceleration friction, but these have failed miserably in real-world tests. The mess get's even worse when you throw adverse conditions in the mix.

There's a reason you don't see 'lifetime' brakes on performance vehicles. The story with tires is no different.


RE: Tire efficiency
By ninjit on 6/15/2009 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 4
You apparently don't know what you're talking about either.

High contact friction is desirable in a tire, period.

Rolling resistance is something different: it's the inefficiency that arrises from trying to move the wheel forward, and it's mostly due to deformation of the tire - i.e. as you move forward the tire squishes then rebounds (so energy is lost as heat and sound through the deformation process).
A low contact friction actually increases rolling resistance some because the tire may also slip when you try to move forward.

The only reason to REDUCE contact friction in a tire is to increase the lifespan. F1/Indycars have ridiculously grippy tires, but they also have to change them mutliple times within a singl race.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Keeir on 6/15/2009 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe you got rated down because of the agressive nature of your post?

Rolling Resistance has to do both deformation AND material contact properties.

Improving Rolling Resistance CAN result in reduced safety due to lower grip

but its also true that Rolling Resistance CAN be improved while keeping safety the same

In essense, a new rating system is stupid. We already have a rating system. Its the coefficient of Rolling Resistance. Why shouldn't tire manufactures agree on a test car/program and label each tire with its

Rolling Resistance Coefficent
Skidpad
etc

At its intended PSI inflation. Inflation rates can/do change rolling resistance.


RE: Tire efficiency
By mindless1 on 6/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Tire efficiency
By Keeir on 6/16/2009 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All else being equal, it is true that lower rolling resistance reduces safety.


I guess thats true if your not allowed to increase cost at all. Apples to Apples? You mean same cost tire? Thats not entirely fair as lower rolling resistance means less cost in the long run.

If you want a level of safety, you can acchieve that level of safety with a variety of rolling resistances. You just pay more for better rolling resistance.

The real question is whether its economical to pay -more- for lower rolling resistance while maintaining safety. I think its pretty clear the answer (from this study) is yes.


RE: Tire efficiency
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2009 7:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'

RAWHIDE!


RE: Tire efficiency
By seamonkey79 on 6/16/2009 9:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rollin' Rollin' Rollin' RAWHIDE!


That's what I was thinking...


RE: Tire efficiency
By Souka on 6/16/2009 11:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
We need to invest in hovercar technology... then this California only regulation will be obsolete...


RE: Tire efficiency
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 9:58:18 PM , Rating: 3
Hahaha, NO.

Rolling resistance, deformation, is not just about flexure of the entire sidewall or plane of the tread, it is also about the individual tread mounds and material grip.

A low contact friction does not increase rolling resistance with any sane driver because they are not giving it so much gas as to peel out.

Maybe in some theoretical way if they ever find the perfect tire material you would be right, but with real existing tires it is true that more fuel efficient tires, given equally good modern tire designs and materials per the purpose, are worse for handling, braking, etc.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Samus on 6/16/2009 2:21:05 AM , Rating: 3
There was a Fifth Gear episode where they were trying to get more fuel economy out of some car and they tried all kinds of things like ECU reprograming, synthetic oil, underdrive pulleys, removing weight, and low rolling resistance tires.

They said that the particular low resistance tires they used (Hankook) were downright dangerous. They peeled out easily and braking distance was increased by a full car length. It wasn't a performance car, so they didn't do any handling tests, but assume it would have been terrible. The ONLY positive thing they had to say about them was they were 'quieter.' Well, duh.

However, the flip side is, Hankook only makes average quality tires anyway.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Hiawa23 on 6/16/2009 9:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
I run a Goodyear Commercial Tire Center & Goodyear is already working on this technology infact they have released the Assurance Fuelmax tires for passenger tires along with adding lines for the LT & commercial tires. I have aread all the reports that the company has sent to me on this & I just put some fuelmax tires on my 06 Lancer Ralliart. I still don't get how they save anything as to me the car doesn't know what tires are on the vehicle, but I am hoping to reap the benefits. I will say they were more expensive than standard tires so I hope they infact work as they say with the rolling resistance/friction & stuff.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Keeir on 6/16/2009 11:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Rolling Resistance is one of the primary components of "Energy Out" on a car.

Work (Energy) = Force * Distance

Force = Rolling Resistance Force + Air Resistance Force

Rolling Resistace Force = Wieght * Coefficient of Rolling Resistance

Normal Tires are typically 0.01-0.015 depending on inflation

"Low Rolling Resistance" Tires are typically 0.005-0.01 depending on inflation.

Its important to note that proper tire inflation is key to lowering rolling resistance of all tires. Properly cared for "normal" tires will likely have less rolling resistance than "low resistance" tires that are not cared for...


RE: Tire efficiency
By Murloc on 6/15/2009 4:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
no one said you can't look at other characteristics.


RE: Tire efficiency
By TheSpaniard on 6/15/2009 4:45:45 PM , Rating: 3
no no I wasnt saying it like that...

I meant that their are other characteristics that should be considered beyond fuel efficiency.


RE: Tire efficiency
By tastyratz on 6/16/2009 7:11:27 AM , Rating: 3
Anyone can look at other things, but the problem is the overwhelming ignorance of the buying public and how something as stupid as this can sway their decisions beyond all else. The reality is that with a system like this people will go out and buy the tire that's top of that list to save a buck. In doing so they will be buying low friction DANGEROUS tires. Material friction just cannot be uncompromisable with a tangibly lower rolling resistance tire, period. Theory doesn't matter in real world, in the real world tire technology isn't there on the production side.
I think something like this in a down economy will take off, but I would rather see people buy safe and grippy tires instead.


RE: Tire efficiency
By sinful on 6/16/2009 3:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone can look at other things, but the problem is the overwhelming ignorance of the buying public and how something as stupid as this can sway their decisions beyond all else. The reality is that with a system like this people will go out and buy the tire that's top of that list to save a buck.


Isn't that the battle cry for "socialism"?
"The people will make bad decisions just to save a buck, we should look at the big picture instead?".

Really,
either you think
A) The masses of people are ignorant, and thus the free market allows for really bad decisions to be made in the name of saving a buck, OR
B) The masses of people are smart, and providing more information (such as what's being proposed) will help consumers make a better decision.

In other words, if saving a buck is the overriding factor, then it seems like the only way we're going to move away from oil is going to be to tag gas prices with all the "external costs".
(i.e. "Non-domestic energy surcharge: $.75/gal", "Military protection of oil fields in Middle east surcharge: $.50/gal", etc.)

Otherwise, alternative energy will never take off because the "ignorance of buying public" will only ever look at the $ cost of a solution...?


RE: Tire efficiency
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 3:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
When it comes to tires, most regular people look at cost and longevity primarily. I would saw performance being secondary. Most people aren't interested in the best of the best unless they can afford that. What they are interested in is adequate performance for the money they have to spend. If one tire is moderately better than another for a little increase in price, people WILL choose the pricier tire.

The only way people will pay more for low rolling resistance tires is if there is a lot of hype on how they'll save you money in gas. And that's whether or not there's proof provided on the savings. Now if those tires don't perform as well as their old one's, people will go back to their old one's. If the new tires are significantly more than their present one's, they will not sell or they will only sell to people that are buying them specifically for their traits (like when sports car owners specifically buy high grip tires).


RE: Tire efficiency
By tastyratz on 6/17/2009 4:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly the battlecry for socialism, settle down tiger.

People are free to choose their own tires and even with a rating system they would be free to do so. I am not advocating a single tire or reduced selection to anyone.

I believe personally people do not stress a tires ability to grip as much as they probably should.

"I'm just using it to get to work its not a sports car"
Is the usual line. The result of that is I get rear ended by those same people because they placed a lower importance on a tires ability to keep their car on the road.

I would be more likely to support this rollout if simultaneously people were also given a skidpad test statistic also developed into an iso standard.

Information for how long a tire lasts (treadwear) is on the side of the tire, why should the same importance not be placed on a tires ability to grip (safety)

after all, those 4 tires are the most important investment you could possibly make in your car in reflection of handling/maneuverability, braking, and acceleration... yet generally people treat them like they matter very little.

Hitting that deer, not avoiding that drunk driver, not rear ending someone in the rain, and not losing your son/daughter to that first snow storm should be stressed far more than getting 1/4mpg more.


RE: Tire efficiency
By ax on 6/15/2009 5:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!

There is pretty good correlation between tire performance and fuel economy. If you compare for example all season fires than most good tires have worse fuel economy. Tires job is hold car on the road. Guess how. Thru friction. Better friction, the better grip tire has. But fuel economy is better than friction is lowest. Tire manufactures have to find balance between these two.

When I replaced tires on my Acura TL, I choose better tires knowing that fuel economy will go down. And it did, I think from around 29mpg on highway to about 27mpg. But I would do the same think again. The difference in handling especially when raining is like night and day.


RE: Tire efficiency
By TomZ on 6/15/2009 6:04:23 PM , Rating: 4
Right on - and when I choose new tires for the car my whole family will spend many hours whizzing down the road in, under all kinds of weather conditions, do you think that saving a few MPG is going to be my priority?

Safety will always trump fuel economy in my book. They're not even close.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Alexstarfire on 6/15/2009 11:20:44 PM , Rating: 1
Musta been some real crappy tires you replaced then. Only time I ever notice a big different between tires is when a set is getting on it's last leg.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Pneumothorax on 6/16/2009 12:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
When I bought my 330i used it had a set of 4 Pirelli P-zero Nero All season tires with relatively low-rolling resistance. Even though they still had about 80% tread left after driving 1000 miles, the set of tires were GLADLY chucked for a brand new set of Michelin Pilot Sport 2's. The treadwear should be about half and I've experienced about a 1-2 highway MPG drop. BUT the handling improvements are well worth the negatives. TANSTAFL! You can't a low-rolling resistance tire with 700+ treadwear rating and expect to handle with the best of tires.


RE: Tire efficiency
By ax on 6/16/2009 9:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
You right. They were crappy. I replaced Bridgestones Turanza EL42 with Goodyear Eagle F1 All Season. You may check tirerack how they compare.
Many manufacturers choose tires with less rolling resistance for better fuel economy. They have to meet requirements for average fuel economy of cars they produce. Unfortunately less rolling resistance generally means worse performance (apart from the fact that some tires are just crap).


RE: Tire efficiency
By jimbojimbo on 6/15/2009 5:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do you really want to give up the ability of the tire for the fuel efficiency? some do some don't...
Considering most SUVs never get off the streets or driveway, do they really need all terrain tires all the time? They're more than worth it.

I remember the days when most people had regular tires on and then during the winter, changed them up for snow tires. These days everyone just uses whatever looks rugged all the time.


RE: Tire efficiency
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 10:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well since you mentioned it...

Our SUV with dual-purpose tires, gets much better traction in the snow because of the tires. I don't want it to look rugged, I'd actually prefer sports car tires on it for better traction when there isn't a lot of snow but we NEED a vehicle that can get back and forth when the snow is bad.

Plus, this are load rated tires I'm talking about, while I concede not everyone hauls anything in or behind their SUV, we do every now and again so anything not capable is simply not suited.

Because of this, I am never in favor of an SUV owner who has a rear compartment capable of carrying a heavy load, having tires that aren't load rated.

Then again the tires are not the larger reason SUVs get poor mileage so it's a bit beside the point, and further most SUVs I see do not use true all terrain tires, what they use are mildly load rated road tires with a bit wider spacing on the tread than a typical car tire has.

To see an SUV with true all terrain tires you usually have to get outside most cities and venture into redneck country, or go to a truck show or monster truck event, etc. This is less true in countries other than the US, where their all terrain tires are more sanely sized than those used in the US which typically require a lift kit.


RE: Tire efficiency
By Darkk on 6/15/2009 10:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
To make a point about rolling resistence is ride a bicycle. Ever notice the nice silm tires on the bikes the riders can go faster than the ones with mountian tires?

Same thing. You'll definately notice it when you're doing all the work on the peddle.


Cali just digging a deeper hole
By tallcool1 on 6/15/2009 4:26:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
California is a state that is deep into the world of energy savings.
and debt!

Perhaps they should worry more about fixing their out of control debt instead of implementing more rules and regulations costing thier consumers even more money and headaches.




RE: Cali just digging a deeper hole
By jimbojimbo on 6/15/2009 6:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
This will be how they intend to get more money. Put a tax on less efficient tires in the name of saving the earth. Yeah, they're all saints.


RE: Cali just digging a deeper hole
By TomZ on 6/15/2009 6:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, they're sinners that want us to all be saints.


How to spell "obsessed"
By Cobra Commander on 6/15/2009 4:45:44 PM , Rating: 3
C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A

But seriously, imagine how well-balanced their books would be if they focused as hard on their economics as their crusade!




RE: How to spell "obsessed"
By IcePickFreak on 6/15/2009 5:29:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But seriously, imagine how well-balanced their books would be if they focused as hard on their economics as their crusade!


No doubt. They cry about all the inefficiencies of all things that at the end of the day still do their task. Yet the state government is inefficient and at didn't complete their task.

That's almost like the federal government assuming control of a major corporation to show them how to not bleed money. Good thing they haven't thought of that idea... err, wait. Oh shit.


Looks useful
By lco45 on 6/15/2009 7:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
I always like hard information before making a purchase, so info on rolling resistance will be useful in deciding my next tires.
I hate it when you're shopping for something and no-one can tell you the hard facts, ie. "this tire's really good", "no, this one's better", why can't you just get a spec sheet like when buying a PC. These specs are surely known to the producers.

Luke




RE: Looks useful
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 10:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's largely unneeded, most tire shops can advise you that you buy a stickier tire for better performance and safety, and a harder compound for longer life and better mileage (assuming an equal quality tire, and not one that has sat around rotting on the rack too long... which is a more significant issue when you buy those long life tires because if you don't drive a lot of miles per year you will see the point of retirement from age before the tread wears out, even moreso when it started out with a stiffer tread compound).


RE: Looks useful
By lco45 on 6/24/2009 12:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with that, but my point is the tire shop guy can just tell you it's stickier or harder, you have no access to actual information on which to base your decision.

The information is clearly known to the manufacturer, and I'd like to know it as well, thanks...

Luke


A much better solution.
By corduroygt on 6/15/2009 11:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
A goverment mandate I would support would be TPMS on all cars, just like airbags and seatbelts. Underinflated tires may give a cushy ride, but they're bad for safety and efficiency. Most people don't bother to check their tires, so let's have a warning light in the dashboard that will compel most of them to inflate them. TPMS should not add more than $100 to the cost of a new car, especially if they're mandatory and therefore mass produced.

I'm all against the nanny state and regulations, but tires are the most important part in the safety of a car, and should not be taken lightly.




RE: A much better solution.
By FITCamaro on 6/15/2009 11:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
Way to be behind the times. Tire pressure monitoring systems were mandated in 2007. It's ridiculous though. How about people just check their f*ckin tire pressure on their own?


RE: A much better solution.
By VikingDude151 on 6/15/2009 11:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
TPMS were mandated because of the popularity of run-flat tires. Yes, people wouldn't know about the tire failing and then proceed to drive too far and have them tear apart.


Try again
By fishbits on 6/15/2009 4:38:07 PM , Rating: 5
Try again. If this is really such a great idea, Cali could make and fund the ratings itself. What this is, in actuality, is California spending freely with Other People's Money. The true focus is on the same nanny-statism that has Cali circling the drain already.

Sorry, hippies. Show me you can balance your own checkbook before you can claim to have the spare time to heap even more regulations on others. Til then, replace a lighbulb somewhere with a curly one and proclaim the planet saved.




By mechBgon on 6/15/2009 11:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt this is simply about the $20 million, because that must be just a tiny drop in the bucket for a company like Goodyear or Michelin. Betcha their advertising campaigns cost over 10x that much annually. My guess is that they fear an engineering "arms race" will result when customers get their hands on hard data instead of just vague five-star-style ratings.




By cmdrdredd on 6/16/2009 12:41:15 AM , Rating: 3
When can we cut California off from the rest of the country so they can just ban big screen TVs, gas powered vehicles, any electricity that works right now and is cheap now, and they can even have their tire rules too. Then the rest of us can actually do something that works now, is available now, is convenient, and less expensive.

Oh and they can keep their gangs and rioting basketball fans.


tires
By Grumpy1 on 6/15/2009 4:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Are you going to end up a tree because of the lower coefficient of friction offered by harder compound tires.




RE: tires
By mmatis on 6/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: tires
By SuperFly03 on 6/15/2009 4:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Basically.

When you change lanes at 55 you will squeal the tires. lol


right...
By DigitalFreak on 6/15/2009 4:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tire manufacturers aren't huge fans of the proposed system, arguing it will bring them $20M USD in new costs.


Wouldn't surprise me if they're using the same "formula" the RIAA/MPAA use to figure out lost sales. LOL




Great Idea1
By barrychuck on 6/16/2009 8:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
So when the only tires you can get resemble pizza cutters, and the roads crumble underneath the high PSI presented by the tires, does this make sense? We can't afford to damage the roads. This is why trucks have 18 wheels, dump trucks and cement trucks have 3rd axles to decrease the pounds per square inch presented to the road.




this is the case...
By swizeus on 6/16/2009 11:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
When marketing slogan put to the REAL test by official bodies.... all companies be sure to object... it is a marketing slogan only, you know, to lure people to buy one company's product rather than other...




Fixed that for you...
By iFX on 6/16/2009 5:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
California is a state that is deep into stupid government regulations that stifle business and burden the taxpayers.




I see dead people
By ggordonliddy on 6/16/2009 10:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
And they are telling me to eat bloody poo.




Hold on...
By bkslopper on 6/16/2009 4:14:09 AM , Rating: 1
Wait a sec... aren't all tires round? How do you get more efficient than round?




By Finnkc on 6/16/2009 10:27:21 AM , Rating: 1
I think its a good "idea" but I just see it becoming even more of a marketing cluster f#$% for consumers. Another "MPG race", manufactures can use to falsify their products. Most of the advertising I see in the automotive world is borderline lies ... wait let me edit that ...

Most of the advertising I see period, is borderline lies.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki