• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

California becomes first US state to set efficiency rules for replacement tires

Mike95060 said:
That didn't work for my line of star spangled butt plugs but I do think you are on to something.....
Click to expand...
Look, I bought two dozen, there is only so much I can do. The "Liberty Rectalfier," was brilliant marketing by the way.
 
stangmx13 said:
You should read the report. The cost savings estimate is attributed only to gas saved.

Tread Wear rating is not part of these new regs in a meaningful way - it’s not something that will be regulated or mandated or whatever. It is an explicit requirement of the regs to “not adversely affect avg tire life”.

Long life (1000-1399 tread rating) and ultra long life (1400+) are allowed to roll slightly slower than normal car tires. But it’s not like those tires are common.
Click to expand...

I'll check it out. So if the composition of the tires isn't supposed to impact trade wear, what the hell is it? How does anything else beside tread wear help consumers in the cost of tires?
 
Dubbington said:
I'll check it out. So if the composition of the tires isn't supposed to impact trade wear, what the hell is it? How does anything else beside tread wear help consumers in the cost of tires?
Click to expand...
0.5 mpg increase! :rolleyes
 
Dubbington said:
Take me a long time to walk to my work thats 10 miles away and some work 30 miles away.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. We have a society built around the automobile.

I'm glad my commuting by car days are over. I hope they don't return.
 
Dubbington said:
I'll check it out. So if the composition of the tires isn't supposed to impact trade wear, what the hell is it? How does anything else beside tread wear help consumers in the cost of tires?
Click to expand...
You are mixing this up. Consumers are not getting help w the cost of tires. The cost of tires is supposed to go up. The total cost of gas used over the life of the tires is supposed to go down, more than the increase in tire cost.
 
Driving the speed limit in the fast lane is gas efficient. 🤔
 
Rtmac said:
0.5 mpg increase! :rolleyes
Click to expand...
That’s a 2% increase for a 25mpg car. The same car would use 2000gal for 50k mile tires. They’ll save 40gal with the better tires. That’s $180 saved at the $4.50/gal when the report was made or $240 at $6/gal.

That’s all the averages. Anyone that would have bought shitty tires could save more. Others that would have bought good tires anyway won’t save anything with Phase1.
 
byke said:
You know it's funny, this thread represents a thousand "conversations" that we've had in California going back decades, but then years later they're totally normal. More apropos, the effing helmet law lol, riders were outraged at California and omg the costs and omg everything is going to be ruined, but here we are years later thinking that people that ride without helmets are morons. It's almost as if....we're the morons. Almost.
Click to expand...
It's kind of like whatever ideas or norms you grew up with, no matter how arcane they were, are "normal" and must be defended. Maybe that's why change takes a generation or two.

I have definitely believed moronic things because they were "normal." :toothless
 
stangmx13 said:
That’s a 2% increase for a 25mpg car. The same car would use 2000gal for 50k mile tires. They’ll save 40gal with the better tires. That’s $180 saved at the $4.50/gal when the report was made or $240 at $6/gal.

That’s all the averages. Anyone that would have bought shitty tires could save more. Others that would have bought good tires anyway won’t save anything with Phase1.
Click to expand...
I'd suspect the real world savings are about 50% of the projected savings (testing is usually under ideal conditions)
 
stangmx13 said:
That’s a 2% increase for a 25mpg car. The same car would use 2000gal for 50k mile tires. They’ll save 40gal with the better tires. That’s $180 saved at the $4.50/gal when the report was made or $240 at $6/gal.

That’s all the averages. Anyone that would have bought shitty tires could save more. Others that would have bought good tires anyway won’t save anything with Phase1.
Click to expand...

Mind you, this all theoretical. All the while, mandated safety systems in autos drive MSRP's higher. This is another California feel good law with little benefit that I can see, IMO. Same as boat safety class, etc. If CA truly wanted to save drivers fuel costs absent lowering the excessive state taxes, they should mandate instant MPG / average MPG gauges in all CA autos. Most drivers are morons when it comes to driving to save fuel.
 
Rtmac said:
I'd suspect the real world savings are about 50% of the projected savings (testing is usually under ideal conditions)
Click to expand...
It’s kinda the opposite in this case. The ISO test is on a smooth steel drum. Rolling resistance increases with roughness. So the gap btw fast and slow tires IRL will be larger than the test because even asphalt roughness matters.

We already have EPA mpg estimates on new car stickers and those are generally close enough. This estimate seems comparable and may use the same data. If you get enough data and take enough averages, it’s hard to be “wrong” lol.
 
Holeshot said:
Mind you, this all theoretical. All the while, mandated safety systems in autos drive MSRP's higher. This is another California feel good law with little benefit that I can see, IMO. Same as boat safety class, etc. If CA truly wanted to save drivers fuel costs absent lowering the excessive state taxes, they should mandate instant MPG / average MPG gauges in all CA autos. Most drivers are morons when it comes to driving to save fuel.
Click to expand...
Ya, it’s not perfect so let’s not do anything!

If the CEC really wanted to save gas, they’d lower the speed limits to 50mph and mandate 91 octane. The mpg savings, esp for newer cars they can optimize for 91, would dwarf these silly tire regs.

/s

Joking aside, I can’t rem the last time I rented a car without a live mpg data field. My last rental was a hybrid minivan and it took up like half the display.
 
stangmx13 said:
We already have EPA mpg estimates on new car stickers and those are generally close enough.
Click to expand...
Since when?
Again I left the dealership in 2014, but up until then they weren't even close unless you were driving a constant speed, on the flat, no a/c, etc. It was nearly impossible to get the est mpg during normal driving.
 
stangmx13 said:
Since always until someone gets sued for them being too far off.
Click to expand...
I worked for a Chevy, Buick, Honda dealer... none of the cars were ever within 5 mpg of the stickers under normal driving. In fact, I remember while I was still there Honda changed their sticker verbiage from "your mileage may vary" to "your mileage will vary". The procedure for a fuel consumption test was don't accelerate over 2500 rpm from a stop, no hills, no A/C.
 
Rtmac said:
I worked for a Chevy, Buick, Honda dealer... none of the cars were ever within 5 mpg of the stickers under normal driving. In fact, I remember while I was still there Honda changed their sticker verbiage from "your mileage may vary" to "your mileage will vary". The procedure for a fuel consumption test was don't accelerate over 2500 rpm from a stop, no hills, no A/C.
Click to expand...
Our actual mileage vs the sticker on our CX5 turbo is about 1 mpg lower than advertised but highway is about 2 mpg better than advertised but that is if one can believe in car mpg averages displayed on the dash.

It is the only car I've never bothered to actually verify the accuracy of that mpg screen. AI says it is likely optimistc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top