AZEqualizer
01-04-2008, 08:43 AM
In 2003, California signed into law (http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/031002.asp) the "World's First Fuel-Efficient Tires Law" and the California Energy Commission had until July 7, 2007 (http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/index.html) to develop the standards. The law goes into effect in July of 2008.
Wired (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/green-tires-cou.html) had this to say: [December 13, 2007]
Green Tires Could Cost You Your Life
By Marty Jerome
http://blog.wired.com/cars/images/2007/12/13/cartire.jpg (http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/13/cartire.jpg)Speaking of California, this week's Energy Commission workshop on low rolling-resistance tires put on quite the self-congratulating party with tire makers, environmentalists and government bureaucrats drinking from the same punch bowl. This is from the press release: "If a third of Californians bought fuel-efficient tires, they could cut their gasoline use by 100 million gallons each year," noted California Energy Commissioner Jim Boyd. Presumably, that number isn't a per-person savings.
The press release neglected to mention anything about safety concerns with these tires. Low rolling resistance tires reap their fuel savings by reducing the tire's contact patch (the area of the tire that is in contact with the ground). With less contact, the tire skids and spins much more easily. Putting bicycle tires on your car would give you sensational gas mileage.
California has mandated that the Energy Commission come up with an energy rating system for tires (the EU already has such a system). The trouble with this type of stand-alone rating is that all tires entail tradeoffs of performance, fuel economy, safety and durability. You want better performance? You'll get a softer compound, which gives up some durability. You want better economy? You'll sacrifice safety. Californians could probably reap as much fuel savings if they'd simply make sure their tires were properly inflated.
[Source: California Energy Commission]
Autobloggreens (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/03/california-has-low-resistance-tire-laws/) talked about Michelin tires and their effort to fit in.
"Michelin is big on low-resistance tires and must have seen this as a way to make money but I have to admit: For once, I am little disappointed that a major corporation did not push back a little harder against green regulation. Sure, the law requires labeling and that the market for replacement tires include (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/earthwise/sp04-earthwise-low-rolling-resistance-tires.html) low-resistance tires. Nothing wrong with more consumer information and greater choice in the market place, right? However, this could be a slippery slope to a CAFE-like law for tires."
wG5n3HpsIUg
Wired (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/green-tires-cou.html) had this to say: [December 13, 2007]
Green Tires Could Cost You Your Life
By Marty Jerome
http://blog.wired.com/cars/images/2007/12/13/cartire.jpg (http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/13/cartire.jpg)Speaking of California, this week's Energy Commission workshop on low rolling-resistance tires put on quite the self-congratulating party with tire makers, environmentalists and government bureaucrats drinking from the same punch bowl. This is from the press release: "If a third of Californians bought fuel-efficient tires, they could cut their gasoline use by 100 million gallons each year," noted California Energy Commissioner Jim Boyd. Presumably, that number isn't a per-person savings.
The press release neglected to mention anything about safety concerns with these tires. Low rolling resistance tires reap their fuel savings by reducing the tire's contact patch (the area of the tire that is in contact with the ground). With less contact, the tire skids and spins much more easily. Putting bicycle tires on your car would give you sensational gas mileage.
California has mandated that the Energy Commission come up with an energy rating system for tires (the EU already has such a system). The trouble with this type of stand-alone rating is that all tires entail tradeoffs of performance, fuel economy, safety and durability. You want better performance? You'll get a softer compound, which gives up some durability. You want better economy? You'll sacrifice safety. Californians could probably reap as much fuel savings if they'd simply make sure their tires were properly inflated.
[Source: California Energy Commission]
Autobloggreens (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/03/california-has-low-resistance-tire-laws/) talked about Michelin tires and their effort to fit in.
"Michelin is big on low-resistance tires and must have seen this as a way to make money but I have to admit: For once, I am little disappointed that a major corporation did not push back a little harder against green regulation. Sure, the law requires labeling and that the market for replacement tires include (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/earthwise/sp04-earthwise-low-rolling-resistance-tires.html) low-resistance tires. Nothing wrong with more consumer information and greater choice in the market place, right? However, this could be a slippery slope to a CAFE-like law for tires."
wG5n3HpsIUg