New California law regarding replacement tires [ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[Virtio]

I wonder how this new law in California will affect AT tires. Seems like anything less efficient than the OEM will be outlawed.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/proceeding/replacement-tire-efficiency-program-proceeding

Sponsored

 

[Yamazaki]

Seems like a lot of tires would fall under the excluded specialty tires.... including off-roading tires.

 

[DuoRivians]

AT tires could be excluded under:

- Large off-road tires for use up to 99 mph
- High load index tires (122 or greater). My Toyo AT3 EVs are 126

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Good luck enforcing it. Are they going to test every single tire available? Impossible.

 

[CANCERDOC]

This is nonsense since new tires have deeper tread depth which squirms and deforms more when driving and therefore increases rolling resistance. You cannot compare it to the rolling resistance of a worn down tire. This is why an identical replacement tire initially gets worse range.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Only outlaws will run AT tires.

 

[CANCERDOC]

That’s not what the proposal is getting at. It compares efficiency for new tires.

Not saying I agree with the proposal though….

Rolling resistance is one of the metrics of efficiency.

 

[Hereforthesnacks]

Rolling resistance is one of the metrics of efficiency.

Right. But it’s the RR of new tires.

 

[electruck]

Did I understand that site correctly that they believe the tire cost delta would be in the $1.50-$6.50 per tire range?! highly unlikely, laughable even, given that OE tires can run an extra $100 or more per tire as compared to cheaper available alternatives. CA consumers may collectively save a billion dollars on fuel but they will end up spending tens of billions more on tires.

 

[Hereforthesnacks]

Did I understand that site correctly that they believe the tire cost delta would be in the $1.50-$6.50 per tire range?! highly unlikely, laughable even, given that OE tires can run $100 or more per tire as compared to cheaper available alternatives. CA consumers may collectively save a billion dollars on fuel but they will end up spending tens of billions more on tires.

I think the funniest thing is that everyone knows OEM tires do not last as long as non-OEM tires.

 

[windshieldfarmer]

They could enforce the law through the annual inspection process and maybe a new “tire inspection fee”. That said there would need to be a comprehensive data base reflecting the respective efficiencies of the OEM tires vs the replacement options. I can’t image this law is very enforceable…but don’t underestimate the power of a bureaucracy.

 

[pricedm]

I wonder how this new law in California will affect AT tires. Seems like anything less efficient than the OEM will be outlawed.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/proceeding/replacement-tire-efficiency-program-proceeding

I fundamentally disagree with "...The efficiency gap between new car tires and replacement tires means that California drivers are paying nearly $1 billion in additional fuel costs – often without knowing why or how to fix it..."

"How to fix it" LOL.

 

[SANZC02]

I agree the value proposition is laughable.

I can give my example with my R1S. My OEM Perrelli tires are $517 each, the Michelin Defenders I replaced them with were $335 each, that saved me $728 in tire cost and $56 in sales tax, total out of pocket saved was $784.

The loss in effeciency for me, my OEM was around 2.25 m/kWh, the Defenders are closer to 2.2 m/kWh. In 45k miles I would use around 445 more kWh, even if I paid an average of 48 cents a kWh that costs me $218 more in fuel cost.

That leaves me with $516 still in my pocket.

That does not even consider the extended wear I am getting from the Defenders. I replaced my OEM at 28,276, may have got to 3k but was going on a trip that would have taken me well past 3k. I already have 25,307 on the Defenders and am currently at 8.5/32 tread depth, original when new was 11/32. If that wear holds up and I replace this set at 3/32 I will be over 50k miles on the Defenders, they have a 75k mile wear Warrenty. That alone saves me close to $2k for an additional set of OEM tires.

Out the door estimate at America’s tire for a set of 4;

Perrelli - $2,364.41
Michelin - $1,580.09

 

[pricedm]

I agree the value proposition is laughable.

I can give my example with my R1S. My OEM Perrelli tires are $517 each, the Michelin Defenders I replaced them with were $335 each, that saved me $728 in tire cost and $56 in sales tax, total out of pocket saved was $784.

The loss in effeciency for me, my OEM was around 2.25 m/kWh, the Defenders are closer to 2.2 m/kWh. In 45k miles I would use around 445 more kWh, even if I paid an average of 48 cents a kWh that costs me $218 more in fuel cost.

That leaves me with $516 still in my pocket.

That does not even consider the extended wear I am getting from the Defenders. I replaced my OEM at 28,276, may have got to 3k but was going on a trip that would have taken me well past 3k. I already have 25,307 on the Defenders and am currently at 8.5/32 tread depth, original when new was 11/32. If that wear holds up and I replace this set at 3/32 I will be over 50k miles on the Defenders, they have a 75k mile wear Warrenty. That alone saves me close to $2k for an additional set of OEM tires.

Out the door estimate at America’s tire for a set of 4;

Perrelli - $2,364.41
Michelin - $1,580.09

Excellent presentation of facts.

Please, please copy and paste this info as a formally submitted comment at https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/EComment/EComment.aspx?docketnumber=26-TIRE-01

 

[SDH]

They probably know all this. But what they have done is create a whole new, massive government department (so lots of new jobs). It’ll be one big inefficient waste of oxygen but it keeps the unemployment rate down.

I’ll stop there ….

Sponsored