Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I 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.
    by gosub100
  • I’d be much more interested in particulate pollution limits for tires.
    by hooloovoo_zoo
  • California 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.
    by raspasov
  • TIL 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.

    by winrid
  • Too 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.)
    by angiolillo

  •   ...“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.
    by 3eb7988a1663
  • The 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 :-)

    by jwr
  • There 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.

    by legitster

Explore Birbla archives