The Costs of More Fuel Efficient Tires

Tire Efficiency Consumer Information BETA

This summary of the agency’s reasoning lets you react to specific paragraphs. For example, to react to the third paragraph, click either “Paragraph 3.” or the on the right margin. To see what others have said, click either the phrase “x comments” or the beside it To see summaries of other issues in the rule, go to the Rule Map.

The Costs of More Fuel Efficient Tires

Dig In

The Costs of More Fuel Efficient Tires
Moderator, Nov. 17, 10:15 AM

Once tire fuel efficiency ratings are available on tire labels and the Web, won’t the smart consumer always buy the highest rated tire model available for his or her car? Not necessarily.

It turns out there’s a tradeoff between fuel economy on the one hand, and traction and treadwear on the other. This makes sense: contact between the rubber tread and the road is what uses the energy that consumes fuel. It’s called “rolling resistance.” Less rubber tread, less rolling resistance and so better mileage, but also shorter tire life and poorer traction.

NHTSA studied the problem and concluded that, while the tradeoff isn’t inevitable, increasing fuel economy without sacrificing safety and durability requires newer, higher-cost manufacturing technology, e.g., silicon tread. So consumers face some tough choices: should you spend more on new-technology replacement tires or balance fuel economy against tire life and handling on a wet road?

This brings us back to what should be on the proposed new label. Will consumers easily understand how fuel efficiency, safety and durability are related? One design NHTSA thought about would put all three ratings on the same chart:

What do you think? Does this label effectively illustrate the tradeoffs between safety, durability, and fuel efficiency? Would a different label design be better? Are there other or better ways NHTSA could help consumers make the best tire model choice for their particular situation?

HAVE YOUR SAY by replying below or DIG IN to learn more about what’s behind the types of information NHTSA wants to give consumers. (See earlier posts on the proposed rule here.)

Tags: upcoming

It looks like you are using Internet Explorer. During the beta test, Regulation Room will work best with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari. We will have multiple browser compatibility for the first "live" rule, which is scheduled for early 2010.

BarbaraB

1:35 pm November 20, 2009

I find the triangle label very confusing. The bar graphs are much better at explaining the issue.

schuepbach

10:08 pm November 17, 2009

Submitting more tire ratings will just cause more confusion for the already befuddled citizen.

Currently tread wear ratings are subject to manufacture opinions(as long as they are not overstated), thereby actually making them different between manufactures when in reality they should be standardized. Because of this factor alone you’re triangle of fun is completely useless.

A better solution would be to just heavily market fuel efficient tires while pricing them much higher than standard tires. Any Prius driving Californian will buy them instantly and money will be made.

ACShoops33

9:46 pm November 17, 2009

You have to remember that the average consumer is an idiot. Do you know the percentage of people who don’t know anything about their car more than the color?

I can just imagine some idiot in Wal*Mart trying to learn how to read a graph with three Axes. The best thing to do would probably be just have wal*mart tire centers install burn out test pits.

londoner_fan

9:31 pm November 17, 2009

Also, It’d be better to give consumers a sample of rubber to conduct their own tests, see it. A 4x4x2″ cube would allow consumers to sample the quality of the good before committing to a costly purchase. I know I’d me more likely to buy a tire if I had a sample.

9:29 pm November 17, 2009

what about trucking companies who don’t want to spend money and buy cheaper tires with less safety and durability; would those companies face liability if something were to happen? this seems a lot like the ford pinto dangers in the late 70s/80s…

Moderator

4:11 pm November 17, 2009

Todd,

Would you find a different graph or visual representation helpful or would the stars alone suffice to give you all the information you needed to make an informed decision?

Todd Rakoff

2:50 pm November 17, 2009

I don’t find the triangle any more useful than the 3 separate star ratings would be. Indeed, less so – it looks unbalanced, and makes me believe that a balanced triangle is what I should be looking for. But although a balanced triangle with all dimensions set at 3 would look prettier, it would be less valuable than the 4/4/3 triangle shown. That would be clear using the star system alone; but the diagram muddies it up.

You must be logged in to post a comment.