Say Goodbye to Your Favorite Sticky Tires in California

[optronix]

@optronix is a regarded individual

Congratulations!

I'm not in on your joke, but it seems you're pretty effective at entertaining yourself and that's all that matters.

I'm pretty good at that too. Probably literally the only thing we have in common.

 

[optronix]

I reported you. You're being abusive and a bully. I refuse to play that game. We're all human and all deserve respect, including you.

That's the real problem.



I'm glad I quoted you before you could literally change everything you originally posted. I'm done.

You're right, I backed off but you caught my ninja edit which is kind of creepy by itself. I'm not perfect and know there's a line that's easily crossed. Feel free to continue to report and if the admins share your views I'll accept whatever they decide.

I do suggest you find other topics to comment on though. And your sig. You should do something about that if you don't want to draw attention to yourself.

 

[Websitesdown]

You're right, I backed off but you caught my ninja edit which is kind of creepy by itself. I'm not perfect and know there's a line that's easily crossed. Feel free to continue to report and if the admins share your views I'll accept whatever they decide.

I do suggest you find other topics to comment on though. And your sig. You should do something about that if you don't want to draw attention to yourself.

Yeah I was bored that night.

I'm good with hating Communist, they've caused a lot of death and destruction. I'm an American.

You digress though. Let's talk about cars.

 

[Spart]

Yeah I was bored that night.

I'm good with hating Communist, they've caused a lot of death and destruction. I'm an American.

You digress though. Let's talk about cars.

Quit engaging the trolls bro.

Not even slightly worth it.

 

[zumbooruk]

I am sorry I started this thread...

It seems that the Autoweek article was alarmist and incomplete and that there is little reason to worry (though I am a black belt worrier)

UHP summer tires are not exempt as competition tires, but they are in the more lenient “ultra-high-performance” category, and are likely already (or will be) compliant (my guess: higher pressure and low/stiff sidewalls)

The definition of “ultra high-performance” section 3302(62) page 37 is W or Y speed symbol, 168 mph or more, and relative wet-grip index of at least 1.45

Section 3306(b) page 56 sets the UHP category at 9.8 N/kN (tires manufactured on or after 1 January 2029) and 8.5 N/kN (tires manufactured on or after 1 January 2033).

https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=271526

 

[Cueyo]

I'm not in on your joke, but it seems you're pretty effective at entertaining yourself and that's all that matters.

I'm pretty good at that too. Probably literally the only thing we have in common.

The joke is about your favorite ignore list buddy from a few comments ago.

And id honestly bet you and I have much more in common than you think. 🫤

 

[Spart]

I am sorry I started this thread...

It seems that the Autoweek article was alarmist and incomplete and that there is little reason to worry (though I am a black belt worrier)

UHP summer tires are not exempt as competition tires, but they are in the more lenient “ultra-high-performance” category, and are likely already (or will be) compliant (my guess: higher pressure and low/stiff sidewalls)

The definition of “ultra high-performance” section 3302(62) page 37 is W or Y speed symbol, 168 mph or more, and relative wet-grip index of at least 1.45

Section 3306(b) page 56 sets the UHP category at 9.8 N/kN (tires manufactured on or after 1 January 2029) and 8.5 N/kN (tires manufactured on or after 1 January 2033).

https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=271526

That's the same document I quoted earlier.

The general standard for tires per that document is:

• Mfg on/after 1/1/2029: 9.0 N/kN (sidenote: N/kN is a cursed unit)
• Mfg on/after 1/1/2033: 7.1 N/kN

And for UHP tires:

• Mfg on/after 1/1/2029: 9.8 N/kN
• Mfg on/after 1/1/2033: 8.5 N/kN

It's not nothing but I think tire manufacturers may have a tough time maintaining the performance that people expect while offering for sale a tire in that category in California.

It's not immediately clear which tires currently being produced for our cars, if any, will even qualify. US websites generally do not give out any kind of information on rolling resistance and our tires are often made in different locations and to different specs than they are elsewhere in the world under the same model name and size. For example, the US website for Michelin lists a Honda-specific PS4S in 265/35R19: https://www.michelinman.com/auto/tires/michelin-pilot-sport-4-s and there's no info about rolling resistance.

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, at least the 265/30R19 ones sold in the UK, has a EU fuel efficiency class of D. D indicates 9.1-10.5 N/kN. See here: https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/tyres/michelin-pilot-sport-4-s and here: https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/tyres/tyres-properties-introduction_en

So there's a chance that tire is no longer going to be sold in California starting in 2029 when this goes into effect. 10.5 is over the 9.8 minimum. It could be between 9.1 and 9.8 also.

It could also be something wild like 12, because again we're comparing a US market tire to a EU market one.

 

[Spart]

One more brief note.

OEM tires aren't end-all, people switch up all the time.

I myself made a compromise on a high performance all-season tire for use spring-fall, I now have Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3's. I have really been enjoying them, the dry performance is about 85-90% of the PS4S OEM tire, the wet performance is superior, and they aren't a complete liability when the temperature drops to just above freezing. I also have some Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5's for the winter months because I recognize that these Pirelli's are still unsuitable in ice and snow.

So I went to look up the EU category these fall in for rolling resistance. Except I couldn't, because this frankly excellent tire isn't allowed to be sold in the EU. That doesn't bode well for California sales.

What's potentially really dumb is that this is another class of tire that's going to get caught up in this. Because it's an all-season, there's no carveout for it. It must meet the more stringent standard. Even though it's marketed towards being a bridge between summer and all-season tires, and very likely has better rolling resistance than a 300TW summer tire.

The choice should not be between tires that are 200TW, need replaced every 18 months, and are absolutely atrocious in wet and cold weather on the one hand - and mediocre all-seasons on the other. The market clearly demands a middle ground there and California is set to eliminate it.

Tires are safety equipment. Safety is top-of-mind when I'm selecting tires. Ignoring safety to save tenths of a mile per gallon is an absolutely idiotic tradeoff by the worst people in government.

Sponsored