California Wants To Regulate Fun Tires

[wingnutt]

The most expensive part of living in California is housing cost, median home price is 900k vs 360 in Texas
And government policies has very little to do with it
It’s really free market at work, the more people want to live in a certain area, the more expensive the housing become
A lot of people move out of ca because they are sitting on a gold mine
They sell their average house for 900k, buy 1 in texas for 360k and pocket 540k
Btw, property taxes are much cheaper in ca. Just over 1%
Government policies that really cost money are state taxes, gas taxes and some stupid program
That said, as a car guy and motorcycle as well than a racer, California is second to none for those type of things
What about skiing?
Do you have good skiing in texas or Florida ?

not necessarily…we could argue government policies all day, along with other reason for jump in values, but you missed the glaring one on property taxes. Sure it’s “only” 1%, but when I went to school 2% of 360 is less than 1% of 900.

then toss in; gas prices, income taxes, electricity prices, sales taxes, smog laws that change every few years (remember the smog dyno?) then throw in some insane additional rules or fees, and now hundreds of tire options being outlawed…and the exodus shall continue, only to be replaced by [fill in the blank]

as one who lived and worked there for almost 20 years, about the best thing California has going for it is the weather, and yes…I’m paying exactly HALF for my entire mortgage, taxes and insurance in Texas than I paid for just the note in California which leaves plenty of income to take a ski trip

just for funsies…here’s my view out the back door with grass that is *GASP* green

Sponsored

 

[geep81]

This is so funny how a writer with an agenda can twist the truth.

Your performance tires are safe from the bad people in California.

 

[geep81]

I’m paying exactly HALF for my entire mortgage, taxes and insurance in Texas

I'd have asked for a bigger discount. Maybe if they paid me I would move to Texas.

 

[Bob Lob Law]

Just another reason to hate California and their dumb ass ideas. I go out of my way to not give states like California and NY any money even on the internet. Yes, I've spent a bunch of time there and would be happy NEVER going back.

 

[MAGS1]

Good explanation of the rule:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/dont-panic-californias-aftermarket-tire-ban-explained

 

[geep81]

Good explanation of the rule:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/dont-panic-californias-aftermarket-tire-ban-explained

Don't come here showing me this is actually good for me the consumer, and not Commiefornia screwing me over.

Decades ago it was known if you had a Lincoln and you buy tires from a not-Lincoln dealer the tires wouldn't be as soft and ride as good.

BMW have a special version of Michelin's forever now, that you would have a hard time finding in any other tire shops.

I'm gonna count it as a win for us car purchasers that manufacturers can't trick me into thinking their car rides nicer than it really does with a specialty-specced tire compound that doesn't get the treadle claimed everywhere else for that model of tire.

Leave it to a certain group with an agenda to frame this as California doing something to hurt car enthusiasts. Gotta rile up the base to get those ad clicks.

 

[MAGS1]

Don't come here showing me this is actually good for me the consumer, and not Commiefornia screwing me over.

Decades ago it was known if you had a Lincoln and you buy tires from a not-Lincoln dealer the tires wouldn't be as soft and ride as good.

BMW have a special version of Michelin's forever now, that you would have a hard time finding in any other tire shops.

I'm gonna count it as a win for us car purchasers that manufacturers can't trick me into thinking their car rides nicer than it really does with a specialty-specced tire compound that doesn't get the treadle claimed everywhere else for that model of tire.

Leave it to a certain group with an agenda to frame this as California doing something to hurt car enthusiasts. Gotta rile up the base to get those ad clicks.

I hate the bait click headlines these days. And once most people read the headline, they’ve made up their minds before actually reading what things really entail. I’m guilty of it from time to time as well but I try not to jump to conclusions based on headlines. And research multiple sources if possible.

I think it’s fairly well known that tires from factory are slightly different than what is available for purchase at Discount Tire, Belle Tire, etc. Hell, our Acadia came with Michelins that were worn down to 4/32” at 18K miles. For a frickin all season tire. We actually got them replaced under tread life warranty (prorated for mileage) so we didn’t have to pay hardly anything for new Conti’s, but that’s an example of what this rule is supposed to be going after. We did notice a difference in ride, albeit nothing major. Could’ve just been the switch from Michelin to Conti too but the Conti we put was the new GMC spec (they dropped Michelin from factory for a while for those cars).

 

[HoldenSSVandGT350]

I'd have asked for a bigger discount. Maybe if they paid me I would move to Texas.

I’ve lived in Austin area since ‘82, I was almost 8 when we arrived here. Born In Chicagoland area (Oak Park to be precise). TX has changed for the worse in many ways, some, better. Politically, it’s more polarized now by far, and we have a legit crook as AG, currently running for Senate. It’s not debatable, it’s fact.

General Philip Sheridan of the victorious Union Army had a classic quote about Texas that history buffs will recall.

“If I owned Texas and Hell, I’d rent out Texas and live in Hell.”

I feel you General Sheridan, especially circa 1860s without the benefit of AC or any other modern cooling options.

Back to the tires. Public comment and industry groups provided input, the new tires “rules” have been adjusted accordingly as was always going to be the case. You can either do something or do nothing. Doing something while accepting public and industry expert opinion/expertise is better, hands down. And, if you don’t like it, well, you can always come live in Hell…..

 

[CrazyHippie]

Another reason for California's residents to move out. Vote by moving out guys so they lose the tax base and congressional seats.

So let's make tires with Low rolling resistance the norm which wear faster and cost more? Sounds right for government overreach program. What about tire disposal cost to the environment?

Reminds me of how my MPG went down after they added ethanol to the gasoline. So I end up using more fuel for very little savings. BTW, corn based ethanol also compete with land that could be used for our food supply.

Meanwhile 6,000 lbs SUVs with gas guzzler tax exemptions are the norm.

Yeah, lets minutely reduce consumption of gasoline with this nonsense while we quintuple our fossil fuel consumption with AI and data centers. Really smucking fart.

 

[HoldenSSVandGT350]

not necessarily…we could argue government policies all day, along with other reason for jump in values, but you missed the glaring one on property taxes. Sure it’s “only” 1%, but when I went to school 2% of 360 is less than 1% of 900.

then toss in; gas prices, income taxes, electricity prices, sales taxes, smog laws that change every few years (remember the smog dyno?) then throw in some insane additional rules or fees, and now hundreds of tire options being outlawed…and the exodus shall continue, only to be replaced by [fill in the blank]

as one who lived and worked there for almost 20 years, about the best thing California has going for it is the weather, and yes…I’m paying exactly HALF for my entire mortgage, taxes and insurance in Texas than I paid for just the note in California which leaves plenty of income to take a ski trip

just for funsies…here’s my view out the back door with grass that is *GASP* green

Nice pic, looks like 8-830am if facing east, prob only 85F with a 90+ Heat index. If West, close to 8pm, and recent, you know it was about 100F still.

 

[luc]

not necessarily…we could argue government policies all day, along with other reason for jump in values, but you missed the glaring one on property taxes. Sure it’s “only” 1%, but when I went to school 2% of 360 is less than 1% of 900.

then toss in; gas prices, income taxes, electricity prices, sales taxes, smog laws that change every few years (remember the smog dyno?) then throw in some insane additional rules or fees, and now hundreds of tire options being outlawed…and the exodus shall continue, only to be replaced by [fill in the blank]

as one who lived and worked there for almost 20 years, about the best thing California has going for it is the weather, and yes…I’m paying exactly HALF for my entire mortgage, taxes and insurance in Texas than I paid for just the note in California which leaves plenty of income to take a ski trip

just for funsies…here’s my view out the back door with grass that is *GASP* green

And mine :

 

[wingnutt]

Hey now…we get white stuff too

 

[MAGS1]

we get white stuff too

Tony Montana popped into my head for some reason

 

[Epiphany]

You guys are funny, it’s nothing more than a proposal that has zero chance of becoming law…. But obviously California bashers always jump on those type of stories to vent their frustration of not living in such a great state

The only way it won't become law is if it is successfully stopped. Major tire companies are gearing up for a battle for a reason.

People have a lot of misconceptions about California, especially in regards to cars
For example you have quite a few counties that do NOT require any type of smog/emissions testing
I live in one of those, Tuolumne county
So bottom lines counties that do not have smog issues, do not require testing

California county emissions laws cannot override state laws. State laws generally take precedence over local regulations, but counties can implement stricter standards if they align with state regulations. So while they may not test in certain areas, the laws regarding tampering, etc remain the same on both state and federal levels. The context here is testing versus enforcement and nothing else.

It stafe that replacement tires must match the factory/oem rolling resistance
We can all have opinions, but at the minimum let’s use facts as the basis

Facts are something California is expert level with via withholding truth for the benefit of the bureaucracy.

The Commission stated the following..."Third-party tire testing commissioned by the CEC found no relationship between tire efficiency and wet grip, or the ability of a tire to stop on a wet surface. This testing also found no relationship between tire efficiency and dry traction. Based on these findings, tire efficiency and safety can simultaneously be achieved."

This is an outright lie.

It appears nearly verbatim in the California Energy Commission (CEC) Staff Report on the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (and related documents), but it misinterprets the third-party testing data and overstates the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

What the CEC testing actually showed

CEC commissioned Smithers (an independent lab) to test rolling resistance (a measure of tire efficiency; lower is better) and wet grip (via ISO 23671 relative wet grip index on new tires) on a sample of ~149–179 popular California-market passenger and light-truck tire models/SKUs. Some analyses also referenced dry traction proxies and worn-tire data (e.g., from Discount Tire Treadwell).

Across the broad, heterogeneous sample of existing market tires, scatterplots of rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) vs. wet grip (or wet stopping distance) and vs. dry traction proxies yielded very low coefficients of determination (R² values typically ~0.02 for wet stopping distance, ~0.015 for dry, and similarly low for other pairings). CEC staff interpreted the low R² as showing “no relationship” or “no clear relationship” / “no inherent relationship” / “no inherent trade-off,” and concluded that efficiency and safety can be achieved simultaneously.

Smithers’ own reporting noted weak correlations overall. In some market/usage subgroups there were directional trends (sometimes inverse: lower RRC associated with higher wet grip index), but R² values remained low in most cases; OE tires sometimes showed the opposite directional pattern from replacement/efficient tires.

Why “no relationship” is a misinterpretation

A low population-level R² does not prove the absence of a physical or engineering relationship. It only means that, across a diverse sample of tires already on the market (different compounds, tread designs, constructions, intended uses, and price points), variation in RRC does not explain most of the observed variation in wet grip. Wet grip and traction are influenced by many other factors (compound formulation, tread pattern/geometry, construction, intended use case, etc.).

Continental Tire the Americas explicitly called this out in formal comments on the CEC proposal:

“The ‘No Relationship’ Finding Is Misapplied… A low R² does not demonstrate the absence of a physical relationship… The fact that RRC is not the dominant predictor of wet grip across a heterogeneous sample does not mean that reducing RRC in a specific tire design will not degrade that tire’s wet grip. The relevant question is not population-level correlation but design-level constraint.”

In other words, the regulatory question is whether forcing further reductions in rolling resistance (to meet proposed Phase 1/Phase 2 thresholds) on a given tire design or platform will require engineering trade-offs that reduce wet grip or other safety-related attributes—not whether efficient tires already exist somewhere in today’s market that also happen to have decent grip.

The well-established “magic triangle” and design trade-offs

Tire engineering literature and industry practice recognize fundamental physical trade-offs among rolling resistance (efficiency), traction/grip (especially wet), and wear/tread life—the so-called “magic triangle.” Improving one often requires compromises in one or both of the others because grip relies in part on energy-dissipating deformation in the contact patch, while low rolling resistance seeks to minimize energy loss. Advanced materials (e.g., silica compounds) and design have reduced these trade-offs over time and allow many modern tires to perform well on multiple axes, but they have not been eliminated, particularly when pushing performance to more aggressive efficiency targets or in specialized segments (high-performance, light-truck, etc.).

USTMA and other manufacturers repeatedly noted real and quantifiable performance trade-offs among rolling resistance, wet traction, tread life, and cost, and warned that aggressive efficiency standards can force design compromises. The CEC itself responded to these concerns by including a minimum wet-grip index of 1.0 (and relaxed efficiency limits for certain long-life/UHP categories) precisely “to assure safety” and to prevent manufacturers from inappropriately trading safety for efficiency—an acknowledgment that the risk of trade-offs is real even if the broad market scatter looks uncorrelated.

Additional limitations of the data

• The primary wet-grip testing was on new tires; worn-tire analyses used different data sources and still showed low R².
• Sample sizes in some important segments (e.g., light-truck) were small.
• Subgroup analyses sometimes showed stronger or directional relationships that the pooled “no relationship” claim averages away.
• Independent observers and industry commenters have noted that controlled, same-platform redesign testing (rather than cross-sectional market sampling) would better reveal design constraints.

Bottom line

The third-party (Smithers) testing did produce low R² values in broad market regressions of efficiency vs. wet grip (and dry traction proxies). That is a factual observation about variance explained in the tested sample. However, the leap to “found no relationship… tire efficiency and safety can simultaneously be achieved” is not a rigorous or complete interpretation of the data or of tire engineering realities. Low population correlation does not eliminate design-level trade-offs, the physical interdependence of the performance attributes is well-documented, and both industry comments and the CEC’s own decision to impose a wet-grip floor reflect ongoing concern about safety trade-offs under tighter efficiency standards.

 

[gimmie11s]

The only way it won't become law is if it is successfully stopped. Major tire companies are gearing up for a battle for a reason.

California county emissions laws cannot override state laws. State laws generally take precedence over local regulations, but counties can implement stricter standards if they align with state regulations. So while they may not test in certain areas, the laws regarding tampering, etc remain the same on both state and federal levels. The context here is testing versus enforcement and nothing else.

Correct.

However, he's right in that some counties in fact do not require biennial smog testing. They are called "partial biennial smog check counties" and have zip codes in each that only require smog when the vehicle changes ownership--This is in contrast to required testing every 2 years like the bulk of the state.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handb...-1c-partial-biennial-smog-counties-zip-codes/

Sponsored