EU Parliament Approves 2012 Tire Efficiency Ratings
30 November 2009
Members of the European Parliament last week approved regulations that will require replacement tires for cars as well as light- and heavy-duty vehicles (C1, C2, and C3 tires) to carry energy efficiency labels as of 1 November 2012. The new label does not have to be mounted on the tire as long as the seller shows it to the consumer prior to purchase and includes the label with proof of purchase.
The label will follow the familiar “A to G” classification system which is used on European energy labels in a wide range of applications, from appliances to buildings and aircraft. The most efficient tires will be awarded an “A” rating, and member states will only be allowed to legislate purchasing incentives for tires with an energy efficiency rating of “C” or better.
In addition to the tire’s energy efficiency, the label will provide information about its performance in wet conditions, as well as the tire’s rolling noise in decibels. The label will include a “noise pictogram” to graphically indicate the level of external rolling noise, indicated by ascending numbers of black “waves” emitted from a speaker symbol. Automobile tires that produce noise below 68 decibels, for example, will be labeled with one black and two white “waves” next to the value in decibels.
Energy-efficient tires are more commonly referred to as low rolling resistance (LRR) tires in North America. The US Department of Energy maintains a webpage devoted to low rolling resistance tires.
In 2003, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 844, requiring the California Energy Commission, in consultation with the California Integrated Waste Management Board, to adopt and implement a tire energy efficiency program for replacement tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. That program is still under development.
A recent cover story in Chemical & Engineering News highlights the efforts of different chemical companies to stretch the “magic triangle of tire technology”—a principle which holds that an improvement to rolling resistance has to come at the expense of wet-road grip and durability.
Resources
Alexander H. Tullo, “Stretching Tires’ Magic Triangle”, C&EN 16 November 2009, 87, 46, 10-14
Is this the right approach?
I fear that concentrating on LRR tyres will inevitably lead to tyres with less grip. This will lead to more accidents and that will be more expensive than GHG.
There should be three ratings:
-rolling resistance
-grip
-durability
and the rating that is shown to the consumer is the worst of the three (the consumer could look at the details if he/she is interested)
This way, you encourage manufacturers to propose really better tyres, not just harder ones that get A but don't keep you on the road.
Posted by: Simodul | 30 November 2009 at 05:16 AM
Is this the right approach?
I fear that concentrating on LRR tyres will inevitably lead to tyres with less grip. This will lead to more accidents and that will be more expensive than GHG.
There should be three ratings:
-rolling resistance
-grip
-durability
and the rating that is shown to the consumer is the worst of the three (the consumer could look at the details if he/she is interested)
This way, you encourage manufacturers to propose really better tyres, not just harder ones that get A but don't keep you on the road.
Posted by: Simodul | 30 November 2009 at 05:16 AM
A recent test of Michelin Energy LRR tyres showed that they had superior wet braking performance compared to other normal tyres in their test.
Having said that I've got LRR tyres on my car and I do notice a slight reduction in lateral grip in the wet (in the dry they are great though).
Posted by: clett | 30 November 2009 at 07:47 AM