NHTSA introduces new tire labels
by Jonathon Ramsey on Jun 21st 2009 at 4:49PM 
You will soon have more ways to choose which tire is right for you: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed a new tire label that ranks rubber based on fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas rating, safety (wet traction), and durability. According to NHTSA's calculations, rolling resistance accounts for up to 7% of "uses and losses of fuel energy in a vehicle." With everyone paying close attention to gas mileage and gas prices now, the federal agency wants to give consumers more info on how to maximize a car's performance in that respect.
There are a variety of labels NHTSA has come up with to display a tire's ratings. When the final rule is implemented, the removable label will be located on the tire at the point-of-sale, and the ratings will also be available at the NHTSA website, www.safercar.gov. The agency is taking comments from consumers now, and needs to come up with a final rule by December of this year. You can read the press release after the jump. Thanks for the tip, Nick
[Source: LA Times]
PRESS RELEASE
U.S. DOT Proposes New Tire Fuel Efficiency Ratings for American Consumers
NHTSA Thursday, June 18, 2009 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation today proposed a new, consumer-friendly replacement tire label which would include, for the first time, information about the tire's impact on fuel economy and CO2 emission reductions. Tires with lower rolling resistance – and proper inflation pressure - can contribute to improved fuel economy.
In addition to the new fuel efficiency ratings, the proposal by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also would provide consumers with two other key pieces of tire performance information - wet weather traction and tread wear. All three ratings would be prominently displayed on a removable label attached to the replacement tire at the point of sale.
The new, three-tiered ratings also will appear on safercar.gov to help consumers in compare ratings as they shop for new tires.
"Today's proposal takes the guess work out of buying the best tires for your vehicle," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Our proposal would let consumers look at a single label and compare a tire's overall performance as it relates to fuel economy, safety and durability."
NHTSA is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to issue a final rule by December 2009.
Click here to read the proposal.
Click here to view the proposed ratings label.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Hike15 5:05PM (6/21/2009)
They are missing the "Dry Performance" rating
Reply
macroceli 5:14PM (6/21/2009)
agreed
BoxerFanatic 9:51PM (6/21/2009)
On purpose.
This is a "green" rating, which means that a good tire is not what they are looking for, they are looking for a crap tire.
Low rolling resistance = CRAP TIRE. It may not blow out if you look at it wrong, but friction is friction. Lack of traction is lack of traction.
This is politically correct regulatory CRAP.
Michael 1:13AM (6/22/2009)
All they did was add the rolling resistance rating.
UTQG standards have always been WET traction (AA max), temperature (A max), and treadwear.
Frankly I look forward to seeing these labels, as there hasn't been a way to judge a tire's impact on fuel economy. Our Odyssey has been averaging 2 mpg less on cheapo Fuzion tires than on OEM Michelins.
I wonder how the new Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max tires rate.
the4thheat 5:55AM (6/22/2009)
Seems like it'll be a lot easier to understand than the current AA/A/### system. The current treadware rating is rather abstract since they're just random numbers.
apexjr 2:05PM (6/22/2009)
I totally agree. A tire is one of if not the most important aspect of a car. It is responsible for everything from ride, noise, handling, braking, and traction in wet/dry/snow to fuel economy. Honestly, by their numbers 7% of 30 MPG is 2 MPG. I am not giving up any of the above for 2 MPG. Fuel economy is the least of my concerns when picking out a tire.
A good tire can reduce your chances of an accident by improving traction and braking distance. A bad tire that gets you 2 MPG better fuel economy can increase your chances of getting in an accident if it is lowering your traction and braking distance.
Berto 5:08PM (6/21/2009)
According to that example:
I have no grip and my tires wear out very soon, BUT I get 2 more mpgs thanks to these tires which will save me the cost of the tires in a lifetime...
(sadly, might not get to see the savings due to the driver ending up wrapped around a tree on a rainy day or will have to buy new tires after a couple commutes)
Reply
Hike15 5:33PM (6/21/2009)
must be tires for a Prius...or any other Toyota.
Berto 6:22PM (6/21/2009)
Yup. That's what I was thinking.
why not the LS2LS7? 9:16PM (6/21/2009)
It's just info. You are free to ignore it if mpg doesn't matter to you.
They put efficiency ratings on water heaters, fridges and air conditioners years ago (decades for water heaters and fridges) and yet the sky didn't fall and people are still free to choose whichever model they want.
BoxerFanatic 10:00PM (6/21/2009)
The thing is, if that becomes the information people most commonly refer to, that will be the information new tires will be built to compete on.
If that becomes the case, good tires will become seriously compromised to have decent stats on these measurements.
That is why the dry traction performance scale was intentionally left off. It leaves off context of a trade-off, and a high performance tire looks overly negative, not just skewed toward one side of a spectrum of measurements.
the4thheat 6:13AM (6/22/2009)
Dry performance ratings were probably left off since the vast majority of tires have enough grip on dry roads to drive safely, even if you're doing something dumb like using summer tires in the winter. It matters a lot more that you're not tailgating everyone than having a tire that'll stop your car 6 inches faster.
About 99.9% of regular road accidents have nothing to do with whether someone needed stickier tires for dry grip. It won't stop you from getting t-boned, it won't stop you from getting rear ended, and if you rear end someone the problem is the person behind the steering wheel not the tires.
This isn't like snow tires where driving in snow with summer tires will pretty much guarantee a skid-fest (in which case the driver shouldn't be trying to drive, and thus still not the tire's fault).
It matters a lot more that you don't hydroplane when you're going 65 on the highway than that your tires are able to stop on a dime, because real-life driving isn't a racetrack and if you actually pay any attention to driving you don't have to drive an AWD car with super-sticky tires and 14" brake rotors to not get into accidents. And since EVERY tire can generate plenty of dry grip it's pretty moronic to spend tax dollars rating performance you'd only have use for on a track. Plenty of private sources will test for that anyway so it's not like the government is preventing you from finding out.
BTW, if you really cared about optimal dry grip you'd have to sacrifice wet grip since dry grip would be best with slicks. Fairly easy to imagine what would happen if regular people all buy tires with the best dry grip and virtually zero wet grip and it starts to drizzle.
Rocketboy 6:51AM (6/22/2009)
"They put efficiency ratings on water heaters, fridges and air conditioners years ago (decades for water heaters and fridges) and yet the sky didn't fall and people are still free to choose whichever model they want."
No, but the efficency of electrical motors does not have an inverse relationship to the safety of the product.
"This isn't like snow tires where driving in snow with summer tires will pretty much guarantee a skid-fest (in which case the driver shouldn't be trying to drive, and thus still not the tire's fault)."
But what about "all season" tires that are 2, maybe 3 season at best? The "all season" tires that came on my wife's car (no, it was not a toyota) couldn't even get grip in a light slush.
Matt 5:35PM (6/21/2009)
Fuel efficiency rating?
My God we have taken this whole 'green' thing hook, line, and sinker.
Reply
Jsams4131 5:41PM (6/21/2009)
I look at it this way...if they make the "more efficient" tires more expensive-- we can get our sticky less efficient tires for lower prices....maybe a pipe dream.
and yes, I agree with you... this whole country has jumped on the green bandwagon
Matt 8:53PM (6/21/2009)
You know...that's not half bad.
Hopefully when I buy my "global warming" tires with their knobby tread for my baby seal and polar bear killing truck, they will be like $50 a tire.
One can dream, right?
Matt 12:43AM (6/22/2009)
HAHAHA!!!
All I care about Nicky, is being able to drive my gas guzzling truck...while pulling my gas guzzling boat, and being able to fill them up cheaply.
And no silly, limp-wristed hybrids or fancy tires are going to make a DENT in our oil imports.
However, we could stop all of the global warming if only you enviro-nazis would stop with all of you endless rhetoric and all of the hot air you continuously spew.
cdwrx 5:44PM (6/21/2009)
Additional consumer information is almost always a good thing. Now CA, do not move forward with your own label, this is enough.
Best regards,
Your Constituent
Reply
John Johnson 5:44PM (6/21/2009)
I will be buying tires that have all the 'red' marks.
Reply
Protzenegger 6:53PM (6/21/2009)
ALL the "red" marks? Good luck braking!