Few consumers know, understand tire rating systems

AKRON—Consumer information ratings systems for tires have varying rates of effectiveness.

But the biggest problem is that few consumers know about them, according to speakers at the International Tire Exhibition & Conference in Akron Sept. 13-15.

At least one of the speakers at ITEC accused the tire industry of trying to block effective rolling resistance/fuel economy ratings for tires in favor of something much vaguer.

Ray Tuvell, a retired official of the California Energy Commission, was instrumental in the CEC's effort to fulfill a legislative mandate beginning in 2004 to develop a consumer energy efficiency rating system for tires.

After testing more than 1,000 tires, the CEC issued a draft regulation in 2009.

Then, after comments and further study, it issued a refined tire energy efficiency draft in 2013, according to Tuvell.

The commission used ISO 28580 rolling resistance test protocol and the rolling resistance coefficient as the metric for expressing rolling resistance.

The CEC then came up with an effective rating system that would allow consumers to gauge accurately and choose tires based on their RRC numbers, he said.

RRCs for more than 1,000 tires in more than 150 sizes and more than 125 brands are in the public domain, thanks to the commission rule-making, Tuvell said.

However, the pending rolling resistance labels from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are expected to use tire manufacturers' recommendation of a star rating system, which would be much less meaningful to consumers and retailers than RRC numbers, he said.

Under the proposed system from the Rubber Manufacturers Association, he said, two tires far apart in RRC numbers could be given the same number of stars, or a tire very close in RRC to another could be ranked one star lower.

“Under the star system, manufacturers only report grades, with no actual RRC data,” Tuvell said.

He maintained that those grades “are not reliable. They are confusing, and they have no practical meaning to consumers or retailers.

“Any tire manufacturer could voluntarily provide RRC data.”

“Why do tire manufacturers refuse to provide RRC data?” he asked “Is it fear of competition?”

An effective tire fuel efficiency rating system, Tuvell said, would feature a complete RRC database on a searchable, interactive website, complete with an Internet learning center and a fuel savings calculator.

With all pending or extant tire quality grades, the biggest problems have been to instruct the public as to how to use them, according to George Gillespie, a former NHTSA official who is president and CEO of Gillespie Automotive Safety Services.

“All agency actions and rating systems need indoctrination,” he said in his ITEC presentation.

“All regulatory actions and TPs (test procedures) are subject to interpretation, and no rating system is intuitive,” the executive said.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has an active outreach program to keep manufacturers informed about new safety standards, TPs and enforcement policies, according to Gillespie.

He said he hoped NHTSA will make sure the pending consumer education program for the tire fuel efficiency program will reach the widest possible audience.

“UTQGS (the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System) has a bad rap in part because there was no training,” he said.

In his opinion, tire identification number reading, basic tire pressure information and basic information about tire aging should all be part of the curricula in state-level driver's license training, he said.

Larry Evans, ITEC co-chairman and principal of Transportation Research Corp., gave an overview of where UTQGS stands on the 50th anniversary of the passage of the law that mandated the system.

“UTQG ratings seem to be a useful way to divide tires into broad performance categories,” Evans said.

But, he noted, “UTQG ratings are of little if any value to consumers when comparing the performance of similar tires.”

There have been suggestions over the years on how to make UTQGS more useful, such as NHTSA testing every tire sold in the U.S., according to Evans. However, this would not be practical, he said.

“Road wheel temperature testing for 5,000 tires might be feasible, though not necessary,” he said. “(But) even if a meaningful treadwear value could be determined with a 7,200-mile test, testing 5,000 tires would require 40 million miles.”

In that event, “a fleet of several hundred vehicles and thousands of drivers and support personnel would be needed,” Evans said.