Rolling resistance long has been a subject of research designed to help meet rising fuel efficiency standards. One of the three sides of the "magic triangle" of tire manufacturing, rolling resistance is joined by efforts to increase traction for improved safety and handling, and durable construction that extends the useful life of tires.
The "magic" comes in trying to improve the various sides of the triangle without negatively impacting the other two sides.
During the Washington state proceedings, the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association said it has been active on the issue to boost rolling resistance for more than two decades. Tracey Norberg, a USTMA executive vice president, testified that the association supports national and North American standards on tire performance, safety and tire efficiency, rather than state-by-state initiatives.
Norberg and Jennifer Ziegler, a representative of Les Schwab Tire Centers, argued in testimony on the Washington bills that raising rolling resistance standards in the replacement market would force the removal of lower-tier tires that are aimed at budget buyers.
These tires typically are imported from low-cost nations, as domestic manufacturers focus on producing the higher-end premium products where quality and performance are king, and higher margins are for the taking.
Of course, this brings us back to the issue of differing priorities. Is it unreasonable to expect aftermarket tires to meet the same energy/fuel efficiency standards as OE? And, if so, can the industry simultaneously offer products that will meet the requirements of the sustainable and carbon-neutral future on the horizon? Moreover can it do all of this without sacrificing the budget-friendly tiers?
While having different state-by-state laws covering factors such as rolling resistance in replacement tires seems untenable, absent a federal regulation setting the standard, states will continue to push the bar on the issue.