Democrats are constantly yammering about “Democracy!”, yet, they constantly have groups of unelected bureaucrats making rules that affect all citizens and jacking up their lives
Let’s go to their article
California regulators on Monday approved new rules that will restrict what tires you can buy when it’s time to replace them on your car.
In a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission voted to adopt new rules that will phase out the sale of replacement tires that don’t meet certain energy efficiency standards.
“This ultimately is about protecting consumers,” said David Hochschild, the chairman of the California Energy Commission. “I see this as sheltering the public from higher costs in the long run.”
Tire manufacturers and the commission’s staff are at odds over whether this will add to the cost of living in the state. Both sides acknowledged this will no longer allow the sale of a significant portion of the tires currently sold in California.
You’ll pay a lot more for tires while saving a couple dollars in “efficiency”. Always run when a Democrat talks about “protecting consumers”. The only bright side is this doesn’t kick in for years
The first phase would begin in 2029, which would allow the sale of tires with a maximum rolling resistance level of 9.1 newtons per kilonewton (N/kN). In phase 2, the standard lowers to 7.2 (N/kN) starting in 2033. The commission came up with the standards after testing 537 types of tires.
If it’s so imperative to save citizens money and stop climate doom why is it always in the future?
According to the commission’s staff, the rules are meant to ensure replacement tires sold in California are at least as energy efficient on average as the tires that come with the car or truck when it’s originally sold. The CEC claims Californians could save $79 in four months in gas or electricity costs under phase 1, and about $153 in phase 2 within seven months.
Not a chance in hell those numbers are real from fuel savings, and then we figure that the tires will cost a lot more.
Bret Gladfelty, on behalf of Goodyear, told the commission that this will increase costs for consumers and said the commission had yet to resolve technical and legal issues with the rules.
In a letter to the CEC, Gladfelty had questioned the data the CEC released to the public about the cost of new tires, noting that while the commission says the price increases average about $6.50 per tire in phase 2, Gladfelty warned increase costs could actually end up being in the several hundreds of dollars.
Gladfelty told KCRA 3 this new rule will eliminate an estimated 70% of the tires currently sold in California by 2033.
I wonder how many Californians will head to Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon to get tires? Which means a lot of stores in California will lose money and maybe go out of business.
It’s a subsidy for EV tires which were out a lot faster than aspirated car tires due to the weight of the EV’s, so to bring the cost of EV tires down California is making everyone buy EV tires, whether they have an EV or not.
That’s as good a motivation as any. But really, appointed bureaucrats just make stuff up because they can. No evidence required and no need to claim that their arbitrary and capricious exercise of power is in any way useful. If trump did this a democratic party judge would issue an immediate injunction. But with democrats, there are no checks or balances.
Appointed bureaucrats have always and still do make stuff up. Look at Lil Peter Hegseth, the Secretary of War. He was not elected and is reshaping our military, and not for the better.
Does Teach really expect a president to make EVERY decision?? Or maybe he wants the citizenry to vote on every issue.
Hard tires will wear faster & beat up the road & vehicle more. What a bunch of morons.
EV tires west out faster? Who cares most tires come with a mileage warranty
OMG ! The extra costs are enormous. When at set of tires costs typically about of $600 paying an extra 25 bucks paying an extra 25 bucks more every 4 years is hardly significant Teach what is your estimate in gas savings?
My in the head calculations show a savings of at least 1 gal ($6) per month x 12 = $72 per year
You don’t even own a car, retard.
Maybe you should STFU.
Lol I seldom need one when I do I rent a zip car.i am guessing you wish that you didn’t need to have one especially now when gasoline is so expensive.
Zip charges me $75 dollars with 275 miles free. There are zip cars in the condo garage 100 yards away
Some guy using an Alias wrote:
Another guy who just can’t understand that not everybody is well off.
That $600 every four years? That’s only $150 a year, right, but do you thing the people who can’t easily handle an unexpected $400 expense are putting away $150 every year to buy tires?
Here in the boondocks of eastern Kentucky, I’ve seen billboards advertising tires for $9.99 a week. I don’t know for how many weeks that lasts. I’ve also seen shops selling used tires.
Not everybody can afford high-quality, brand-new tires, but government regulators, who don’t have to worry about money themselves, think nothing of adding costs for everybody else. It’s just a different version of cash for clunkers, which took the best used cars off the market, making older, higher mileage used cars more expensive: the oh-so-brilliant policymakers never thought things through, at least in part because they simply cannot wrap their heads around the fact that not everybody is as well-to-do as they are.
When I was a teen driver with a ’62 chevrolet, we would buy re-treads, tires where the core had new tread impressed. They didn’t last long. And we rarely went to a mechanic. New clutch? No problem. Generator out. So what? Shade tree mechanics, all.
One of my friends in Virginia called me, the alternator in his clunker car had failed, so I took him to the auto parts store, where he bought a rebuilt alternator. I then installed it in his car, because he didn’t know how, even though that’s about as simple a job as there is.
Two months later, the rebuilt alternator failed, so it was back to the parts store, and another rebuilt alternator.
I however, cannot claim to be a shade tree auto mechanic: I’m a whiz on repairing concrete plants, but didn’t work on cars much at all.
It was a simpler time with simpler cars. In the past 30 years we’ve had cars where I had never popped the hood.
The average new tire costs 150 dollars. When I owned vehicles I never tried to save money by buying the cheapest new tires or retreads .
10 dollars a week? 500 dollars per year sounds like city slickers trying to take advantage of the rubes.
Mr A wrote:
Tell us that you are clueless without saying you are clueless! We’re happy you were always able to buy more expensive, new tires, but even you ought to be able to see that there would be no sales of retreads or cheaper tires if there weren’t people who couldn’t afford more.
Most retreads are used by airlines and truck companies. Cheaper passenger car tire brands have supplanted retreads on cars.
Most trucking companies will use retreads on the drive tires, but stick to virgins on steering tires. Their insurance companies will insist.
Truck tires also last twice as long as car tires.
[…] On tips from R F and abcanc. Hat tip: Pirate’s Cove. […]
This just means that if you want long-lasting tires, you’ll have to buy them on the car. As it currently stands, the tires that come one cars are the ones that were used to get the performance desired by the manufacturers, in other words, good stopping distance, and low mileage because, then they can sell you a better, more expenseive set once you own(ha) the vehicle.
I think this is stupid because everyone who wants to get better fuel mileage installs different tires than come on most cars. The same goes for people less concerned about mileage and more concerned about traction in the wet. Someone needs to use a clue-bat on that committee.
California, land of the free!