It also sounds to me that there is a bit of a tempest in a teapot going on here — all passenger car tires (as far I know) currently come with treadwear, traction and temperature ratings applied directly to the sidewall, involving numbers and letters that are easy to use in comparison to other, similar, tires, and what is being proposed could certainly add a fuel efficiency indicator to cover that.

Absolute rankings don’t prevent the user from making comparisons across a particular size of tire, but they don’t necessarily tell you what you’re getting, without additional research by the user. E.g., if durability is scaled 1 – 100, then what does “1″ and what does “100″ mean? Percentile across all tires in the known universe? Percentile of all tires of that size and application? Lifetime mileage measured in thousands of miles? What?

In the current system, I believe the ratings represent some quantitative link to the actual performance, and that seems to serve a useful purpose, which is flexible, and most people can digest (even though the origin of those numbers might bear some resemblance sausage-making).

What I am concerned is that, when the day is done, we may end up with a half-cocked scheme that corresponds to some politicians’s imagined ideal, but is worse than useless to the man or woman behind the wheel.

Bad data is worse than no data, and it looks like our esteemed federal government has again gone with the “give ‘em bad data” track. Trying to give a single “star” type rating to simplistically summarize all the complicated variables that we all encounter in tire performance is just b-o-g-u-s.

Maybe the tire manufacturers could just dispense with the government and give us useful data, including the variables involved. Consumers are not always as stupid as the bureaucratic empire-builders.

In 2007, RMA advocated before Congress in FAVOR of the law that required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrion (NHTSA) to issue a tire fuel efficiency regulation.

RMA and tire manufacturers support this effort. Our members want consumers to have information about tire performance and the ability to compete based on uniform information about all tires.

RMA commented extensively on the NHTSA proposed regulation. Anyone can access those comments at http://www.regulations.gov and enter “NHTSA 2008-0121″ for the proper regulatory docket.

Our members expressed many concerns with the NHTSA proposal. Chief among them was that NHTSA’s proposed “label” — a paper sticker attached to all new tires – is never seen by consumers. Making this medium the primary source of consumer information is a waste of time. Information needs to be available to consumers before they buy tires to be most effective. Putting in on a paper label that no one sees is not helpful.

Next. the fuel efficiency calcluation NHTSA proposed would have grouped all small tires at the upper range of “fuel efficiency” and larger tires — on SUVs, pickups and other larger vehicles — at the low end. This would not give consumers much incentive to choose the most fuel efficient tire for their specific vehicle.

Our proposal would have tire fuel efficiency calculated as it has been for decades and the same way at which tire makers in Europe and Asia calculate tire fuel efficiency. This way, consumers would have a choice of fuel efficiency for nearly any vehicle.

Finally, when President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget reviewed NHTSA’s proposed regulation — as they do for alll major regulations — they found it deficient and sent it back for revision. That process is beginning again and we look forward to working with the agency to craft a regulation that will give consumers useful information in an effective format that will help them choose the most appropriate tire for their vehicle.

When this rule is final, tire manufacturers will have another way to compete for customers based on uniform information across all tires and consumers will benefit even more.

Dan Zielinski
Sr. Vice President
Rubber Manufacturers Association
Washington, DC

Zachary

The real rationale behind the tire industry’s fight against these tags is stated in roundabout ways in several instances in documents they’ve submitted to OIRA for review: They’re worried that customers will no longer be willing to buy cheap tires with low durability and safety ratings (particularly durability.)

As one NYTimes blogger put it when describing a similar fight that took place in the EU:

“Perhaps another reason that the tire makers are unhappy about the stickers is that consumers could start demanding tires that perform well in all three categories –- efficiency, grip and noise –- thereby forcing tire companies to produce all-around better products, and oblige them to be more competitive.”

And it isn’t always true that something is better than nothing when it comes to what is what is essentially government mandated advertising. If the industry is allowed to rename the ratings and adjust the system so that it isn’t as clear to consumers, only people who went to the store looking for high-efficiency tires to begin with are likely to buy them.

At best you see a display tire, or manufacturer’s literature.

Any rating system would be better than none; especially now that there are so many choices.