Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

"Low rolling resistance tires"? Something new? What are the pros and cons?

Old 06-17-2008, 05:29 AM
  #16  
Registered User
 
R377's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,712
They used to use a lot more silica compounds versus rubber compounds in low rolling resistance tires (not sure if they still do that). I recall one of the problems was a static charge build up in the car, so much so that sometimes tollbooth attendants would get a pretty good shock when the driver handed him change and made contact.
R377 is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 07:51 AM
  #17  
Registered User
 
Big Als Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 4,306
Low rolling resistance means less surface area on the tire, less sipping, lighter tires as well. The Prius uses the Goodyear Integrity, as does the Toyota Corolla. They are a lower speed rating, usually a S rated tire, and have a very tight tread pattern. Like someone said, you sacrafice traction and handling for improved rolling resistance.

A BF Goodrich All Terrain KO would be the anti low rolling resistance tire. GM works with tire manufactures to create certain tires specificily for thier cars. If you see on any GM car the letters "TPC", that indicates that its an original GM tire or a tire codesigned by GM and that tire maker for a specific car.
Big Als Z is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 09:43 AM
  #18  
Registered User
 
muckz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
Originally Posted by R377
They used to use a lot more silica compounds versus rubber compounds in low rolling resistance tires (not sure if they still do that). I recall one of the problems was a static charge build up in the car, so much so that sometimes tollbooth attendants would get a pretty good shock when the driver handed him change and made contact.
I guess they could be putting these straight from the factory:

muckz is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 09:46 AM
  #19  
Registered User
 
muckz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
This got me thinking, many of us replace tires on the vehicles we buy, and I'm wondering if that contributes to not getting the advertised mileage... Imagine, if the difference is 5%, highway mileage can drop from 30 mpg to 28.5 or possibly even less with really sticky rubber.
muckz is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 10:23 AM
  #20  
Registered User
 
Plague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Todd80Z28
Here's an interesting tidbit-

I picked up 0.5mpg and WAY WAY easier roll-on ability when I switched from my 245/50/16 BFG Comp TAs to the 275/40/17 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS tires (the OEM 2000 SS tires). I couldn't believe it.
Sounds like you also changed wheels.
Plague is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 10:47 AM
  #21  
Registered User
 
JeremyNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheektowaga, NY (Buffalo)
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by Todd80Z28
Here's an interesting tidbit-

I picked up 0.5mpg and WAY WAY easier roll-on ability when I switched from my 245/50/16 BFG Comp TAs to the 275/40/17 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS tires (the OEM 2000 SS tires). I couldn't believe it.

The size and shape of tread blocks and how you transition from one block to another as the tire rotates may also affect rolling resistance. The two you listed are a good contrast. The Comp TAs have small separated tread blocks whereas the F1s have treads that are thin and long, which wrap around the tire radially. The smooth transitions from one tread block to another make the tire quieter and I'm thinking that they would also reduce rolling resistance. Now I'm interested to look at the tread patterns of some of these new tires going on the 2009 models
JeremyNYR is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 12:33 PM
  #22  
Registered User
 
Tokuzumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 603
Originally Posted by R377
They used to use a lot more silica compounds versus rubber compounds in low rolling resistance tires (not sure if they still do that). I recall one of the problems was a static charge build up in the car, so much so that sometimes tollbooth attendants would get a pretty good shock when the driver handed him change and made contact.
Which explains why most toll booth attendants basically throw the change at you.
Tokuzumi is offline  
Old 06-17-2008, 11:19 PM
  #23  
Registered User
 
bossco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Originally Posted by R377
They used to use a lot more silica compounds versus rubber compounds in low rolling resistance tires (not sure if they still do that). I recall one of the problems was a static charge build up in the car, so much so that sometimes tollbooth attendants would get a pretty good shock when the driver handed him change and made contact.

They (Michelin) still do, sillica has other benefits besides low rolling resistance, they had a lock on that for a long time, but I believe Bridgestone uses sillica as well.
bossco is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cristian1311
Fuel and Ignition
2
04-22-2015 10:20 PM
rpm4lalo
Drag Racing Technique
9
09-06-2002 12:46 AM
bowtiepwr
Drag Racing Technique
3
08-05-2002 08:14 AM
FiNSTa
Car Audio and Electronics
4
07-20-2002 10:57 PM
Z284ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
46
07-02-2002 07:13 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: "Low rolling resistance tires"? Something new? What are the pros and cons?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.