Filed under: Etc.
Continental: "Fuel-saving tires might be dangerous"
Just when Michelin is showing its fuel consumption reducing tires with pride, German tire manufacturer Continental says that the new set of rules the EU is going to introduce to reduce CO2 emissions and noise pollution will force the company to build less resistant - and less safe - tires.
The EU is actually planning to introduce an "Environmental label" to show the rolling resistance levels of a tire. Customers will be then able to choose quieter, more fuel efficient tires. However, this can potentially lower safety (through reduced road grip) in hard braking conditions, and Continental is raising its voice about this.
Continental also states that the EU's target is not compatible with reducing to under 25,000 the number of accident victims on European roads by 2010. Continental's CEO, Manfred Wennemer, said that statistics showed that the reduction in braking efficiency was about 10 percent lower. Take this example: two cars running at 100 km/h each and the driver slams on the brakes. By the time the vehicle with regular tires has already stopped, the one with low-rolling tires will be still running at 35 km/h.
While I believe that they should develop tires able to brake efficiently and save fuel at the same time, I also think that Continental's concerns are quite appropriate. You?
[Source: Econoticias]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AGK925 11:18PM (11/13/2007)
I purchased a set of low resistance tires some months ago for my car. With the addition of some intake and exhaust modifications I noticed a maximum fuel efficiency change from around 27 mpg highway to 32 mpg. A noticeable difference. This is where things get interesting. The area I live is heavily populated with deer. Before I got the low resistance tires a deer jumped in front of my car while I was traveling about 35 mph and I stopped very quickly. About 2 weeks ago the same thing happened, but this time it took me much longer to stop and the deer actually hit the side of my car. While I cannot be positive that the deer jumped in front of me the same distance as the first time this happened, I'm family sure that the low resistance tires were the cause for the longer stopping distance. I could only imagine what might have happened was I traveling faster or if the accident involved cars. While I’m all for advancing automotive technology to improve economy, I sometimes think we go a bit too far and compromise other aspects of safe driving. Just my input.
Reply
Drewboy 11:32PM (11/13/2007)
I wonder if there isn't a way to have it both ways. Such as, to apply some sort of layer/laminate to the contact patch of the tires that normally operates at a low rolling resistance, but becomes bristly when a charge is applied or something. The braking severity could prompt that charge. Or yaw control. Or something else. It would be coordinated.
Reply
naggs 2:56AM (11/14/2007)
agreed, if you are willing to comprimise safty for economy then just lessen crash regs. bam, dangerous $15k car that gets 60mpg because it weighs 2000 lbs.
Reply
Gary 9:08AM (11/14/2007)
I've put about 80,000 on my Civic Hybrid with LRR tires and I can honestly say that it stops about the same as any other vehicle I've driven. I can't say I have experienced longer stoping distances.
Might this be Continental doing a bit of competitor sabotage to help promote their product? Question the saftey of your competitor and suddenly your product looks good.
Reply
Yggdrasilly 9:24AM (11/14/2007)
Don't think of them as traffic fatalaties! Think of them as people going that extra mile to reduce their carbon footprint.
Reply
Throwback 9:29AM (11/14/2007)
AGK, your incident makes sense. If you read any road test on vehicles with low resistance tires, the braking distances are generally longer than cars with out. Check road tests for a civic hybrid vs non-hybrid. Tires that offer more grip, will stop a car shorter in an all out panic stop. In normal stopping there probably is not much difference, it is the full-on ABS induced stops where tire grip will affect braking distances. Also I would think low resistance tires don't handle as well, especially in slippery conditions, the fact is they just grip the road less. I personally would give up 3-4 mpg for more grip in all conditions. I want to save gas, but as a rural resident being able to avoid wild animals is a daily concern.
Reply
kballs 12:44PM (11/14/2007)
This is just FUD because Continental doesn't want to make the R&D investment that Michelin just announced: to make tires with lower rolling resistance AND more grip.
Reply
MikeW 12:50PM (11/14/2007)
Nothng but FUD (fear uncertainty doubt)
Continental is trying to dumb the public down. Tire grip is largely independant of rolling resistance. The rollng resistance depends mainly on the carcass (basically everything from bead to sidewall to belts) and tire pressure.
The tread compound can be a source of losses, but high technology like silica enhanced tread can reduce those.
Michelin already annouced lower rolling resistance, and decreased breaking distances.
Reply
CRon 3:52PM (11/15/2007)
I would be helpful for everyone to understand that this really is next to impossible. Rolling resistance and traction are directly related. The main contributer to rolling resistance is the energy lost to the hysteric effect of rubber and friction between lamina. As you attempt to reduce this loss you do so by stiffing the tire and creating a smaller contact patch. This smaller contact patch then leads to less traction and longer braking distances. While its easy to say, "...I believe that they should develop tires able to brake efficiently and save fuel at the same time", its much harder in practice. Companies can promise these magic tires, but when it comes down to it there is going to be a trade off. In this case it would most likely be the tread life suffering.
Reply
Ian 6:38PM (11/15/2007)
That sounds like Loser-talk coming from Continental. They need to look at this as a challenge and create tires that are responsible towards the environment AND safe for the consumer.
At least I know Continental doesn't have this vision and Michelin does.
Guess who I'll buy my next tires from.
Ian
P.S. My Honda Civic Hybrid wears LLR and the handling has never been less than stellar (coming from a prev bimmer owner).
Reply
Jim Duncalf 5:53PM (1/04/2008)
One soulition is to improve the breaking dynamics of the car. Back in 1955 Citroen introduced an active suspension system that greatly improved breaking by carefully timing a raising of the pressure on the front suspension while braking. Kind of like a horse extending his front legs and lowering his rear. The result... greater than 1 g on the front tires, increasing contact area and a stopping distance of about half of any other car.... I loved this feature.....
Reply
bryan 5:56PM (1/09/2008)
I've been in the tires business for 20+ years where I've sold all the major brands including Continental & Michelin. Based on this information I felt a need to set the record straight. There are 3 main issues in designing a fuel efficient tire....
1) Tread Design
2) Tread Compound
3) Casing Profile
Both Continental & Michelin are industry leaders in fuel efficiency so there is no competitive edge in this regard. If you examine the two corporations as a whole, you may be surprised to find out that Continental has made some recent aquisitions that make it considerably larger than Michelin so that rules our having to spend more for R&D. I think several replies in this thread are a result of the marketing genious of Michelin impacting some responses rather than the less known but more established total automotive giant known as Continental AG.
Reply
bryan 5:57PM (1/09/2008)
After being in the tire busines for 20+ years and selling all major brands including Continental & Michelin I feel compelled to set the record straight. There are 3 main areas which affect fuel efficiency in tires 1) Tread Design 2) Compound 3)Casing Profile. Based on this information, I think Continental should be commended on the safety concerns. Both Continental & Michelin are industry leaders in fuel economy so this is not a situation where one or the other is avoiding a perceived competitive advantage. As a whole, Continental is actually the larger of the two companies so financial impact of increased R&D spending is not an issue. I admire a company who displays safety concerns & values life rather than just trying to save a few dollars on fuel economy. It's obvious that some simple minded persons voiced opinions based on the more prominent advertising machine that Michelin is rather than observing the older, more established total automotive supplier in Continental. Hat's off for Conti in this argument!
Reply