Here’s technology doing something useful. Who wouldn’t like tires with better mileage? It comes from a new chemical additive, shown below. I chuckled when I saw the chemical structure, which itself looks like a tire tread:
Of course, before rushing out to buy new BF Greenrich radials, just making sure your tires are properly inflated will net you a similar mileage improvement.
From Eurekalert and ACS: Developing ‘green’ tires that boost mileage and cut carbon dioxide emissions
Lanxess
A new generation of “green” automobile tires that can boost fuel efficiency without sacrificing safety and durability is rolling their way through the research pipeline. The new tires could help add an extra mile or two per gallon to a car’s fuel economy. That’s the topic of the cover story of the current issue of Chemical & Engineering News, (C&EN) ACS’ weekly newsmagazine.
C&EN Senior Editor Alexander Tullo explains that rolling resistance — the friction that tires encounter when rolling — are a major factor in a vehicle’s fuel economy. It can determine up to 20 percent of fuel economy. Overcoming it accounts for 4 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. For years, tire makers and their raw material suppliers have been eyeing lower rolling resistance as a way to boost fuel economy and promote a cleaner environment. But they have been thwarted by a principle in the tire world called the “magic triangle of tire technology.” It holds that an improvement to rolling resistance has to come at the expense of wet-road grip and durability.
That barrier is now falling, thanks to the development of new materials, including new forms of silica and nanomaterials. These new materials include a nanogel that improves abrasion resistance, grip and rolling resistance of tires as well as a newly-developed resin that helps tires retain air longer. But there’s a catch: Motorists still will have to keep tires properly inflated to take full advantage of the new technology, the article notes.
ARTICLE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“Stretching Tires’ Magic Triangle”
This story is available at
Terrific. If properly inflating our tires makes such an impact, why do we need to worry about cap-and-trade?
Well I love the chemical formula, just from the looks of that stuff.
But yes; who cares if a tire lasts 50,000 miles. What good is that to you, if you go flying off a wet curve one day, because your tires have low rolling resistance; aka poor cornering power.
I’d rather have a tire that can keep my car on the road for 50,000 miles wihout skidding; and you can keep your improved gas mileage.
If the state of inflation of people’s tires is thought to be a big contributor to fuel conservation then we are all in trouble.
I have a better solution. Simply pull out ever second traffic light signal on the planet; well that alone will save a lot of electricity. Then after a month of driver adjustment to the new arrangement, pull out every second one of the remaining signals.
I believe it used to be true that every drop of oil we imported from outside the USA got burned up by automobiles that were simply parked motionless at stupid traffic lights, that can’t make a decision that any two year old chile could make.
Get rid of all four way stop signs; car pool lanes, and traffic metering lights.
Most traffic lights are mostly red; most of the time; that came about naturally, because Red LEDs were the easiest to make.
If the lights were programmed properly, you could have most of them mostly green most of the time.
Well of course you would have to give people a driving test before you give them a driving licence.
The pople who program traffic lights are the same sort of people who wrote M$ Windows.
Giving traffic lights the intelligence of a two year old child; would save more gasoline than any tire pressure improvements might do.
After all any two year old child can tell the difference between a tree (ANY tree) and a telephone pole (the AT&T Tree).
How many computers can distinguish the tree (ANY tree) from the telephone pole ?
Less resistance to the road means better mileage. More resistance to the road (wet and dry) means lower stopping distances and faster lane changes.
How many times does a set of tires have to save your live to be worth a few more gallons of gasoline? After 190,000 miles my performance car, on performance tires, has only gone to the limits of adhesion one time to keep me away from the air bag. That’s enough.
What kind of tires does Al Gore trust to keep his loved ones alive?
“George E. Smith (17:10:39) :
But yes; who cares if a tire lasts 50,000 miles. What good is that to you, if you go flying off a wet curve one day, because your tires have low rolling resistance; aka poor cornering power.”
I really would like to know what Jimmie Johnson thinks about that (is there a racing driver among us ?).
Oddly this echoes a recent guest post I did on electric cars at the Air Vent.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/electric-cars/
As the then ECG discovered In general rolling resistance is not terribly important except at low speeds.
For instance the rolling resistance of a railway train on a level track in good order can be as low as 2lbs [64 poundals] per ton [Imperial]. Air resistance does not become a serious drag at speeds less than about 15 to 20 mph.
Pneumatically tyred vehicles have a rolling resistance, depending on the surface, of about ten times that. But because they are very short in length compared to a railway train their total air resistance tends to be much higher for the weight hauled and becomes significant at around 30 to 40 mph.
These are necessarily very broad figures by the way.
Thus the ECG found that the original high pressure low rolling resistance tyre originally specified offered, in practice, negligible reductions in power saving over the then industry standard low pressure radial.
So whilst improvements in tyre tehnology are to be welcomed do not imagine they are going to save the world from the CO2 monster: as alarmists make him out to be.
Kindest Regards
Nanogel? How much is this going to cost me?!!
Besides, the tires I have right now will save me the same 1-2 miles per gallon if properly inflated. That’s why Mr. President said we didn’t need to drill for domestic oil.
And in fact we will do a lot less drilling, because of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act which withdrew over 3 million acres from energy leasing, in a huge Federal land grab. And all I got was this lousy “Yes we can” tire guage.
No contest.
Every winter, I sacrifice mileage, for traction, and put winter tires on my wife’s car.
Its worth every penny of the extra gasoline that she burns.
George E. Smith (17:10:39) :
> Most traffic lights are mostly red; most of the time; that came about naturally, because Red LEDs were the easiest to make.
Somehow I never looked at it that way. How’s your mushroom crop this year? Note that red LEDs were the frst ones invented to, the other flavors may still be playing catch-up.
> Giving traffic lights the intelligence of a two year old child; would save more gasoline than any tire pressure improvements might do.
Yeah, but what happens when the traffic light throws a temper tantrum?
For best performance, always inflate your tires to the pressure indicated on the tire, not what the car manufacturer recommends.
This is just a marketing gimmick. There’s all kinds of things that can be done to improve milage. Changing transmission gear ratios is one of the primary and best methods. Using a synthetic oil, modifying your driving habits, tuning the engine properly, etc. Even clocking spark plugs can help a bit. Many things could be done by the manufacturers to improve the engine (ICE) & drive train efficiency, but are not, because they would increase production costs. Some improvements cannot be done by manufacturer’s because of existing EPA, and other agencies, regulations.
To add to George E. Smith’s superb suggestions, I propose we revoke the licenses of all the drivers who maintain an average speed by alternately punching the accelerator and stabbing the brakes.
“For best performance, always inflate your tires to the pressure indicated on the tire, not what the car manufacturer recommends.”
I’ve always heard the reverse. The tire companies do not know anything about the load a specific set of their tires might be carrying.
As for me, I have never seen any difference in gas mileage before and after pumping up my tires, just like I have never seen any actual savings from using low watt bulbs. I think that, as long as your sidewalls aren’t nearly dragging on the ground, this is a 2nd order effect.
But, as far as energy saving goes, I will tell you this. We have a bonus room above the garage that was always hotter than the rest of the house in summer, and colder than the rest of the house in winter. My HVAC guy suggested getting additional insulation, and I figured I would try it. The room is still an outlier, but my overall monthly utilities bills have gone down by 1/3. This is a new house and not at all cheap in my area, so i was amazed at and immensely happy with the result.
“For best performance, always inflate your tires to the pressure indicated on the tire, not what the car manufacturer recommends.”
The pressure on the tire indicates maximum load carrying capability at that pressure. Not something to be used for daily use.
Always follow the manufacturer pressure recommendations found on the door jamb.
I’m with Bart on tyre pressures.
On my Peugeot 405 the tyre pressures are higher for the same tyres than other cars. Inflating the tyres to the same pressures on those other cars result in uneven wear & hence reduced grip,
DaveE.
Um… you DO know how Bill Gates got his start, right?
You’ll find “traffic lights” in any good Bill Gates biography…
Hmm, I have some rather soft light truck tires on my vehicle (an off-road Xterra). When I went to these tires (rather than the factory dry rots I started with), I lost about 1/2 mpg. Of course, I went from 17 to 16.5 mpg in the city, and 17.5 to 17 mpg on the highway. Nothing I can do to make it better or worse actually.
Mark
To save fuel, drive a manual. It’s more fun and operating the clutch even provides a bit of excercise. Interesting to note that about 95% of all cars sold in Italy are manuals whereas the reverse is true in the U.S.
The other advantage of driving a manual is that they deter those car thieves who can only drive automatics.
I had to swerve and accelerate violently to avoid an idiot in a winnebago who tried to cross three lanes of heavy traffic without looking.
Missed me by about 6 inches.
Turbo helped me accelerate, grippy tires kept me from spinning out and getting creamed.
No thanks on “compromise tires.” If you make a nanogel to improve tire performance, I only want to se better grip.
It’s a safety system, like brakes. I don’t want my brakes “worrying” about making power, I want them to stop the darned car. Safety system.
I leave the heated seats off to save energy, ’cause I don’t need them.
Not reducing my traction to save pennies.
I still insist that the best way to cut auto CO2 emissions is to get rid of catalytic converters. Sure the air will then be full of real pollution but at least that evil CO2 will be reduced. One must admire the government scheme for requiring autos to be equiped with a device that produces CO2 and now wanting to tax us for that production.
Wow. That’d improve the MPG on my full-size SUV by about 15%. Then again, if I was worried about MPG, I would not have bought an SUV for urban driving.
The new tires could help add an extra mile or two per gallon to a car’s fuel economy.
That might make up for the mileage I’ve been losing since ethanol was added to the mix.
How is it that a principle surrounding a round rubber tire is referred to as a “magic triangle?” Euclid must be rolling over in his grave. Only magic triangle I’m aware of is the one with multi-colored golf tees at Cracker Barrel.
I couldn’t help but notice that the new compound contains silicon. Given complete combustion, it’ll release SiO2 nano-particulates, which can be very harmful for lung tissue. Scrap tire fires are bad enough already. Will this make them worse?
Tom in Florida (19:53:22) :
Catalytic converters, yeah!
Most UK journeys, the CC doesn’t even start working!
Far better was lean-burn, but the German CC manufacturers wanted what they got.
DaveE.
I am in favor of any technical development as long as it results in BETTER products at COMPATIBLE prices, however I don’t think much money is to be made by the application of low resistance tires if you drive a 250 hp sports car or an SUV.
The government regulation driven green hike does not make our products better and certainly not cheaper. It pushes for irrational application of resources that will lead to extremely high energy prices and products that lack value for money.
Eventually this will lead to a collapse of our economies.
A recent example to make my point:
The new Volvo V70 Plug-in Hybrid, to go on sale by 2012.
Volvo has made a reputation for building one of the safest cars in the world.
Unfortunately the new hybrid is a safety horror.
It has an electric engine that drives the rear wheels and a 250 bhp diesel driving the front wheels. The electric engine takes care of propelling the car but also breaking, thus retrieving breaking energy and fill up the battery again.
Well, this new Volvo, on wet and icy roads goes everywhere and one of the new properties is the risk of spinning around the moment you take your foot from the gas pedal.
The car will be 15.000 dollar more expensive than a conventional model it will have a battery only range of 30 miles (in the test it made only 17.5 miles) at an access weight of more than 250 kg.
That’s a lot of money to turn a good car in to a bad car.
Would we not rather wait until radical new technologies make it to the main markets based on the good old principle of free markets instead of Government Dictate?
To be honest with you I am getting rather fed up with all the “Green BS” being pored all over us all day long, all based on the wrong assumption that CO2 emissions are turning our planet into a Thermogeddon?
Actually, a bigger gas saving might be to go back to lead anti-knock additives in petrol. I seem to remember that removing them increased consumption by 4%? And the supposed health benefits were not universally accepted as factual.
Plus one for sorting out traffic lights. I remember visiting Holland and watching the way the traffic lights go on in sequence with each other, such that after pulling off from the first lot, you got through them all. I believe the Germans refined it such that they take congestion into account and have an automatic speed sign, which if you stick to the speed, will get you through most of the lights, although I only heard this second hand.
The Dutch were also experimenting with making some lights permanently yellow at quiet times, so it just worked like an ordinary junction, but I don’t know the outcome of that. I also love the idea of the amber and green light, which warns you to prepare to move off.
Here in Ireland, we have none of those things, in fact I’m convinced they’ve set them the opposite way, to make driving as objectionable as possible. The result is the average speed is 8 miles per hour, with one four mile 3 lane dual carriageway taking 25 miutes to traverse even when there are no other cars on the road.
Not only would this increase MPG substantially, it would reduce accidents and frustration. Reallly, until one sees efforts by governments to implement things like this, you know they’re only paying lip service to actually reducing the overall impact we’re having on the environment. /rant. Sorry
On the subject of tires – or “tyres” as we call them in England – it seems to me that they wear out far quicker than they used to. On my first car – a 1967 Riley Elf (fwd) – a set of new front tyres lasted around 40,000 miles while my current car – a 2001 Alfa 156 (also fwd) they only last around 20,000 miles.
Of course, the Alfa is considerably more powerful than the Riley was, but I don’t exactly chuck it around like my little Elf.
Also, modern wide tyres give better grip and cornering control, but they must also create more drag on the car? I wonder how much more fuel efficient cars would be if we had a slightly less fat tyres. Would it be worth sacrificing a little grip and cornering speed for a couple of mpg extra?
“George E. Smith (17:10:39) :
I have a better solution. Simply pull out ever second traffic light signal on the planet; well that alone will save a lot of electricity. Then after a month of driver adjustment to the new arrangement, pull out every second one of the remaining signals.”
There are some countries, like New Zealand for instance, have a tax policy on fuel which basically mean you pay for the “K’s” you do (Esp diesel, but applies to all fuels). Then, the NZ gummint realised that, cars were becoming more efficient, so they “upped” the users tax on fuel, and so on. Yet, the Gummint authority responsible for “road building”, IMO, made some of the most inefficient roads I have ever used. Inefficient roads = increased revenues.
Yes, traffic lights (Cheaper than full grade intersections)! Yes, stop start traffic (Due to traffic lights). It’s the same here in Australia; Truckin traffic lights, everywhere (Unless on a toll road) wastes fuel (= revenue for gummint).
I used to take the train to work, but at 45-70mins for a 12k journey, each way, walking, waiting, train and walking, I decided to take the car (Putting aside the fact that in summer there are no air-con train cars at the time I need them). In the car, 20mins each way, but almost half of that is waiting for lights to go green most times (And I don’t understand why Aussies drive at 40kph in 60-70kph zone outside school times. No, I *do* know, they can’t drive at all).
History is a funny thing. Sometimes we ascribe drivers to a decision that were not there at the time. Lead was NOT removed from gasoline because of direct health benefits that would be achieved (This was just good marketing.) The primary reason it was removed was the addition of the catalytic converter the car because the lead would “poison” the catalyst used by the converter, rendering it useless.
The catalytic converter’s primary job is to reduce the amount VOCs and NOX contained in the exhaust, two of the primary culprits in smog. There is no denying the indirect health benefits of the removal of lead, which is reduced deaths and illnesses from smog.
The addition of the catalytic converter did increase the amount of taxable carbon by ~4%, which is the increase in fuel consumed to drive the same number of miles. A small price to pay for the very real air quality issues it solved.
“Stan (01:54:09) :
On the subject of tires – or “tyres” as we call them in England – it seems to me that they wear out far quicker than they used to. On my first car – a 1967 Riley Elf (fwd) – a set of new front tyres lasted around 40,000 miles while my current car – a 2001 Alfa 156 (also fwd) they only last around 20,000 miles.”
There is an industry to support, a gummint industry. Tax, tyres, tax oon tyres, tax on your MOT etc etc etc…tax by stealth. Make tyres “safer”, by making them softer, means they wear out faster, meaning you need to consume more and pay more, more frequently. Cha-ching!
Mind you, try driving on hard cross-ply tyres on an old Land Rover. You learn quickly.
Anybody have any idea how much oil (and commute time) we can save with smart traffic lights? Of course, this solution doesn’t come cheap because you need a smart system, not just new signals.
Tires make a huge difference. I have a Civic that I do motorsports stuff with, and I see a 10% difference in milage between the OE Michelin all-season tires, and the Bridgestone summer-tires I use for autocrossing.
I calculate milage on EVERY tank, and log it. I am very confident in that 10% number.
After the Ford Exploder/Firestone tire problem the government mandated tire pressure sensors for new cars. But what good is that? Many places that sell fuel don’t have air compressors and the ones that do charge for it and drivers don’t have a pressure gauge. It would have done more good to write a law saying every new car must come with a pressure gauge in the glove box and every place that sells fuel must offer free air.
I also notice that tires don’t seem to last as long anymore. They also seem to develop fine cracks (beginning of dry rot) faster. Chemical make up of the rubber perhaps? Compounds that increase traction leach out and cause cracks?
“Myron Mesecke (07:00:57) :
It would have done more good to write a law saying every new car must come with a pressure gauge in the glove box and every place that sells fuel must offer free air.”
Offer free air is what they do in Europe, and the pressure gauge is attached to the (often portable) air tank. It is more accurate than what is carried in the glove compartment. But the recommended air pressure still varies with the weight of the car (and its load) and the type of driving.
In a company I used to own, the Michelins had a longer lasting rubber and also crazed more easily in ultraviolet degradation. One of my companies was in the tyre business. I do not see better mileage at lower speeds. Many fleets calculate mileage and wear. I also used re-capped tires on some trucks. Like most posts above, there are tradeoffs in terms of tire life, traction and rolling resistance. You can’t have all 4. \
Low cost
Better traction
Lower rolling resistance
Longer life
Back in the days of $4 gas, I talked to a climate skeptic friend of mine who’d been practicing fuel efficient driving techniques. “I’m saving $20 a week!” he said. I added, “and, you’re saving CO2 as well!” He immediately stopped driving efficiently. To him, he gained greater satisfaction from polluting than from saving money.
WAG,
Your friend was right, because CO2 is not pollution. It is the airborne nutrient that plants use to build cellulose. They emit oxygen as a byproduct. We breathe that oxygen and exhale CO2.
See how it works?
“The car…will have a battery only range of 30 miles (in the test it made only 17.5 miles)”
I do not understand why electric cars are not subject to any realistic range standards, while hydrogen fuel cells are required to have a 300 mile capacity.
“The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has warned that the technology must improve to facilitate a more lightweight, low-volume system — one that allows a car to drive at least 300 miles on a single fill-up.”
http://www.scienceline.org/2009/11/18/researchers-make-hydrogen-fuel-progress/
Myron Mesecke (07:00:57) wrote:
“Many places that sell fuel don’t have air compressors and the ones that do charge for it and drivers don’t have a pressure gauge.”
At the service station that I patronize, one can get free air with a fill-up. The catch is that the compressor is down half the time. I finally splurged, and bought a 12V compressor for $20.
Biggest damage to tyres ?
Sleeping policemen & speed pads .These; dear cousins across the pond; are obstructions placed in the road DELIBERATELY to ‘slow; down vehicles’ Sleeping policemen are lumps of tar that are placed across the road; curb to curb; where as speed pillows are lumps of tar the width of a fire engine/ambulance axle (supposedly allowing them to ride over the obstruction with out jarring the passengers/patients)- think upside down pot hole –
They have a front step (meant to be less than 10cm HIGH) and a rear step. So every one
a) wastes petrol as you slow down; lift the car and then acelerate away
b) damages the car
c) speed pillows damage the tyres – normally wrecking the INSIDE shoulder – the bit you can NOT easily see.
I would love to know how many litres are wasted every day by the millions of cars going over millions of sleeping policemen/speed pads
How many blow outs they’ve caused.
Since most traffic lights are run by PLCs and have sensors in the road it is trivial to re-program them to work better; ie let the traffic dictate the sequence – not the sequence generate the traffic jam
Road policies & fuel tax – ways governments have of gouging the working population – which is why or public transport is also useless – they have to keep us in our cars; too much tax at risk if we’re not
I see a lot of others have picked up on the compromise between grip and low rolling resistance. On an auto forum I frequent, one of the regulars is a suspension engineer for one of the US “Big 3” automakers. He has made the following observations:
1. The less than stellar braking distances on his companies cars are in large part due to the decision to use low rolling resistance tires to maximize fuel economy.
2. The calibration of the engine of a certain car (the subject of the forum) to be an ultra low emissions vehicle (ULEV) costs about 1-2 mpg.
This all reminds me of the old audio adage for speakers – deep bass, small size, high efficiency, pick any two. You can’t maximize one parameter without hurting others, and the focus on fuel economy has made cars less safe. And focusing on real pollution costs mileage and CO2 emissions. In the first case I disagree with the decision, the latter, probably is a decent decision (though the standards are driven to a great deal by Kalifornia and their city in the bottom of an inversion layer).
For me, I’ll sacrifice a little fuel economy for safety and grip. I doubt I’ll be thinking about gas mileage when I’m staring at the back end of a truck that suddenly pulled out in front of me.
Several Keys that we best be aware of:
LRR tires are not needed, and they are actually undesirable…
1) The auto/truck total energy use is about 14-20% of the US total.
2) Buildings total energy use is about 40-48% of the US total.
3) Industrial uses total energy use is about 12-20% of the US total.
After some 32 years of designing energy saving buildings, including many that NEVER use their back-up heating… I know the cheapest most efficient way to reduce energy use is Buildings… @(1-2% max. construction cost increase).
Realistically, we can spec-up, re-model and re-design our Building stock to achieve a 50% reduction in Building Energy use… more reduction is available but with a steep cost curve.
Tires are not an efficient or safe way to save a mpg or 2. I also think its ridiculous to reduce traction as LRR tires (and extreme inflation) must. Since new cars are tending to be smaller they must be able to handle better to avoid accidents and require the best available traction – Buy ‘A’ traction at a min..
Fully changing to synthetic lubricants can increase mileage by 30% in complex 4 WD suburbans – and engine oils last 25,000 miles or more if tested – (10% is more
Currently, bunker oil for all the ships at sea (and trains) is old crankcase oil – that is pollution.
@Bart (18:54:07) :
“…as far as energy saving goes, I will tell you this. We have a bonus room above the garage that was always hotter than the rest of the house in summer, and colder than the rest of the house in winter. My HVAC guy suggested getting additional insulation, and I figured I would try it. The room is still an outlier, but my overall monthly utilities bills have gone down by 1/3. This is a new house and not at all cheap in my area, so i was amazed at and immensely happy with the result.”
Note: Bart is talking about a NEW HOUSE – all construction quality needs improvement as that is where we can get the most for the least. My bet is that I could save Bart a lot more money…
Professor John Brignell http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/jeb/cv.htm has this to say.
“CRU was created by the Thatcher Government as an arm in its war against the coal miners and the oil sheiks. This was a case (unfortunately not isolated) in which the smart tactical manoeuvre became a grand strategic error, for it bequeathed a powerful tool to the new authoritarian left when they reins of power changed hands.
A quasi-scientific institute that is founded for political purposes is a misbegotten creature. It is conceived in cynicism and born to corruption. When the remit of such an institution is to manufacture evidence to support one particular hypothesis it is condemned not to produce just bad science but anti-science.
The basis of modern scientific method is the principle of falsification. We do not call upon it directly for every scientific investigation, just as we do not rush to the courts of law every time we sign a contract, but it is always there to provide the rigorous framework essential to progress. To pay someone to collect data that support one hypothesis is like, to adapt the classical analogy, paying someone to count white swans to “prove” the hypothesis that all swans are white. Furthermore, once that someone’s living depends upon that payment, he will be sorely tempted to cover up any evidence of black swans and, being human, he will try to salve his own conscience by creating a justification for ignoring inconvenient observations.”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2009%20November.htm#warmergate
Interesting article. I can’t wait to see some real world results over at http://www.fuelmileage.com. It would be nice to see some real world differences.