[Omel Borpon]

View attachment 14322
TyreReviews.com has published data from German magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, test of low RR and UHP tires. It's a comprehensive test of tires we can't buy, but... "The magazine tested the rolling resistance of the tyres, which is a machine test, and the energy consumption in the real world using the Kia EV6." GT-Line trim.

Yippee! That's data we can use!

A direct comparison of machine data and real world data, using the car we all prefer! Data is plotted above for 9 of 10 tires because one of the Falken tires didn't fit. RR units are 1/1000. I extrapolated at the high end because 0.006 is about the lowest RR tire I've seen, while twice that's not uncommon. I also looked at more complex curve fits, but none gave a real R-squared increase.

Bottom line?
0.001 of RR reduction is worth 0.21 mi/kWh of efficiency increase, about 5%.
They included a Continental Kia EV6 GT-line OE tire; its mid-pack at 0.0074. There's 5% to be had!

View attachment 14322
TyreReviews.com has published data from German magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, test of low RR and UHP tires. It's a comprehensive test of tires we can't buy, but... "The magazine tested the rolling resistance of the tyres, which is a machine test, and the energy consumption in the real world using the Kia EV6." GT-Line trim.

Yippee! That's data we can use!

A direct comparison of machine data and real world data, using the car we all prefer! Data is plotted above for 9 of 10 tires because one of the Falken tires didn't fit. RR units are 1/1000. I extrapolated at the high end because 0.006 is about the lowest RR tire I've seen, while twice that's not uncommon. I also looked at more complex curve fits, but none gave a real R-squared increase.

Bottom line?
0.001 of RR reduction is worth 0.21 mi/kWh of efficiency increase, about 5%.
They included a Continental Kia EV6 GT-line OE tire; its mid-pack at 0.0074. There's 5% to be had!

View attachment 14322
TyreReviews.com has published data from German magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, test of low RR and UHP tires. It's a comprehensive test of tires we can't buy, but... "The magazine tested the rolling resistance of the tyres, which is a machine test, and the energy consumption in the real world using the Kia EV6." GT-Line trim.

Yippee! That's data we can use!

A direct comparison of machine data and real world data, using the car we all prefer! Data is plotted above for 9 of 10 tires because one of the Falken tires didn't fit. RR units are 1/1000. I extrapolated at the high end because 0.006 is about the lowest RR tire I've seen, while twice that's not uncommon. I also looked at more complex curve fits, but none gave a real R-squared increase.

Bottom line?
0.001 of RR reduction is worth 0.21 mi/kWh of efficiency increase, about 5%.
They included a Continental Kia EV6 GT-line OE tire; its mid-pack at 0.0074. There's 5% to be had!

Tire Rack did not do rolling resistance testing, but they did compare range and efficiency between OE and aftermarket versions of two popular tire brands: Continental and Michelin. Their data shows a significant difference (up to 12%) between the two versions.

https://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-100...id=autolinker&url=https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=298

https://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-100...d=autolinker&url=https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=299

 

[Omel Borpon]

Tyres sold in Europe are tested for rolling resistance and labeled with such. EU Tire Label Current status and challenges - Tyre Reviews and Tests

Here in the USA we are not given a clue as to what RR a particular tire has. The only RR ratings I could find for US tires was in Consumer Reports, and their testing is less than exhaustive, shall we say. There are other opinions, but not much actual data. EV drivers especially need to be aware of tire efficiency. We need to start demanding RR labels on tires. Thanks to all who are talking up this issue.

 

[Omel Borpon]

I'm not sold on the entire EV tire sales pitch. The engineering on some of these is different due to the stiffened sidewalls to account for the increased low carried weight pushed into the tire (weight exists on same plane where tires exist, unlike heavier ICE cars where weight extends higher) on aggressive turns, but that only applies if you track or... drive aggressively.

I say just go for good all season less sticky compounds and all is well.

And then there is the consideration that some tires are produced in both H rated and V rated (or higher) versions. My researches indicate that H rated tires are more durable, have firmer tread compounds, and have thinner sidewalls, while V rated tires are not as durable and have softer gumball tread compounds, but have stiffer sidewalls. There are always trade-offs, it seems.

 

[Omel Borpon]

Skepticism has its place, as do taste and preference. Tire design is all about tradeoffs, so choices abound!

Some value grip, some life, but with EVs, it's now so quiet... tire noise is much more obvious and rolling resistance matters. I'm all about informed choices as the only defense against the unwelcomed surprise. And it takes time. My mother didn't understand "the entire radial tire sales pitch" in 1973, when I got my first car at 20K miles and needed tires.

Great link!

Thank you for taking the time to reply. You make several good points, and we substantially agree, but with different scope. In many ways, the data is "historical" rather than part of an experimental design. I'm still baselining.
#1 is a non-starter at 43N, so I use driver-only, pre-conditioning in winter, and maintain 70+/-2F setting.
#2 and #5 are recorded as "noise variables" whose magnitude I want to estimate. Can't control it, so understand it?

It appears that low rolling resistance and wet grip/braking/handling in tires are mutually exclusive given current technology. So tradeoffs between rr and wet grip are the norm. Here is an interesting video regarding this from a guy who is a complete tyre nerd (make sure you watch the entire vid):