Low Resistant Tires

LRR Low Rolling Resistance Tires

"low rolling resistance"

They are usually rock-hard, last forever, but don't grip.

and, of course, low rolling resistance = low braking ability, which of course = issues with steering at higher speeds...

Your assumptions are just that, assumptions. Somebody mentioned short tread life while somebody else said they last forever. The reality is that it depends on what compound they use, among other things. Normal rubber will come across as being hard when it doesn't get up to its normal working temperature. With less rolling resistance there is less heat build up in the tire. A softer compound can be used to restore grip, but if they get too carriend away it results in short tread life.

Low resistance = low resistance. If it's designed not to present resistance to the roadway, then it's designed not to present resistance to the roadway.

Stopping is just like going, but in the opposite direction...

Rolling resistance and traction are two different things. Underinflate a tire then smear grease on it and it will have high rolling resistance with low traction.

Of course like a good troll you snipped "A softer compound can be used to restore grip, but if they get too carriend away it results in short tread life."

Or are we supposed to think you are funny for dwelling on the fact that he left out "rolling" when he wrote "low resistance"? Oh, you're so clever, not.

The National Academy of Science discusses LRRT issues here:

The relevant part would be:

The impact of emphasizing one performance objective (such as low rolling resistance) over other performance criteria is inconclusive. Some studies have shown that tires with low rolling resistance do not appear to compromise traction, but may wear faster than conventional tires. Another study in 2008 by Consumers Union and summarized by Automotive News (Automotive News, 2008) concluded that there may be a reduction in traction, because of low-rolling-resistance tires, that increases stopping distance. The study is not rigorously controlled, and other influences may confound the results. The response by one tire manufacturer, Michelin ( Barrand and Bokar, 2008), argues that low-rolling- resistance tires can be achieved without sacrificing performance factors by balancing the design and manufacturing process variables. Tire makers are continuing to research how to get optimal performance (including fuel economy) without sacrificing other criteria such as safety or wear. Goodyear points out that performance tradeoffs between rolling resistance, traction, and tread wear can be made based on materials and process adjustments, which also affect cost (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 2009).

That pretty much backs what I said, the end result depends on more than just the rolling resistance. I also noticed in there:

The opportunity to improve fuel economy by reducing rolling resistance is already used by OEMs to obtain better “EPA numbers,” and so original equipment tires tend to have lower rolling resistance than consumer-replaced tires because typical values for the coefficient of rolling resistance (ro) values differ between them (NRC, 2006). This represents an interesting value tradeoff. The OEMs are more interested in getting low-rolling-resistance tires to show improved fuel economy, and people buying replacement tires are more interested in low cost and durability. Therefore the total opportunity for fuel consumption reduction is defined by the fraction of the tires on the road that falls into each category. Education of the public on the subject of low-rolling-resistance tires for replacement tires and the continued introduction of tire pressure monitoring systems, which is discussed below, may help improve in-use performance of tires for fuel consumption reduction.

I would read that to say LRRT are a good thing which the public should be educated to take advantage of.

I would say the observed results on the Prius Bridgestones make it an open and shut case for big compromises.

Ah, you're one of those who insists that anyone who does anything you don't like--for whatever reason--must be a "troll".

Got it.

I would say that is a sampling of only one of many possible.

Got any of your own? Or will it be ?

But I didn't do that, so your declaration is bullshit.

You have the best answer so far. If you want the car to be as good as original then replace the tires with as near to original as possible. Toyota engineers use what they think is best for the application. I guess I don't understand why a person would buy a Prious and not use factory equivalent tires. I mean a person buys a Prious for a reason why change what it is?

Sorry, I guess I took your babbling about "Low resistance = low resistance. If it's designed not to present resistance to the roadway, then it's designed not to present resistance to the roadway. Stopping is just like going, but in the opposite direction" as another way of saying lack of resistance means lack of traction. Perhaps you would like to explain what you were saying there.

Dated, the information on the Sumitmo remains current. There may be other, more modern, low-rolling resistance tires:

I don't know your dealer but in North Alabama the dealer's replacement tire in the past as been the Sumitomo T4s.

Consumer Reports updates their list from time-to-time. You might consider getting an online subscription or seeing if you can find their 'annual' review book at a bookstore.

I order my Sumitmos from Tire Rack and have them shipped to the house. I then take them to a local Firestone shop to have them mounted, balanced, and front-end alignment. Both cars have the Firestone life- time, alignment guarantee.

You might consider mounting a pair of the largest diameter tires that fit on the front. I had originally installed them to see if I could tweak a little lower rolling resistance:

One other thing, you might consider a four-wheel alignment. This can normalize wear across the treads and result in longer tire life.

GOOD LUCK! Bob Wilson