The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has developed test practices to measure the RRC of tires.
When measured by using these standard test practices, most new passenger tires have reported RRCs ranging from 0.007 to 0.014.
[3] These coefficients are measured on rollers, with power meters on road surfaces, or with coast-down tests.
In the latter two cases, the effect of air resistance must be subtracted or the tests performed at very low speeds.
Results will be used to inform Canadians about the types of low rolling resistance tires available in Canada, and whether they can help reduce fuel consumption and pollutants from passenger vehicles.
Tire pressure, vehicle weight and velocity all play a role in how much force is lost to rolling resistance.
[citation needed] A 2003 California Energy Commission (CEC) preliminary study estimated that adoption of low-rolling resistance tires could save 1.5–4.5% of all gasoline consumption, but that current data were also insufficient to compare safety and other characteristics.
A United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study in 2009 found that if 2% of the replacement tires would reduce their rolling resistance by 5%, there would be 7.9 million gallons fuel and 76,000 metric tons of CO2 saved annually.
[citation needed] Because fuel efficiency is an important selling point for most hybrid vehicles, they are often equipped with low-rolling resistance tires.
Auto manufacturers in the United States typically equip new vehicles with tires that have lower rolling resistance than their average after-market replacements, in order to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
[8] These include Conti Contact, Michelin Energy, Bridgestone Ecopia, and Goodyear Eagle LS tires.
"[11] Older Low-rolling resistance tires may reduce ability to grip, especially when taking corners, and may also wear out more rapidly.
[14] Passenger tires are tested for rolling resistance in order to obtain the German Blue Angel eco-label[15]