2022 ViBilagare Eco vs Normal Tire Test

I wonder if you wear down those non-eco tires down to eco-tire thread depts what would consumption will look like....

Why on earth is the fuel consumption test set up so clumsily?!
Driving in a continuous circle, which introduces centrifugal forces and changes the characteristics of each tire...
Using a petrol engine, which wastes more than 75% of energy in the cooling system, is of course going to minimise the effects. They really could not find a single electric car in all of Sweden...?

With EVs, rolling resistance makes up more than half of the typical consumption.
I run an Jaguar I-Pace EV. I have switched from the OEM B label Good Years summer tires to A label Pirelli's. (The Pirellli's are all season tires,, which I run in winter.)
I have a clearly measured improvement in efficiency of more than 1.5kWh per 100km, or nearly 10%. 10% more range, 10% less charging time etc, that really makes a difference.
It is very encouraging to see that all manufacturers increasingly understand the importance and field gradual improvements with each new tire released. In my opinion this 'test' does little to advance understanding or awareness as it leads to dismissing the entire notion as marketing. While the pressure shoulf IMO be to gain the tangible, real benefits without the trade-off disadvantages that speaks from this test.

Funny to see that some brand new tires have just 2 mm thread more than the value (4mm) some few years ago manufacturers was suggesting as limit for safe wet conditions...

I will never trade 5.6 meters on wet bracking or 10 km/h margin on aquaplaning for 0.2 l/100km... (happy to spend extea 0.36 €/100km for safety).

Finally a test like this one to break many urban and marketing myths! It's funny to see, however, how that 1% of fuel consumption increase for each 5% of rolling resistance increase rule of thumb almost goes out of the window. For instance: the Michelin e-Primacy has 13% lower RR than the Conti EC6 but has a FC 1,2% higher; the Conti PC6 has a RR 31% higher than the Conti EC6 but only wastes 3,8% more fuel, and the same Conti PC6 has a RR 7,5% higher than the Michelin P4 but has a FC 0,6% lower. Of course, comparing the results on a naked eye, in general terms, the lower the RR the lower the fuel consumption, so, I wonder if tire weight is that important in terms of fuel consumption as rolling resistance or have they measured the RR and FC in this test in a very scientific manner or not? But then, the Bridgestone T005 has a RR 0,4% lower than the Goodyear EGP2, weighs 8,4% less but burns 2 % more fuel...
Maybe tire aerodynamics counts just as much...

Sadly all reviews of this size are missing the Michelin Pilot Sport 4. Actually the PS4 is available in 205/55 R16 for some time (as was the PS3 before) as one of the very few UHP tires in this 'milder' size. 'Sadly' because I supect it would be a clear winner. At the very least it likely would be on par with Conti's PremiumContact 6.