"Can we make bikes sustainable again?" article

[RIP]

A long but interesting article. Glad my bikes are steel then - FAR less impact than ally .

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2023/ ... again.html

Summary: "In conclusion, there are several reasons why bicycles have become less sustainable: the switch from steel to aluminium and other more energy-intensive materials, the scaling up of the bicycle manufacturing industry, increasing incompatibility and decreasing quality of components, the growing success of electric bicycles".

"Scientists have calculated the lifetime carbon emissions of a steel bike at 35 kg CO2, compared to 212 kg CO2 for an aluminium bicycle".

But: “The problem here is capitalism; it’s not the bikes.” Ah well, there we go...

[Dyffers]

Are people who buy steel bicycles [frames] forced to use them for no less than 20000km before they are allowed to buy another?

[RIP]

A mileage that probably wouldn't trouble most of us here though...

[Bearbonesnorm]

I'm surprised electric isn't rated worse / higher given what it takes to produce them and the fact they need charging? Or am I reading the figures wrong?

[fatbikephil]

Not wholly convinced by that although as Stu says it's not that clear what they are trying to say.
Plus 118g of CO2 emission for the whole life of a bike (i.e. the worst case on that list) is bugger all... Obviously if millions of people by an ally e-bike then don't use it; then that is a bad thing but I can't realistically see that happening. And the '200+' for a car is somewhat erroneous. Sorry I've been reading far too many analysis tables recently...

[PaulE]

Not wholly convinced by that although as Stu says it's not that clear what they are trying to say.
Plus 118g of CO2 emission for the whole life of a bike (i.e. the worst case on that list) is bugger all... Obviously if millions of people by an ally e-bike then don't use it; then that is a bad thing but I can't realistically see that happening. And the '200+' for a car is somewhat erroneous. Sorry I've been reading far too many analysis tables recently...

Isn't that 118g/km?

[fatbikephil]

Ah yes, eyes wide shut as usual....
Although that makes it even less believable - 118g Co2 per km seems very high, even for an e-bike.....

[Alpinum]

In the graph it too says "**life expectancy expressed in kilometres".
I became curious and read the provided link. I couldn't find what expectancies are... did I miss something?

The text puts the numbers into perspective. The author is just a fan of old steel frames and thinks disc brakes are the demise of axle standards. Without having to agree to everything, worth reading thanks for sharing Mr. Perrin

My perspective:
I've ridden and still ride steel, titanium and carbon frames. So far the most damaged frame material has been steel in my case. My (4) different types of MTBs all come with discs, all have the same axle dimensions.

[RIP]

Aye, I was a bit baffled in parts I must admit, but thought it was a fairly interesting talking point .

The author is just a fan of old steel frames and thinks disc brakes are the demise of axle standards

Obviously I'm just put out that he doesn't mention 3x9 or tubed tyres being far more 'sustainable' as well .

[johnnystorm]

I'm surprised electric isn't rated worse / higher given what it takes to produce them and the fact they need charging? Or am I reading the figures wrong?

When Trek did their report I did see it mentioned that there was a decent argument that a bike running 50/50 on "green electricity" had a lower impact than a normal bike solely powered by big macs...

[Bearbonesnorm]

"green electricity"

Uhm but where do you start and stop with that - do we consider the power required to produce turbines, panels etc or the impact of cutting forests and burning wood at Drax? I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as 'green electricity'

[johnnystorm]

"green electricity"

Uhm but where do you start and stop with that - do we consider the power required to produce turbines, panels etc or the impact of cutting forests and burning wood at Drax? I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as 'green electricity'

Oh absolutely. The problem I see with all these articles is that there are so many variables as to make it almost pointless. If you commute 100 miles a week on a carbon bike or eBike you're doing better than someone who buys a steel bike and just lets it sit idle in their shed and drives in instead.

I guess if it's just "shall I buy x or y for my commute" then it might be useful.

[Alpinum]

Aye, I was a bit baffled in parts I must admit, but thought it was a fairly interesting talking point .

The author is just a fan of old steel frames and thinks disc brakes are the demise of axle standards

Obviously I'm just put out that he doesn't mention 3x9 or tubed tyres being far more 'sustainable' as well .

[Alpinum]

When Trek did their report I did see it mentioned that there was a decent argument that a bike running 50/50 on "green electricity" had a lower impact than a normal bike solely powered by big macs...

Less confirmation bias in Trek's report..?