Can we make bicycles sustainable again?

[rareposter]

Manufacturers understand how damaging it is to their business to not only have products which last reliably for decades and prematurely ending the life of a well-evolved product (ie not one for which the development curve is nearly horizontal) because of built-in obsolescence or failure to be able to source a replacement part is extraordinarily damaging to the environment, but essential to their continued existance as things are.

In a society which valued longevity and sustainability, factories would be making replacement parts and upgrades rather than scratching their heads as to how to redesign yet again some product in order to boost sales.

Yes and no.

To go back to the original point of bicycles - remember the start of this thread was actually related to bikes...?! - you've got a whole host of companies coming together to make "a bike".
Let's take a road bike as with the original article.

Frame, wheels, groupset, finishing parts.

New materials and tech comes along - 20 years ago carbon was in its infancy, now it's a well established material, manufacturers understand its properties and how to use them effectively and (contrary to popular belief) it can be repaired and recycled.

Wheels have got stronger, lighter, stiffer, more aero as well and the current trend is to wider, tubeless tyres so there's a change there and tyre manufacturers are on a similar progression. As an aside, disc brakes are vastly superior in terms of sustainability because you're not wearing out an expensive carbon or aluminium rim, you're wearing out a small bit of easily recyclable steel.

Groupsets have wider gear ranges, more gears, better shifting, stronger chains, and so on, all of which are generally better for the consumer. Given a choice of whether to ride a downtube / friction shifting 2x5 groupset or an STI indexed 2 x 11 groupset, no-one in their right mind would choose the former.

So there's a host of complementary improvements, all of which depend on the other. Wheel manufacturers need to factor in the extra dishing, disc rotor mounting and wider tyres, frame manufacturers need to adapt the frame to take discs and more gears, groupsets need to work with all of that together.

Having a groupset manufacturer going "ah well we're just going to concentrate on spare parts and minor upgrades to our 2 x 5" means they'll go out of business in no time.

If your workplace had said "oh we don't need these newfangled computers, we'll just upgrade our typewrites every once in a while", they'd be out of business almost instantly. The sustainability argument goes both ways - the company itself has to be sustainable for the sake of its employees.

[Biospace]

Yes and no.

Exactly - there's a balance to be had, freezing ourselves in time isn't going to happen.

Monopolistic business practices can restrict development, there are interesting situations in the computer industry and car manufacturing, where a once vibrant diversity in engineering has through repeated mergers seen most cars grow to have incredibly similar layouts in engine, suspension and drivetrain. The Chinese are poised to take over the small car sector, it's notable that the Europeans appear to have almost vacated this marketplace.

I'm not quite as convinced as you regarding disc brakes for bikes although they clearly help sell products. The bicycle continues to develop, perhaps as much in its ability to seperate buyers from their cash as its dynamic abilities. Watching some of the restored and upscaled films from 100 years ago and more, it's striking that it's only Nature and bikes which appear unchanged.

[Nearholmer]

Having a groupset manufacturer going "ah well we're just going to concentrate on spare parts and minor upgrades to our 2 x 5" means they'll go out of business in no time.

Except if they are Sturmey-Archer, which seems to have survived in various forms by doing just that

But, I’ll admit, it is an exception that proves a rule.

[Carlton green]

Having a groupset manufacturer going "ah well we're just going to concentrate on spare parts and minor upgrades to our 2 x 5" means they'll go out of business in no time.

Except if they are Sturmey-Archer, which seems to have survived in various forms by doing just that

But, I’ll admit, it is an exception that proves a rule.

SA and say Brooks have been exceptions to the rule in that purchasers - admittedly limited numbers of discerning ones - are buying into longevity and suppliers are buying into lower sales volumes in exchange for a company of long life but not necessarily high profits. Sadly both companies are foreign owned now - due to the British disease of excessive commercial greed - and SA production has also moved to Taiwan. Parts supply and price may not be as good as they once were but there is a market for stuff that lasts a lifetime, the original customer might not need to re-buy but they are the company’s best salesmen to the other customers who do buy.

[[XAP]Bob]

The family car has covered hundreds of thousands of miles

So the fuel it has burnt (ignoring any other consumables) could have been used (in carbon terms) to build (and drive) several EVs the same distance.

When the energy used for recharging the traction battery isn't from a grid whose spare capacity is almost always from burning fossil fuel, then the case for battery EVs is much more reasonable. In Sweden and Norway for example, they make sense.

Yes - the energy came from ~66% fossil fuels in 2022, but that also means it came from 33% renewables.
It's also far more efficient to use large power plants and then transmit and store the energy than it is to spend energy refining the fuel further, transporting, storing, pumping it and then burning it in vehicles - even with 100% coal, which is about as bad a fuel as you can get, an EV is on par with an ICE vehicle.
But get this... over the next decade that proportion of power that's renewable will increase, and so every EV on the market will have reduced emissions across their lifetime.

There's a 'holier than thou' aspect of a few using EVs which can lead to exaggerated and false claims, which many are concerned further stoke false public perceptions that they create little harm and so will be used with no concern for the planet, no matter how heavy and how powerful they are.

All the trends are for all EVs to be heavier and more powerful, when we could so easily be going in a positive direction. Even a Nissan Leaf has from 147bhp to 215bhp power and 320Nm of torque, all of which is available from zero revs. This is more than many a 70s Lamborghini, the original fast Golf GTi had just 109bhp and 140Nm.

The trend is for all cars to be heavier and more powerful - that's nothing to do with being an EV or otherwise.
Trying to compare torque between an ICE and an EV is pointless, the EV is always going to win that numbers game, particularly when it comes to usable torque from a standstill. But that's because of the fundamental differences between an electric drivetrain and an infernal combustion drivetrain - could we build lower powered EVs, yes - but we could also build lower powered ICE vehicles and we aren't doing that so the EV needs to have similar performance in today's market.

In another post, you miss out that the ICEv is a power station as well energy store and traction provider. This hugely exaggerates the real world BEV efficiency in ignoring the ~55% efficient Grid power stations. There are also battery charging losses, typically 10%-15%. Sure, today has been very windy and it's likely that there has been excess capacity, but most of the time all our excess capacity - which is what you tap into when increasing the demand from the Grid - comes from burning fossil fuel.

I didn't "miss it out" any more than I missed out the cost of extracting, transporting, refining, transporting, storing, pumping the fuel which ends up in the tank of a car.
But let's assume that petrol is fresh as the dew on the grass as it arrives in your tank, and that same petrol arrives in the same condition in a power station... the EV will *still* go further on the energy than the petrol car would.

Like any other car, truck, coach, aircraft, train, gas boiler, fire or any product which runs from power from the UK electricity grid, our family car has consumed fossil fuels. With EVs are we not doing what we've always done with pollution, creating a little less with a new technology, sending it further out of sight and promising that there is the potential, eventually, for it not to harm anyone or anything?

To some extent - though I start off from a position of consuming far less than an ICE, and the EV emissions will improve each year.
Additionally I'm not emitting that pollution into the middle of populated areas (which has an immediate health benefit), and it's far easier to monitor and filter the output of a large static chimney than it is several thousand exhaust pipes.
Soon the EV fleet will be part of the grid, helping to shape demand to match supply and to complement supply for peaks in demand... whereas an ICE will just be more and more polluting.


I note that you also failed to mention my conclusion from the post you linked:

It won't help save the planet, but it will help slow the destruction.

Overall we need fewer, smaller, cars doing fewer miles - we spend altogether far too much energy moving people short distances.

The concept that bikes are somehow "unsustainable" because the carbon isn't well recycled is rather letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[al_yrpal]

Thought this thread was supposed to be about bikes not gas guzzlers?

Al

[[XAP]Bob]

I tried to get back there...

[Biospace]

I tried to get back there...

That's about as reliable a claim as some of your others!

Thought this thread was supposed to be about bikes not gas guzzlers?

One question which has been going round my mind is whether or not we should be concerned about the sustainability of bike production and design, given they represent such a relatively small amount of environmental harm in the big picture.

It's very clear that the advantages of manufacturing in the Far East include low levels of environmental regulation, worker protection and so on. Carbon fibre takes around 14x the energy to produce than steel and is not so readily recycled, aluminium 5-10x the energy of steel although it is very widely recycled.

Perhaps the sort of bike known as the 'BSO' should be banned on account of its typically low use and poor quality?

[[XAP]Bob]

I tried to get back there...

That's about as reliable a claim as some of your others!

Well:

Overall we need fewer, smaller, cars doing fewer miles - we spend altogether far too much energy moving people short distances.
The concept that bikes are somehow "unsustainable" because the carbon isn't well recycled is rather letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Thought this thread was supposed to be about bikes not gas guzzlers?

One question which has been going round my mind is whether or not we should be concerned about the sustainability of bike production and design, given they represent such a relatively small amount of environmental harm in the big picture.

It's very clear that the advantages of manufacturing in the Far East include low levels of environmental regulation, worker protection and so on. Carbon fibre takes around 14x the energy to produce than steel and is not so readily recycled, aluminium 5-10x the energy of steel although it is very widely recycled.

Perhaps the sort of bike known as the 'BSO' should be banned on account of its typically low use and poor quality?

It might take more energy to make a BSO given it's expected life, but your question is on the money, bikes are not a big issue.
Banning awful bikes might at least improve people's perception of what a bike is like to use.

[Biospace]

I agree, bikes are not a big issue in the overall picture but it does raise the point of one set of standards for our lives and a completely different one for those making the products we use and for those living in the areas where they are made.

Serious levels of water and air pollution, toxic residues making their way into the foodchain and so on, all of which we studiously ignore because it allows UK shop prices to be lower than they otherwise would be.

We've chosen to lose our world-class skillsets and abilities in order to see more unemployment/low skill jobs and slightly lower prices.

[Bmblbzzz]

From a global perspective, the BSO is actually the most used type of bike.

[Carlton green]

Looking at this thread (the bike that sustained) makes me think about what we can be with our bikes to keep them going: viewtopic.php?t=155439&sid=f2a264e91881 ... 5d0eb59331

With a focus on finding compatible new and pre-used parts I wonder who members have found is helpful. I’m a great believer in keeping old stuff going but sources of parts, data and general bike knowledge are not always obvious. With old stuff in mind where has others found help?

[Jdsk]

...
With old stuff in mind where has others found help?

The Web and subsequent email. They have revolutionised the ease, speed and cost of this.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

...
With old stuff in mind where has others found help?

The Web and subsequent email. They have revolutionised the ease, speed and cost of this.

Jonathan

The web is vast and parts of it exist that we’re unlikely to find by ourselves or come across by accident. I’ve found a lot out from the web - haven’t we all - but sometimes Google is not enough. For a start: does anyone know where I can buy a 14 - 32 five speed freewheel in the UK for sensible money?

[Bmblbzzz]

...
With old stuff in mind where has others found help?

The Web and subsequent email. They have revolutionised the ease, speed and cost of this.

Jonathan

The web is vast and parts of it exist that we’re unlikely to find by ourselves or come across by accident. I’ve found a lot out from the web - haven’t we all - but sometimes Google is not enough. For a start: does anyone know where I can buy a 14 - 32 five speed freewheel in the UK for sensible money?

£20 on Ebay: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/374566683927 ... SwmQRkEuJ4