> Disc brakes, which are now on almost every new bicycle, all have different axle designs, meaning that every vehicle now requires proprietary spare parts
There are so many errors in this article. This isn’t even close to the truth and this is just outright ignorance.
Disc brakes are highly highly standardized. Shimano for instance made public its Microspline standard and there are dozens of aftermarket choices. Shimano actually does an incredible job, making sure all of their parts between entire groupsets are cross compatible.
SRAM has their official parts, but also has myriad of aftermarket parts available.
The only issue are Walmart bikes. These are generally one off production runs that are designed not to be repairable. They will include everything from odd size tires to welded bottom brackets.
If the primary focus is reliability and ease of maintenance, cable actuated disc brakes are by far the best. It is very easy to change pads and they just work. Hydraulic disc brakes have far better performance (important for mountain bikes) but eventually require bleeding, cable changes, etc. Caliper breaks can be lighter weight (good for high end road bikes). For a commuter bike however, cable actuated disc brakes are inexpensive and best.
And disk breaks are almost impossible to maintain for 'regular' people. Having these integrated brakes, shifters adds too much complexity. Many people would need to have the bicycle shop maintain the bicycle and a rather decent cost.
Older bikes with separate sifters, breaks handles and brake pads can be maintained by almost anyone. When commuting, you are not in a race, but just poke along around 10mph (~16kph). Plus if you have issues on your commute, you can quickly fix (or jury rig) it yourself with only a minimal set of tools.
One point it misses is that the worst bicycle (shared usage, so less care taken, aluminium so less durable, dockless so more often dumped in rivers etc.) has a lifetime emissions per km 1/3 of a car. A typical aluminium bike with the typical lifecycle of a personal bike on the other hand manages 1/20 of the emissions of a car.
If by making bikes 100% more disposable and doubling their lifetime emissions per km, but the trade off is the increased usage takes away 10% of what would otherwise be someone's driving, then you've come out ahead. (also it's not clear what the car is measuring? Is it just manufacturing emissions/km? Just fuel emissions/km? Both? I suspect it's the first option, which would make it even less comparable).
And these features that do make them less durable (lighter frames, nicer brakes) are an important part of enabling cycling for more people at various levels of fitness. To get that share they need to be seen as a frictionless transport option and not a puritan exercise toy. I have my own (aluminium) bike and I always sometimes use my city's ride share bikes. The ride share bikes are noticeably more effort, being steel, thicker than you'd make a bike for individual sale to cope with the abuse, and having giant chunks of plastic for instructions and advertising.
Lastly it misses steel bikes are still around and made by most major brands? Most of the lower end models in your bike store are still fully steel for example. With V brakes, standard mechanisms, etc. I guess the casettes are probably still a single unit or two parter rather than a bunch of individual sprockets like old bikes, but it's not like those are the high failure rate components.
> Reynolds, a British manufacturer known for its bicycle tubing, found that making a steel frame costs 17.5 kg CO2, while a titanium or stainless steel frame costs around 55 kg CO2 per frame – three times as much. 4 Starling Cycles, a rare producer of steel mountain bikes, concluded that a typical carbon frame uses 16 times more energy than a steel frame. (That would be 280 kg CO2).
These are small numbers, probably not worth stressing over. Even if we count the cost of carbon at a very conservative level like what it would cost to remove it from the air (~$160/T: https://www.jefftk.com/keith2018.pdf), these are just:
Of course we can, by simply restoring older bikes. My family doesn't own a car (urban environment). We own several used children's bikes and 6 Peugeot bikes (3 for my wife, 3 for myself) from the 70ies and early 80ies. Most of them I restored myself, 2 are left in a working, but dismal-looking state to prevent theft at the train station (called a "Bahnhofsrad" in Germany). Personally I find these bikes to be extremely elegant and beautiful [0]. Each cost between 30 and 200 EUR. They are quite robust and very easy to maintain (usually they have Simplex derailleurs and Mafac or Weinmann brakes, which seem to be indestructable). Some of them have served us under heavy duty (daily use with a trailer) for nearly 10 years now, easily reaching 30,000 - 40,000 km although they were already 40 years old when we bought them. Maintaining them is a nice distraction from my normal job sitting in front of screens. Original spare parts are still quite easy to get.
We actually have a large bike shop here that has specialized in restoring old bikes collected by the city.
The proprietary parts of e-bikes are a real problem. I ride an Urban Arrow Family, and I love it, but I'm dreading the thought of trying to replace parts on it 5+ years from now. Nobody but Bosch can make batteries for it, along with several of the electronic components. If they won't sell me a replacement, what then? It's a far cry from older non-electric bicycles, which don't have nearly the compatibility issues as what we get nowadays.
Like everything with integrated electronics, it's junk.
I agree with the article that bikes are becoming increasingly proprietary, but they are still a marvel of interchangeability, even despite the myriad standards and models.
A also agree that the problem, ultimately, is capitalism. Do we really need 10's of thousands of different bike models released every year? I'm not advocating a communist-style one-model system, but we've surely gone beyond the point of 'adequate choice'. The incentive is to get us to buy a new bike as often as possible, and while that drives some of the innovation, it also drives the instinct to make parts proprietary, and all kinds of other stuff that is wasteful, anti-consumer, etc.
No, I don't think so. Th author agrees it's friendlier than most other modes of transportation but that changes in the industry catering to people with disposable money is introducing less friendly aspects into this mode of transportation.
Instead of a pedal powered vehicle to take you from place A to place B with little in the form of status affirmation and other personal projections, people are moving this aspect of their psyche to cycling and adding unnecessary baggage that is realized in the form of more energy demanding manufacturing (more expensive alloys and shapes), electrification which adds to environmental issues in the mining of needed elements and faster refresh cycles (can't keep on riding a 10 year old ten-speed, no, I need this year's cargo Riese & Muller so my friends can see it)
A lot of environmentalism has unfortunately degraded into opposition to civilisation. In the absence of a viable Christianity, the innate feeling of guilt and sin caused by consumption must be atoned for. The way to do this is to sacrifice prosperity (evil transportation, evil food, evil power plants) at the altar of The Environment. In the form of Extinction Rebellion this takes on the character of a death cult - check their founder's manifests.
Note that this is not climate change denialism or something similar - the problem is that technical progress, increased prosperity and consumption aren't seen as good and welcome, but inherently evil by a certain vocal minority. Otherwise you'd see a lot more effort into making prosperity compatible with environmental regards (like nuclear plants).
I do not like to down vote (and I did not). But in Cities bicycles are a far better mode of transport than autos.
I almost wish there was some kind of permitting system where to drive autos in a City, in good weather, you need to prove your health and age requires an auto or you pay extra to drive. But that would be very difficult to enforce. Just look at how handicap plates are handed out.
The raw point is valid. Sure this a poorly edited article and lacks the best research - can we agree that like almost everything, we've engineered these things to be commercially short in terms of life-span, let alone not super-sustainable in terms of manufacture or maintenance? Aside from the continuously performance-oriented standardization shifts, the specialization of bicycle types is doing a disservice to sustainability. Also, the "electrification" of bicycles is a completely separate argument - from all angles: manufacture, maintenance and longevity; one that is no different that all EVs. TBH, this article reads like a ChatGPT dialog.
Unfortunate that we've missed another opportunity for healthy dialog around the benefits of the bicycle.
Interesting take, and some otherwise hard-to-find data on the environmental cost of bicycles.
I think the problem is tangential, in that anything that is produced primarily as a means to generate profit will be wasteful and turn into garbage as soon as possible.
I commute via bike and I've had a range of different cycles -- on balance, a custom build on a mid-80's frame is the winner. Reliable, low-maintenance, efficient.
We could easily go back to making things that work, "just" have to align priorities.
It's true that the market has a glaring gap at the low features / high quality quadrant if you plot simple vs performance ("features") on one axis and cheap throwaway vs built to last ("quality") on the other axis. But that gap isn't just some failure of the industry, it's also a gap on the demands side.
A similar gap exists in the car world, where more generous interior features are almost impossible to find with modest size and power. And manufacturers who try their luck with a small/weak car that tries to be a little more upmarket than usual in other aspects inevitably get punished by lacking demand (e.g. that short-lived Audi A2)
>In comparison, the average lifetime of a personal bike in France, based on a 2020 survey, is around 20,000 km – almost 50% higher than for shared bicycles.
Well, I am proud to say I got 38,000 miles (~60000 km) on my commuter/touring bike. It failed when the steel frame cracked, and the manufacture replaced the frame for free because it was due to a defect. I had kept the original receipt and brought it to the shop were I originally bought it.
Also the crack did was not a failure and I was able to ride the last 5 miles (~8km) of my commute without issue.
The writing is on the wall for bicycles and no, they will not be sustainable again but e-bikes will. In 2021 the Dutch, for the first time, bought more e-bikes than regular bikes. It won't be too long before anything ICE will be banned from city centres, the roads can be covered (because of no poisonous exhausts) and e-bikes will reign supreme.
I havent read the article, but they have stopped manufacturing unpuncturable tires, as tubes are the main income source of bike shops. It is possible to make tires that will not get punctured in 10000km.
Bike shops make like $0.25 on a tube, there is little profit in them and you are conflating tires and tubes. Any proper touring tire will be very puncture resistant if you don't mind the increased rolling resistance, I have only gotten one flat with Marathon Mondial's and that was an installation failure, my fault.
This article is all over the place and is ultimately the author attempting to validate his opinion, he is just saying "old is better because I like old better than new." Nothing wrong with an old frame but a great deal of the hardware has undeniably improved and much of that new hardware will not mount on an old frame. The real problem with the modern bike market is people following fads and counting grams but they are also the sort of people who keep bike co-ops in operation so I can not really call it a problem, if they want to strip their brand new bike of their 105 or Tiagra groupset and donate it to the co-op than I am all for that, Tiagra and 105 are great and take far better to abuse and neglect than the fancier options. The FSA Mega-Exo crank is another one that people love to donate brand new, they complain about the the BB being expensive and there being no alternatives for its odd spindle size but the only external BBs which I have found that hold up as well are twice the price. The offerings from Wheels Mfg are the only ones which I can call comparable, twice the price up front but the bearings are replaceable and cheap so costs balance out after a decade, but they do not take as well to salty winter streets as the FSA does.
I outfitted a 1982 steel bike frame with 2016 brand new components. No issues then other than bending the rear to take a 130mm axle rather than 126mm. Are 68mm english-threaded bottom brackets and cranks becoming unobtainium in new groups?
I don't know if I agree with the author on all their points, but your description of the article doesn't match what I read.
The author compares the estimated CO2 emissions in the manufacturing of several types of frames to consider their environmental impact, and points out other changes that can make it harder to repair bikes (such as by using custom components which the manufacturer could stop making replacement parts for with no notice).
Shared bikes get bike lanes computed into their carbon cost but private bikes don’t?
That’s just the most egregious example I saw but there are plenty more. Scratch that, using public transportation is more sustainable than riding a bicycle for the exact same trip, how does that math work out?
How many carbon units does it take to pedal around a heavier bike 30,000 kms?
And I’m a pretty big pro-bicycle transportation person.
Grotesque. We get it, it is never enough, and indeed, as long as you don't stay on the spot, you are indeed probably consuming something that has a CO2 footprint.
[+] [-] exabrial|3 years ago|reply
There are so many errors in this article. This isn’t even close to the truth and this is just outright ignorance.
Disc brakes are highly highly standardized. Shimano for instance made public its Microspline standard and there are dozens of aftermarket choices. Shimano actually does an incredible job, making sure all of their parts between entire groupsets are cross compatible.
SRAM has their official parts, but also has myriad of aftermarket parts available.
The only issue are Walmart bikes. These are generally one off production runs that are designed not to be repairable. They will include everything from odd size tires to welded bottom brackets.
[+] [-] osigurdson|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thefz|3 years ago|reply
Disc brakes are either 6-bolt or centerlock, AFAIK.
[+] [-] jmclnx|3 years ago|reply
Older bikes with separate sifters, breaks handles and brake pads can be maintained by almost anyone. When commuting, you are not in a race, but just poke along around 10mph (~16kph). Plus if you have issues on your commute, you can quickly fix (or jury rig) it yourself with only a minimal set of tools.
[+] [-] Macha|3 years ago|reply
If by making bikes 100% more disposable and doubling their lifetime emissions per km, but the trade off is the increased usage takes away 10% of what would otherwise be someone's driving, then you've come out ahead. (also it's not clear what the car is measuring? Is it just manufacturing emissions/km? Just fuel emissions/km? Both? I suspect it's the first option, which would make it even less comparable).
And these features that do make them less durable (lighter frames, nicer brakes) are an important part of enabling cycling for more people at various levels of fitness. To get that share they need to be seen as a frictionless transport option and not a puritan exercise toy. I have my own (aluminium) bike and I always sometimes use my city's ride share bikes. The ride share bikes are noticeably more effort, being steel, thicker than you'd make a bike for individual sale to cope with the abuse, and having giant chunks of plastic for instructions and advertising.
Lastly it misses steel bikes are still around and made by most major brands? Most of the lower end models in your bike store are still fully steel for example. With V brakes, standard mechanisms, etc. I guess the casettes are probably still a single unit or two parter rather than a bunch of individual sprockets like old bikes, but it's not like those are the high failure rate components.
[+] [-] jefftk|3 years ago|reply
These are small numbers, probably not worth stressing over. Even if we count the cost of carbon at a very conservative level like what it would cost to remove it from the air (~$160/T: https://www.jefftk.com/keith2018.pdf), these are just:
* Steel: 17.5kg -> $2.80
* Titanium or Stainless: 55kg -> $8.80
* Carbon fiber: 280kg -> $45
[+] [-] lqet|3 years ago|reply
We actually have a large bike shop here that has specialized in restoring old bikes collected by the city.
[0] https://m1.secondhandapp.at/2.0/5c7582137ebd7b2117fe5a55?hei...
[+] [-] ryukafalz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacknews|3 years ago|reply
Like everything with integrated electronics, it's junk.
I agree with the article that bikes are becoming increasingly proprietary, but they are still a marvel of interchangeability, even despite the myriad standards and models.
A also agree that the problem, ultimately, is capitalism. Do we really need 10's of thousands of different bike models released every year? I'm not advocating a communist-style one-model system, but we've surely gone beyond the point of 'adequate choice'. The incentive is to get us to buy a new bike as often as possible, and while that drives some of the innovation, it also drives the instinct to make parts proprietary, and all kinds of other stuff that is wasteful, anti-consumer, etc.
[+] [-] habnds|3 years ago|reply
could have left it as
>> the bicycle itself has managed to elude environmental critique ... "because" >> Cycling is one of the most sustainable modes of transportation.
hard for me to avoid wondering whether this is astro-turfing from the auto industry.
[+] [-] mc32|3 years ago|reply
Instead of a pedal powered vehicle to take you from place A to place B with little in the form of status affirmation and other personal projections, people are moving this aspect of their psyche to cycling and adding unnecessary baggage that is realized in the form of more energy demanding manufacturing (more expensive alloys and shapes), electrification which adds to environmental issues in the mining of needed elements and faster refresh cycles (can't keep on riding a 10 year old ten-speed, no, I need this year's cargo Riese & Muller so my friends can see it)
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|3 years ago|reply
Note that this is not climate change denialism or something similar - the problem is that technical progress, increased prosperity and consumption aren't seen as good and welcome, but inherently evil by a certain vocal minority. Otherwise you'd see a lot more effort into making prosperity compatible with environmental regards (like nuclear plants).
[+] [-] jmclnx|3 years ago|reply
I almost wish there was some kind of permitting system where to drive autos in a City, in good weather, you need to prove your health and age requires an auto or you pay extra to drive. But that would be very difficult to enforce. Just look at how handicap plates are handed out.
[+] [-] kitplummer|3 years ago|reply
Unfortunate that we've missed another opportunity for healthy dialog around the benefits of the bicycle.
[+] [-] btbuildem|3 years ago|reply
I think the problem is tangential, in that anything that is produced primarily as a means to generate profit will be wasteful and turn into garbage as soon as possible.
I commute via bike and I've had a range of different cycles -- on balance, a custom build on a mid-80's frame is the winner. Reliable, low-maintenance, efficient.
We could easily go back to making things that work, "just" have to align priorities.
[+] [-] usrusr|3 years ago|reply
A similar gap exists in the car world, where more generous interior features are almost impossible to find with modest size and power. And manufacturers who try their luck with a small/weak car that tries to be a little more upmarket than usual in other aspects inevitably get punished by lacking demand (e.g. that short-lived Audi A2)
[+] [-] jmclnx|3 years ago|reply
>In comparison, the average lifetime of a personal bike in France, based on a 2020 survey, is around 20,000 km – almost 50% higher than for shared bicycles.
Well, I am proud to say I got 38,000 miles (~60000 km) on my commuter/touring bike. It failed when the steel frame cracked, and the manufacture replaced the frame for free because it was due to a defect. I had kept the original receipt and brought it to the shop were I originally bought it.
Also the crack did was not a failure and I was able to ride the last 5 miles (~8km) of my commute without issue.
[+] [-] entropicgravity|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Euphorbium|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ofalkaed|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ofalkaed|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ppg677|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tallanvor|3 years ago|reply
The author compares the estimated CO2 emissions in the manufacturing of several types of frames to consider their environmental impact, and points out other changes that can make it harder to repair bikes (such as by using custom components which the manufacturer could stop making replacement parts for with no notice).
[+] [-] UncleEntity|3 years ago|reply
…and a mishmash of studies.
Shared bikes get bike lanes computed into their carbon cost but private bikes don’t?
That’s just the most egregious example I saw but there are plenty more. Scratch that, using public transportation is more sustainable than riding a bicycle for the exact same trip, how does that math work out?
How many carbon units does it take to pedal around a heavier bike 30,000 kms?
And I’m a pretty big pro-bicycle transportation person.
[+] [-] icare_1er|3 years ago|reply