[Closed] Are Mountain bikings green credentials dead?

I never used to ride my MTB from the door, I always drove. 9 months ago I got an ebike, now some of my rides are from my door.

Most still involve the car - one of those awful suv things

I hear ya, but none of that would happen if people didn’t want to buy them.
People are the problem.

I edited out the 'fk car companies' bit after saying it was a 2 way thing later in the post : ) People certainly are the problem. Ego. Of the people who run car companies and the people buying crazy oversize vehicles or status symbols which have that sort of impact. Just buy a Rolex..

In objective terms, the green credentials of MTB 30 years ago and today are probably pretty much the same.

I think in terms of bikes things have changed. Mainly in that 30 years ago I had an MTB that covered all off road usage and quite a lot of road. I'm now on a gravel bike and FS for roughly the same trails. Of course I could still have just one off road bike. But my feeling is lots of people now have multiple off road bikes. My N at 2 makes my N 1 perhaps one more than it needs to be. But I get the feeling on here that 2 is quite a small N.

Ebikes have a bigger impact than acoustic Normal bikes

FTFY.

So, I’m 48. I can smash out that climb on a HT all day. I’m not sure the plump old grey haired lady drinking a Costa coffee (she seemed very nice) could do it without. 1. The coffee. 2. The E(vil) bike. 3. The big car. No offence but I don’t see Alex Honnold climbing el cap on an electric winch when he’s old n grey…

So, I’m 46. 5 years ago, I could smash out that climb on a HT all day. I am sure that the now plump me with 30% remaining heart function could not. 1. I like coffee. 2. To get out and increase my feelings of wellbeing, an E(vil) bike is largely a necessity. 3. I don’t have a big car. No offence but I want to keep getting out in the open country now, I won’t get to be old an grey, so I want to make the most of the few remaining years I have left.

If you're talking about trail centres, MTBing's "green" credentials are up there with golf. Yes, there's a large area of land with grass and trees and stuff which is better than a large area of land with a shopping centre on it but other than that, people drive to it from all over and ponce around on it for a bit.

As a sport, cycling has a horrendous carbon footprint - flying teams and equipment across the world to ride around/down a man made trail or (far worse) road cycling where a convoy of vehicles drives several hundred km each day.

As a general pastime though, riding from the door or putting the bike on a train or doing some bikepacking - it's pretty low impact in the grand scheme of things.

Ebikes have a bigger impact than acoustic Normal bikes

FTFY.

And when ebikes at trail centres outnumber ‘normal’ bikes, you’ll be labelling an outdated curiosity as ‘normal’ . Imagine referring to a diesel car as a ‘normal car’ (as opposed to an electric car) when electric cars are the norm?

an outdated curiosity

aka one of man's greatest inventions, certainly within transport, and that's not saying the e-bike isn't a great development of that invention. Sport vs car alternative uses etc aside.

And when ebikes at trail centres outnumber ‘normal’ bikes, you’ll be labelling an outdated curiosity as ‘normal’ . Imagine referring to a diesel car as a ‘normal car’ (as opposed to an electric car) when electric cars are the norm?

Hardly.

‘outdated curiosity’ was rhetorical to a degree. But the question remains? ie if/when ebikes become the norm in cycling/a cycle sport then wouldn’t it be redundant/anachronistic to refer to pushbikes as ‘normal’?

Tosh, so ebikes don’t have a higher cost of maintenance/parts usage? And Rangerovers are clearly good for the planet?

I think you are very confused here. Range rovers are in no way seen as a requirement for MTBing. There are plenty of them owned by non MTBers, after all. And the extra overhead of an e bike is a drop in the ocean compared to any car you'd buy to drive anywhere, and even smaller compared to the rest of your life.

How are you seeing all these Range Rovers in trail centre car parks if you aren't driving to the trail centre yourself? 😉

MTB doesnt have any more green credentials than windsurfing, flying model planes, or any of a bazillion other things that we do for fun that are entirely unnecessary.

So exercise and fun are entirely unnecessary!? I'd suggest you become a buddist but perhaps that's got too much unnecessary philosophy, maybe caveman be more your thing?

I'm not sure MTBing ever really had any "environmental credentials" as such.

It was always just a happy coincidence that bicycles are less terrible for the environment than cars or motorcycles or many other, wheeled hobby/pastime/sports. At best you could claim participants, organizers and companies associated with MTBing were "environmentally agnostic"...

Now we've got the Eeeebs, they're not exactly better environmentally, but they still probably meet the 'less terrible than a car' measure so... I suppose the response is a resounding "Meh!".

People who mostly didn't care, have continued to mostly not care.

I wouldn't look at an MTB rider and assume they were environmentally concerned or aware by default...

Perhaps someone using a cargo/utility type bike/ebike for everyday journeys instead of defaulting to a car, but that wasn't the question was it...

when ebikes at trail centres outnumber ‘normal’ bikes

I would suggest that the vast majority of E bikes worldwide ( come to think of it most bikes ) or even in the UK will never get near a trail Center, this forum is hardly typical of folks who ride bikes is it 🤔 so can’t really be used as a reliable measure.

And in any case who cares what bike you ride or where so long as you enjoy it....
There are far worse things you could be doing to the environment 😉

Interesting points of view all round. I think my view or version of Mtbing is as individual as everyone else's. My last HT I owned from 2006 till 2019/20. I ran that for thousands and thousands of miles just replacing consumables. I bought my car new (1.4 Honda petrol) in 2007 and expect to use it for another 90k at least. I ride 2-3 times a week from the front door and drive to a ride 2-4 times a month out of that. I hope that in comparison to other things I could be doing its relatively "greenish". I'm also hoping that my lifestyle which involves a career in forestry/tree surgery and outdoor hobbies like Mtbing, running and walking will keep me from being a burden on the NHS, something I consider again to minimise my drain on resources and the knock on effect that has. I think we are all different in how we view what we do, I just guess the version of Mtbing I see increasingly doesnt align with what it is to me.

Where i live, to get to any decent trail that isn't just a muddy slog around a field edge, i have to drive. However, that doesn't have to mean a huge carbon footprint:

[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ez078VWXMAILp3Q?format=jpg&name=large [/img]

My solar powered i3, with my 2012 bike, and yes, they are colour matched! (not on purpose, honest....)

Although the rise of trail centres, uplift venues and eMTBs has to make MTBing less environmentally friendly, it might be that for some riders these newer ways of MTBing replace pastimes which have a worse environmental impact.

You need to distinguish ATB from MTB really if you want to assess its green credentials. All Terrain Biking, which is essentially riding out your door and going anywhere you please, is pretty green comparatively speaking, whereas MTB never has been particularly. Of course the term ATB has been lost over the years as MTB sounds cooler, but there once was a distinction.

Thats some complex thing you did, if you did it right.

You can do it relatively simply, plenty of people have calculated a carbon footprint for a bike (I think this was actually in response to Pole or someone greenwashing why they were only making aluminium bikes not carbon so the numbers were being banded about).

Then the CO2 emitted by a car is simply a case of miles/gallon, then kg per gallon, then moles/kg, then moles CO2, then back into kg.

Yes I ignored the embedded energy in the car, tyres etc.

But at the end a new carbon superbike had about the same footprint as driving a few hundred miles.

I’m also hoping that my lifestyle which involves a career in forestry/tree surgery and outdoor hobbies like Mtbing, running and walking will keep me from being a burden on the NHS,

Someone can do everything right lifestyle-wise and still have their health turn to shit…

Obviously true, sudden heart attack or worse can happen to anyone. Doesn't mean that there is no point trying to live the healthiest life you can...

Or you could use the tax band CO2 value,for a minimal value although building a car uses energy too and getting the fuel out of the ground and to the garage etc etc

Someone can do everything right lifestyle-wise and still have their health turn to shit…

This is true. But there is also the effect/question of (1.) Looking after one’s health yet nonetheless being shot from the dark VS (2.) Deciding to buy a gun and play Russian Roulette with 1 empty chamber (rather than 1 bullet)

Now which of being seriously overweight, sedentary and/or smoking VS participating in dangerous sports = the greater burden on the National Health Service, is at least debatable.

I just guess the version of Mtbing I see increasingly doesnt align with what it is to me.

Is it a shocking revelation that MTBing isn't one thing, and that people do it all differently? Are you surprised that MTBing means something different to people who do Red Bull Rampage to those who do bikepacking ultramarathons?

Still can't fathom the point of this thread. Some people are more eco than others, we already know this.

Or you could use the tax band CO2 value,for a minimal value although building a car uses energy too and getting the fuel out of the ground and to the garage etc etc

The point was to prove that the carbon footprint of a mountain bike was negligible compared to other aspects of its use. And it proved that.

Of course you could add layers and layers of working out what fraction of the cars embedded footprint, the mechanics lifestyle, the effect of increased traffic density, the gregs breakfast on the m6 and whatever else. But youd be piling onto something that had already passed the nominal threshold.

The argument given was that Pole bikes were sticking with aluminium as it was recyclable and had a lower carbon footprint. My point was simply to probe that you could throw a carbon bike in an incinerator after it was done with, and the biggest component of its carbon footprint would still have been driving to an enduro race.

hobbies like Mtbing, running

Pretty much everyone I know around my age and older who run (or ran) on a regular basis is ruined. Knackered backs, knees, ankles etc. Running should only happen if it involves chasing or being chased.

@molgrips the point of the thread is obvious isnt it? I thought this was a forum where people provoked conversation. Can't say anything about it is a shocking revelation either. Just that in the places that I visit and the riding I do things seem to have changed rapidly lately. They seem to have changed in a way that seems much less sustainable in general. Not hard to understand.

I tend to mountain bike from the house or we usually holiday in the UK at or close to a trail centre/mountain biking area just come back from a week in Pickering. Only choose trail centres as the youngest is only 9 and though he's been doing red trails since he was six, all the kids prefer trail centres to natural riding at the moment but that's changing.

When they were younger and we were spending time trying to get them to develop we were driving a long way at weekends for the kids to progress without getting bored. I did find it hard driving from Macc to Coed y Brenin to ride the Minatuar trail or when we have a forest 3 miles from the house and the peak on our doorstep but the trails for young kids weren't there.

But things are changing my eldest has done the Macc forest classic loop of few times recently (with an uplift to the Cat and Fiddle) and our next holiday in Dartmoor so there will be more natural riding. In the summer we choose somewhere we can ride from the door so last year in was the Massif Central

And in any case who cares what bike you ride or where so long as you enjoy it….
There are far worse things you could be doing to the environment 😉</>

I care about my footprint on the environment. Unpopular view and statement maybe, but nonetheless it’s part of my decision process about where to live and ride/exercise. The enjoyment of something (at least for me) is dependent on a number of factors and enjoyment itself is rarely the sole deciding factor of whether or not I pursue something.

Before E-bikes it was 27.5”/29”: standards change and we’re encouraged to keep up, which often means changing bikes when there is usable life left in an existing bike, or getting an n+1, neither of which is particularly green. That’s the problem with capitalism...

Doesn’t mean that there is no point trying to live the healthiest life you can…

Totally agree. That was my approach. Obviously in the case of our sport/hobby there is the counter impact of injury and in your case your job too.

I think that in the case of green credentials, I’m not sure that MTB was ever that great - especially in the case in the lure of the shiny, shiny. Consumerism and materialism has a lot to answer for.

I’m probably not the best person to challenge on that, partly because I keep my bikes for a long time, but also because I do reuse my used components to build bikes for my kids and others. One of the things I love to do most is to fix and build all kinds of bikes to either get get people out and about for leisure or indeed commuting etc.

The act of MTB (actually riding the bike) could be seen as green so removing all the non green stuff around it (i.e. driving bike somewhere) would keep it green.
But it may be better to look at what it is the alternative for. If the person was riding their bike at a train centre for their fun and exercise what would they be doing instead and is that better or worse from a green point of view.

I never considered MTBing as having any green credentials and I never heard anyone suggesting it either. Cycling for transport, yes, but not MTB.

As for recent changes, I'd say in the last few years the amount of trails being built by riders in the woods has exploded, and near me it all seems to be local riders, who have likely ridden in.

I have never considered mountain biking green and ebikes are even worse given the process involved to make the batteries.

i find, in general, the whole green agenda hugely hypocritical and usually fronted by people relying on the do as I say not as I do. Extinction rebellion set up a camp last weekend to moan about the council. They traveled from all over the country, set up their tents made from oil without any sense of irony in what they were doing

I wonder if it's more or less green than other 'lifestyle' sports like say, surfing?

I bet more people have to drive further to surf, but on the other hand bikes would produce more CO2 during manufacture.

i find, in general, the whole green agenda hugely hypocritical

It's more complex than that. Firstly, they are definitely right - we are ****ing up the environment regardless of whether or not they've driven to a protest. Secondly you could consider that the positive effect of the eco movement in general outweighs the environmental cost of carrying it out.

eCoWarRiors should Of mayd There TentZ frOm LoVe and UnIcoRn bReaTh utHerwize thEir MesiJ iS HypOcritIcal

/satire off 😉

MTBing (sport) never had ‘green credentials’. As soon as it took off all the local hardcore heroes scared the wildlife away by mashing up the woodlands to build trails. Then they ‘grew up’ and bought thousands of diesel vans to drive their bikes around in, sometimes 100s of miles just to nail a drop. Then it ruined my two favourite (road) hillclimbs to the (offroad) moors (this is true), by choking them up with uplift-vehicles full of MTBs and MTBers.

I therefore declare this to be a strawman thread.

Sincerely,

A. Hareshirt Esq.
(ATB Counter-Culture Warrior)
The Wrecktory
Miffington In The Dale

Any sport fails to have green credentials;
A good friend of mine is a big player in the skateboard industry was unaware of the highly toxic carcinogen used in the manufacture skateboard wheels.
Surfing has highly toxic TDI isocyanates in its supply chain.

Bikes are far worse if you followed each component back through the manufacturing chain.

Well I'm off to buy a fracking great V8 Merc jeep a couple of ebikes and start driving to the Lakes every weekend. Seems it's the same thing to most people.

A good friend of mine is a big player in the skateboard industry was unaware of the highly toxic carcinogen used in the manufacture skateboard wheels.
Surfing has highly toxic TDI isocyanates in its supply chain.

It's an odd argument.

Like asking people do they realise their food comes from soil which would also make you quite ill if you ate it.

How the factory controls those chemicals is a different matter.

Well I’m off to buy a fracking great V8 Merc jeep a couple of ebikes and start driving to the Lakes every weekend. Seems it’s the same thing to most people.

I really can't understand why you feel the need to be so facetious.

Are you just upset that people pointed out MTBing on the whole has never been inherently "green"? And that shock horror some MTBers own cars that perhapse exceed what would be considered appropriate for environmental reasons?

It’s more complex than that. Firstly, they are definitely right – we are **** up the environment regardless of whether or not they’ve driven to a protest

the environment is fine and the planet will adapt to the changes. The real question is will that leave it in a state suitable for human habitation which is a completely different question. IMHO the answer to that is no but I’m happy to accept, like all dominant species that have lived on this planet, our period of dominance will end and as a species we will become extinct like many before. The fundamental flaw with the green lobby is the assumption that the planet should stay as it is so we can remain the dominant species. If we are serious about extending our species time on the planet then we need to slow down the birth rate and have significantly fewer of us just as giai hypothesis states

the environment is fine

We’re in the middle of a global extinction crisis. The current rate of species loss is around 1,000 times faster than at any time since 65 million years ago, when the earth was hit by an asteroid that led to mass extinction.

You define ‘fine’ somewhat differently than do biologists. Much of biodiversity loss is irreversible.

The fundamental flaw with the green lobby is the assumption that the planet should stay as it is so we can remain the dominant species.

You just made that up! Strawmanning.

Background and Principles
PP100 All Green Party policies are based on the principles of ecological sustainability, equity and justice.

PP101 There is a limit to the level of ecological impact the Earth can sustain. The number of people on the planet, their levels of consumption and their local and global impacts are key factors determining how far the Earth's ability to renew its resources and to support all life is compromised. Even within this limit, high rates of population growth, as well as local depopulation can have a damaging effect on sustainability, equity and justice.

PP102 'Carrying capacity' is the term used to describe the population that can be sustainably supported in any given region. It is not a fixed number but depends on consumption patterns.

PP103 There is a need to explicitly consider population since, if it is ignored indefinitely, the risk of over-consumption of natural resources will increase, leading to conflict and ultimately a reduction in carrying capacity

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pp.html

.

*my bold

Slight tangent, but what do you folks do with dead Carbon components?

... I recently had to dispose of a cracked carbon bar.

Just chuck it in the bin.

The LA will either landfill it or incinerate it.

There are ways of recycling some parts of it, but I'm not sure the carbon footprint of getting it to the facility is ever going to recoup it just being incinerated for energy. It's more for getting rid of things big things like cars, boats and planes.

I tend to throw broken carbon parts at old ebikers with Rangerovers*

*May not be true

We’re in the middle of a global extinction crisis. The current rate of species loss is around 1,000 times faster than at any time since 65 million years ago, when the earth was hit by an asteroid that led to mass extinction.

You define ‘fine’ somewhat differently than do biologists. Much of biodiversity loss is irreversible.

So over the last 65m years the biodiversity has increased massively and is now in decline. Im sure the same thing will happen again and again. It shows that left t its own devices the planet is fine as Giai stated. So if there is another mass extinction event caused by man rather than an asteroid why wont the planet recover again as it did last time? If so then this is not a crisis from the perspective of the planet. Its only a crisis if you dont want the planet to change from how it is now. That wont happen, the planet is always changing, its changing at a much faster pace than in the past at the moment because there are too many of the dominant species on it using too much resource. The only meaningful solution is not tinkering round the edges with so called green initiatives but to encourage the dominant species to reduce its rate of reproduction to stem the growth in population.