Forum menu
I’m going to stick my neck out and say the environmental component of this is virtue signalling? What consumes the least carbon, shipping bike launches round the place, or having disparate sets of people converge on one location? I’d have thought it’s the latter.
Or, not having a junket at all?
Good to see organisations taking a lead.
I think if we take it as read that press junkets are going to happen (if not because I’m sure the manufacturers would rather launch their latest enduro rig in the Dolomites in summer than in the Pennines in the drizzle), then this is a good move.
Cyclist mag tried to do a similar thing with their ride trips but were more or less defeated by the difficulty of taking bikes on British trains and Eurostar.
A quick google suggests that a container ship is 3g of co2 per tonne per km. Its about 20,000km by ship to Taiwan. So that’s 60kg of co2 to shift a tonne. Lets say a boxed bike is 25kg you get 40 in a tonne. So that’s 1.5kg to ship a bike to the uk from Taiwan.
A flight to venice to ride in the Dolomites is 233kg each way. 466kg in total.
I bet it’s a lot lower, but the key difference is where it’s released. Planes produce lots of water vapour at high altitude, where it sits for a very long time acting as a blanket in addition to the vast quantities of CO2 that are released.
Sounds like a good position to take...the cynic in me thinks they aren't getting the invites and making it a 'good news' thing. The optimist in me reckons this is a very good move and should be encouraged for more to adopt this.
Suspect it won't be simple or easy as bike launches do tend to generate a lot of content, so that appears to be getting cut (although not read the article, have they got a freelancer nearby that can attend and provide copy, perhaps?).
Suspect it won’t be simple or easy as bike launches do tend to generate a lot of content,
I suspect that the majority of the content is either cut and paste from the press pack, or output from a q&a session, which could as easily be held over zoom. Very little seems to constitute what I would consider review material.
A quick google suggests that a container ship is 3g of co2 per tonne per km. Its about 20,000km by ship to Taiwan. So that’s 60kg of co2 to shift a tonne. Lets say a boxed bike is 25kg you get 40 in a tonne. So that’s 1.5kg to ship a bike to the uk from Taiwan.
That's nice. But I'll bet a lot of those bikes being sent out and back for test rides for mags who don't travel to the central location will be going by DHL or UPS
By the time it arrives on a container ship itll already be last months news going into next month's mag.
The article suggests that the demo bikes should just be part of that countries allocation. Yes of course if you move 10 people and 50 bikes to each country then the balance would shift.
I think the article is quite honest. They say part of reason is the cost of having a journalist out of the office for 3 days to ride the same bike on the same terrain as every other journalist. So for that 3 days of journalist time they get some low grade non unique content
Again some googling finds this. Co2 per kilometre per passenger
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
I think my shipping figure might be too low. Although this source agrees. Other have it higher. But not high enough to change the answer
https://www.co2everything.com/co2e-of/freight-shipping
They say part of reason is the cost of having a journalist out of the office for 3 days to ride the same bike on the same terrain as every other journalist. So for that 3 days of journalist time they get some low grade non unique content
I’m sure @Mark would have a view on this, but I can see how they could say ‘we can neither justify the staff time nor the CO2 for this’?
It might be me and how many seasons of new bikes I've been into cycling for but........I couldn't give a flying **** about a journalist telling me about a new bike they've jetting off to see - no matter how many tonnes of CO2 the flying took to get the 'scoop'.
Someone with a good eye going around a trade show to do me a summary of anything of proper note from many many brands might be more worth it, maybe.
I suppose the real question has to be, what value does a journalist attending a manufacturer organised junket add to their review that an 'at home' review wouldn't have?
Free travel and perks? Might skew how positively they write the bikes up (even subconsciously).
Really these things are for the benefit of the people selling bikes, they can control the event, select the terrain/routes etc, and maybe influence the journalists a bit more. It's about controlling the arena and circumstances under which certain reviewers form opinions on their products.
If Road.cc do actually start a change here, and others follow suit in not flying to 'review' bikes and if the big brand's marketing departments are still keen on press junkets then maybe they need to start looking at the cost of booking up train tickets.
I would be more convinced if they quit the business rather than try to bugger the planet by getting us to produce more carbon by buying new things. In fact how much less carbon would there be if the internet closed?
Keep flying, the planet is greening.
Good on them. Bikes don't even need 'launches' imo.
I doubt the environment comes any where in to the decision.
I bet it’s more a how can we save money.
Be honest, I doubt anyone has turned down a business trip to some part of the world to try a new product. You know your getting a few days out of the office with a company pampering you
Again I might be cynical but the recent Sea Otter classic. That’s just a love in for all people mtb cycling industry. Loads of vids on YT ‘this is an awesome new bike, with wheels and a frame, it’s brilliant’ but they haven’t ridden it at all ! They could have stayed at home!
Would be interested on STW view on this
"Be honest, I doubt anyone has turned down a business trip to some part of the world to try a new product"
I have. Plenty of marginal need trips available if you want to be sold to, not convinced it's all as urgent as that though.
Have also ridden to European trade shows many times to get some riding in as well as reducing flying.
Asia is a bit difficult to reach any other way but we're all better at working remotely now and working with staff based out there.
Now let's talk about the brands who fly ambassadors to 4 or 5 locations around the world each year for the sake of content.. as low priority as launches imo and when the press aren't flying and are working around it those exotic location features might look a bit different to them. Local locations work fine. Quality of content is not all location dependant.
(if not because I’m sure the manufacturers would rather launch their latest enduro rig in the Dolomites in summer than in the Pennines in the drizzle)
TBH, i'd prefer a review written after riding round the Pennines for a few days, with the bike left over newspapers in the journos hallway, dripping it's life blood out after (another) bone jarring ride over shit roads full of farm muck and potholes in the pouring rain.
"The bike seals seem to have been made from some water soluble jelly, not one of the bearings still rotates freely, i've had 11 punctures in 100 kms thanks to the paper thin tyres and cheap lightweight tubes (that i've spent an hour looking at over the past 3 days), ride is bonejarring and unsuitable for british roads"
As opposed to swooping round immaculate tarmac in bright sunshine and learning absolutely eff all about the bike.
A quick google suggests that a container ship is 3g of co2 per tonne per km. Its about 20,000km by ship to Taiwan. So that’s 60kg of co2 to shift a tonne. Lets say a boxed bike is 25kg you get 40 in a tonne. So that’s 1.5kg to ship a bike to the uk from Taiwan.
I don't think it can work like that. A decent journalist needs a few days riding, and then a few days writing to create a review of a bike. Lets say 2 weeks end to end. Then you need to make sure all the journalists at different mags have had time to do that so they can hit an embargo date (if you don't do this, the reviewers are incentivised just to get their review out first, significantly degrading the quality of review). So maybe a month from getting bikes in the hands of journalists to reviews live on a site.
Bike companies can't afford to have the bikes just sitting in a container in a warehouse whilst this happens - there's a lot of money wrapped up in the stock. So even if you're not flying the journalists somewhere, I think you'd have to have some method to get the bikes to the journalists that's a month quicker than shipping them, so they'd be likely to be air-freighted. Still less impact than flying people (especially because the junket bikes are flown from the factory today), but not as little impact as shipping them may have
the bottom line is for a lot of people, the environment impact just isn't a big deal. There's some overlap between those who care about the environment and bicycles (because bikes can be a good, low-carbon way of moving around) but a lot of poeple (and probably brands) have no interest in that side of things, and just want a shiny toy to help them waste their time with a grin
Be honest, I doubt anyone has turned down a business trip to some part of the world to try a new product
Amusingly I did just that a few weeks back - major outdoors brand launching new range on semi-exotic Med island over two days. It would have been no fewer than three separate flights with a travel time of ten to twelve hours each way. It was both environmentally reprehensible and a major hassle. It felt like someone hadn't thought very hard about what they were doing.
Media launches look great from the outside, but trust me, the reality tends to be a combination of exhausting travel schedules sandwiching intense indoctrination sessions albeit in a nice place with good food, usually. It's not a holiday. You're not spending time with mates. It's work. Journalists aren't completely stupid, just because someone flies you to an exotic location, doesn't mean you automatically think the brand and the product are great.
And mostly everything they can tell you on a trip, could usually be communicated remotely. The one thing these things are good for is spending time with people from brands / networking, but that's about it. I'm all for product-based media events being canned. All too often it feels like they're mostly happening so the brand's marketing team can justify their existence and go somewhere nice for a few days. Kudos to road.cc for taking a stand.
Well done to them.
Road.cc would certainly have been getting the invites, as quite a prominent road cycling platform.
Offroad.cc (also included in this) isn't top tier MTB media, and appears to rely on a variety of contributors - some amateur, who may have appreciated the odd exotic "jolly" more than a jaded professional hack like BWD 😉
I don't know to what extent STW also fits that model these days, but it'll be interesting to see if they follow suit.
I know the editors at Pinkbike have been quite upfront in the past about just wanting brands to send them the bikes to ride on their familiar local trails - to produce a more useful appraisal. And they do seem to achieve this, but I'm not sure whether they are still flying to those launches or not.
Trade shows and product launches should maybe be considered separately. As an example, Sea Otter might be slightly different as it's a lot of brands displaying, not just a single product launch. Environmentally, a bit more efficient. Much of the communication between vendors and journalists can, of course, be done electronically but I wonder if that might miss some "off the record" stuff.
Much of the communication between vendors and journalists can, of course, be done electronically but I wonder if that might miss some “off the record” stuff.
Not convinced. Comes back to I would prefer a review of the bike in UK conditions rather than a sale persons saying how fantastic their bike is no manufacturer is going to say 'our bike isnt quite as good as theirs over there'
“Be honest, I doubt anyone has turned down a business trip to some part of the world to try a new product”
Yep, I've made it quite clear I don't / won't fly out to the office(s) we're working with.
Bike companies can’t afford to have the bikes just sitting in a container in a warehouse whilst this happens – there’s a lot of money wrapped up in the stock. So even if you’re not flying the journalists somewhere, I think you’d have to have some method to get the bikes to the journalists that’s a month quicker than shipping them, so they’d be likely to be air-freighted. Still less impact than flying people (especially because the junket bikes are flown from the factory today), but not as little impact as shipping them may have
I suppose part of the problem is the worldwide nature of it. It wouldn't be too difficult to do a launch in individual countries and invite just the local media. Whereas I assume that when they launch a bike in the Dolomites the company is actually there for a few weeks with a different set of journos every couple of days.
Shipping the bikes to the journos would be far more carbon efficient because they can take a few days over it. A van full of 20 bikes being driven to 5 destinations around Europe is still far more efficient than flying in 100 journos in batches to 20.
Within the margin of "depends on the car or plane" it's roughly the same carbon footprint to fly 1000 miles on a full flight as it is to drive it solo in a car). So even if the van is about half as efficient as the car it's still ~10x more efficient than moving 20 people by plane.
Re STW, I recall Mark did a no-fly biking holiday to an accommodation in France (which by the way looked a lot of faff, but fair enough). But then, not long after, I’m sure there was a video article/promotion about him using a certain brand of tyres around the trails in Whistler. This may all be a daydream, but I remember at the time trying to square the two features together.
Edit, here. Flying to Whistler to test tyres?
According to this only about 10% of the UK population has no concerns about climate change and 75% are making adjustments
If course that’s self reported and tells us nothing about actions in the real world. But in this case it’s about the actions of journalists and the media. Rather than end consumers that matter.
My wife is really pretty invested in tackling climate change. She says that peer pressure between businesses is a one way emissions are being reduced. Some companies will seek out suppliers that can meet certain environmental standards.
I wonder if another compromise, for bike launches, would be coordinated launches. So 5 manafacturers launch in the Alpes on successive days in different locations.
The ideal of course, for the journalists, is that 5 companies launch in the same resort. They have a week to season jump between bikes and adjust set ups. But I’m not sure the manufacturers would like that
On a side note i do miss the comparative reviews in the magazine. I just learn so much more.
a review of the bike in UK conditions
"Everything has seized"
On a tangent, I thought the Mud Camp articles were great...
Re STW, I recall Mark did a no-fly biking holiday to an accommodation in France (which by the way looked a lot of faff, but fair enough). But then, not long after, I’m sure there was a video article/promotion about him using a certain brand of tyres around the trails in Whistler. This may all be a daydream, but I remember at the time trying to square the two features together.
It's one of those areas where no-ne can go from old habits to future-perfect in one go. We can all make reductions, some might go all out but some might have to compromise - work, family, etc. We can have principles despite the conflicts, just need to be aware of potential hypocrisy in how you put it across?
But I’m not sure the manufacturers would like that
Who wants to get all the journos from the popular mags on Friday, after 4 days of rides and presentations?
Also a lot of opportunity for back to back comparisons on brand new material, or comparing Scotts new downhill weapon with Specialiseds new enduro sledge.
I recall Mark did a no-fly biking holiday to an accommodation in France (which by the way looked a lot of faff, but fair enough).
I've done no fly cycling trips from the UK to Spain (3 times, different locations) and Sweden to Spain and Italy (errrr, 5 times i think). And also no fly ski/board trips to France and Italy (And northern Sweden/Norway, which is a pain to drive!). Mostly with just the ex, but sometimes picking someone up on the way, so 3 or 4 up for a lot of the journey (or once, 11 up!).
It's never actually been a faff. Except getting 11 peoples passports together in one place at one time.
I believe rockhopper was referring to a train-based biking trip to the Alps.
Driving (rather than flying) there is very do-able - and actually the preferred option for me.
Yeah, train based requires some finessing and luck.
But thankfully (as i'm not in the UK) it's actually now quite reasonable, cost wise!
A flight to venice to ride in the Dolomites is 233kg each way. 466kg in total.
Unless road.cc are taking the corporate jet that needs dividing by a factor of 100 for a typical flight. So not a massive difference to shipping via container.
Yeah, train based requires some finessing and luck.
It shouldn't though, and I gather a lot of the problems are in the UK (where we're quite capable of scoring some own goals, e.g. the Highland Explorers that apparently aren't used on the right WHL services) and Eurostar.
The ideal of course, for the journalists, is that 5 companies launch in the same resort. They have a week to season jump between bikes and adjust set ups. But I’m not sure the manufacturers would like that
I suppose that's what Sea Otter or Crankworx week are /could be.
A lot of stuff gets launched at them but probably isn't available to ride for another few months so they'd need to bring forward their launches a few months (or delay them into the new year)
The article suggests that the demo bikes should just be part of that countries allocation. Yes of course if you move 10 people and 50 bikes to each country then the balance would shift.
I wonder how much it costs to fly and put up all the journos for a few days? If you didn't have to fly ST, MBUK, MBR, etc etc to Finale or wherever, how many demo bikes could you send to various trail center bike shops for customers to try? Must be about a grand per person, which must be about the actual ex-factory cost of a mid range bike (i.e. what it would actually cost Trek or someone to build a bike and write it off, not including marketing, admin etc)
@tonyf1 - half a tonne of CO2 per person is about right for an average london to mid-europe return flight estimate.
If you divided that 466kg flight footprint estimate by 100 you'd have the CO2 output of a car driving about 30km.
Media launches look great from the outside, but trust me, the reality tends to be a combination of exhausting travel schedules sandwiching intense indoctrination sessions albeit in a nice place with good food, usually. It’s not a holiday. You’re not spending time with mates. It’s work.
Does road.cc actually pay any journalist enough to make this worth their while? Kudos to them for opting out I suppose, but their content seems to be written by mostly side-hustlers who probably couldn't drop the day job for such a jaunt anyway.
You are right just checked calculator again and it’s per person not per plane. I’m shocked how much CO2 it actual is.
For an average person in the UK the carbon footprint boils down to:
25% - heating your house
25% - driving your car
25% - going on holiday abroad
25% - eating meat
And we emit about 4x the sustainable amount ......
Numbers are simplified slightly, obviously a UK holiday, vegan diet, riding a bike, and a passivehaus aren't absolutely zero, but they're near enough for comparison and the current amounts equal about ~1000kg-1500kg per use. Consumption of plastic tat (and bikes) isn't a really big number in the scheme of things.
I think we need to do for CO2 what traffic light labels were supposed to do for sugar in food. Your forecourt diesel receipt, boarding pass, supermarket receipt, gas bill etc should say what percentage of the recommended annual allowance that purchase just contributed. Would people still fly or drive as much if they were handed a piece of paper that said that the tank of fuel they just bought was 10% of what they could sustainably use, or the flight to Ibiza for a stag weekend was 30%?
Apparently we don't need to go as far as a vegan diet to significantly reduce our carbon footprint?
WRT holidays, 90% of the carbon footprint is from the flights there, even for something like a skiing holiday.
Cycling by train is a faff, but using it lets the companies know that there is demand for it, and it is much more fun that going by air or driving.
Cycling by train is a faff, but using it lets the companies know that there is demand for it, and it is much more fun that going by air or driving.
Problem is that it’s the classic ‘assessing demand for a bridge by counting the number of swimmers’ scenario, isn’t it? Because it’s a faff, most people are put off at the planning stages.
@thisisnotaspoon There’s decent evidence for local travel that if people feel they have choices, they will choose appropriately. However, if they think they’re going to get killed because there’s no safe cycling infra, and if the buses are slow and unreliable due to the amount of traffic, and expensive due to misguided political decisions, then they’ll drive.