Which Frame material is best for the planet?
Steel?
Wood or bamboo I’d imagine.
Wood or bamboo I’d imagine.
But what about the pandas?
Its complex.
Its probably is bamboo.
Least processing to create the material and biodegradable so reasonably sound to dispose of.
Resin might be a bit of an issue
But what about the pandas?
Not very environmentally friendly to use something that is so difficult to get to reproduce. Rabbits, maybe?
I think it is a little bit about your will as well. The most environmentally friendly option is not to buy a new bike/new parts at all, but we all want or need a new one every now and then don't we...
I thought about this somewhat when buying my last bike and I ended up with a custom made steel bike. Theory being that I will keep this bike for years to come, not wanting the latest and greatest each year, hopefully the bike will last 5-6... 10 years without me needing to buy a new one. If it should break I would hope that I can get the steel repaired pretty easily. I had a Mondraker Foxy XR before, replaced the rear triangle 3 times. It was all on warranty so no fuss from me buy I didn't like the fact I had used 3 rear triangles on 1 bike. I bet you most carbon bike owners would tell you the same story.
The other factor would be to buy 2nd hand instead of brand new, meaning you're not asking someone to produce a new thing.
I bet you most carbon bike owners would tell you the same story.
I'll have that bet with you. I don't know anyone personally who has broken a carbon frame.
Yep, @anus has it. The question of frame material is irrelevant when set against the question of whether you need a new bike at all. If you are worried about the environmental impact, just don't buy a new bike. If you have to then a second hand one is more environmentally friendly than a new one regardless of material I suspect.
>bamboo, resin
Soy-based epoxy is a thing.
It's all really complex- where it's made and how will make a difference, one alu frame might be made efficiently and with less pollution from more ethically extracted or recycled material, the next might be made of ore extracted from a strip mine in a former virgin forest, then made in a factory where all the waste gets poured into a river. And economics comes into it too- I have 5 aluminium bikes just now, if I had got a carbon or titanium one instead I'd probably have 3 or 4 bikes because of expense. And you have to account for usage too, the guy next door's bike is a terrible waste of resources as he never rides it, other bikes get ridden til they fatigue out so you get every last minute out of them.
Random aside; I just received some 3d printing filament which uses 15% recycled carbon fibres in a really fine chop. Course, recycled could mean anything- it could be recycled offcuts, similar to factory swarf.
Paper.
There was an article which claimed there is enough aluminium around that we could build everything we want out of it by reusing it. If that were true probably that.
Chrome-oly Oliver there may well be, but the energy needed to get it is the ****er.
But, as above, the answer is stop believing you need to buy stuff to be happy.
The crux is that the new bike your buying has already been manufactured. So whether you buy it or not is irrelevant as the damage has been done. I guess it would take a long time for bike companies to begin making fewer bikes a year. I normally buy second hand, just because you get more for your money. Perhaps we should all buy used for a couple of years.
^ exactly. It's not so much the material as the churn of consumption. Same for cars, people getting a new 'eco-friendly' car every 3yrs on lease but ignoring the resources used in making that car. If you want real durability and the option to repair you'd go for steel or carbon.
I don’t know anyone personally who has broken a carbon frame.
I see a lot of them, mainly as there's so many out there now. Many can probably be repaired but rarely are because it looks ugly or 'ooh, new bike time'.
The crux is that the new bike your buying has already been manufactured. So whether you buy it or not is irrelevant as the damage has been done. I guess it would take a long time for bike companies to begin making fewer bikes a year
That's a daft argument. Using that every unnecessary consumer product in existence could be justified.Manufacturers respond to consumer behaviour. Their marketing arm aim to effect consumer behaviour. If we collectively halved our purchase of new bikes today within less than a year the manufacturing output would also halve.
Bamboo - slightly sceptical. It needs significantly less processing than frame conventional materials that that must come with economic benefits too for manufacturing. But they are still a novelty product. There has to be significant performance or reliability issues for it not to have taken more of a foothold, even in lower end utilitarian bikes.
The bike you already own is always going to be the sustainable choice and the main trick in the future will be persuading consumers (and marketing folk) to prioritise longevity as the most desirable attribute when we do purchase our next bike.
That’s a daft argument
But true under current circumstances. Not really an argument just a fact. Not saying I agree with it, far from it.
But true under current circumstances. Not really an argument just a fact. Not saying I agree with it, far from it.
Only if you go all millenial and treat every question and thought process as a me, me, me, I, I, I.
Yes, if YOU go into a shop today and buy a frame that YOU want it will already be manufactured. But this is a question that needs to be approached with a more mature collective thought process. OUR collective next bike does not exist for the most part at this instant.
A used titanium frame would be a good choice. Keep it forever and zero impact.
Of course it wouldn't keep up with headset size changes, rear spacing etc,. but you would just have to live with that if main concern was least environmental impact.
Unless you’re buying from a boutique manufacturer who will make the thing to order whichever bike you choose already exists in the world. All the embodied energy it took to make the thing has already been spent so does it really matter?
kerley
Member
A used titanium frame would be a good choice. Keep it forever and zero impact.Of course it wouldn’t keep up with headset size changes, rear spacing etc,. but you would just have to live with that if main concern was least environmental impact.
If you're going down that road steel would be a better choice. Lasts forever and can be repaired easily.
If everybody started buying used stuff and making more sustainable choices then the global economy would go into major recession, no?
Only if you go all millenial and treat every question and thought process as a me, me, me, I, I, I.
I don’t buy new generally speaking and I’ve already stated that if we all bought used for a while that would help. Somebody is wearing their grumpy pants this morning.
I’ll have that bet with you. I don’t know anyone personally who has broken a carbon frame.
Well I know of a few people that have broken carbon frames and I don't know any properly rad riders. And in anycase it's irrelevant. Since when was the main reason for chucking out bike frames of any material is that they're broken?
Aluminium alloy is the most environmentally friendly in the long run. Aluminium can be recycled an infinite number of times with no degradation to its quality or properties- indeed any brand new aluminium alloy bike will be made of recycled material. It takes 5% of the energy to recycle it as it does to produce virgin material. Is near as damn it as light and strong as carbon by the time you've made it into a bike frame. Steel is probably not too far behind that and Titanium behind that.
It is not carbon. The carbon strands are recyclable but the resins that make up the matrix are not and the process of separating the carbon from the resin is not really viable so the best we can do with carbon is to grind it up into powder and re-use it in some other product but that just delays it getting into and polluting the environment.
Wood and bamboo? Well if you're not concerned with product performance then you can consider these I guess.
All the embodied energy it took to make the thing has already been spent so does it really matter?
that is only the first step in a product lifecycle. Nothing lasts forever...even boutique bike frames.
There was an article which claimed there is enough aluminium around that we could build everything we want out of it by reusing it. If that were true probably that.
The energy required to reprocess it would be significant.
Bamboo can be done with relatively low environmental impact, but nothing has zero impact...
Reuse/repair/2nd hand is also a major benefit, every time a products use is extended it negates the need for new manufacturing. That extends to carbon, there are plenty of 10 year plus old carbon road frames still in frequent use...
There are of course some 40+ year old steel frames still about, indicating the materials longevity if looked after, but how many of them are in regular use?
For frames I'm going with steel for repair ability.
This probelm is wider than frame material though. There's also issues like rigid,HT,FS and component choice as well as consumables, lubes etc. All go to running costs.
If you look at whole life environmental cost I'd wager that the answer is
Rigid
BSA sealed BB or some kind of ceramic / high quality external BB
Expensive (well sealed) headset and hubs
Singlespeed or hub geared (maybe belt drive)
Disk brakes
Mudguard and rack mounts (so you can ride it to work)(maybe!)
Although some of those will have higher initial impacts from manufacturing I reckon the reduced maintenance and spares consumption would be significant as would the savings in oils and bearings from suspension fettling.
If everybody started buying used stuff and making more sustainable choices then the global economy would go into major recession, no?
Would it?
Sounds like a volume of sales rather than a value of sales argument to me...
If everybody started buying used stuff and making more sustainable choices then the global economy would go into major recession, no?
Two ways of looking at it. Deal with the environmental impacts of global capitalism, rapidly increasing population etc,. and take a hit to global economy or just ignore it all and suffer the consequences in 50 years time. I would guess the approach taken by most countries and people is to ignore it all...
In 500 years time will the carbon and titainium frames still be in landfill somewhere?
The Steel and Bamboo ones will have rotted away back into the earth? Does this make a steel frame more eco friendly in the long run? Should we buy carbon at all?
Tomhoward - you must know a lot of careful carbon bike owners. I have lost count of the amount of people I know or have met that have replaced carbon frames because they've either totalled it or found a tiny little crack in it.
Unless you’re buying from a boutique manufacturer who will make the thing to order whichever bike you choose already exists in the world. All the embodied energy it took to make the thing has already been spent so does it really matter?
Yes, at least from the environmental point of view anyway. You are looking at it from the wrong end. Of course the bike you buy already exists, but once you buy it you create a hole on the shop floor that the manufacturer fills by making another one. So, your purchase of a bike still results in the production of a new bike and you can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because the actual bike you bought already existed.
If you want to reduce the environmental impact of your hobby then the main thing you can do is buy less stuff. Everything else (with the possible exception of travel associated with your hobby) is pretty much window dressing.
In 500 years time will the carbon and titainium frames still be in landfill somewhere?
Carbon yes. Titanium no. Titanium is easy and cheap to recycle and is extremely valuable so no chance of titanium finding its way into landfill. Someone will pluck it out of the rubbish pile and cash it in if the owner doesn't.
Your bike has minimal impact, compared to almost anything else you do. How you get to rides will have more of an impact - if you drive to ride it really doesn't matter that your bike is made from organic bamboo, other than making you feel a little better about yourself. Fly to a cycling holiday each year? Eat a steak when you get home?
Buying second hand may be good for you personally but you've just given a wadge of cash to Billy big wallet who's off to the LBS/internet to order his next (new) enduro weapon because its 3mm longer or wider.
Buy new (if you want, or don't) but love it, maintain it; and possibly pick a brand that will give you a new chainstay rather than a whole new frame if it breaks.
Ride a 3kg enduro frame, once a week for three years, and then have a nice refreshing can of beer when you get home. You'll have used more aluminium from beer than in your bike.
And don't measure life in years, but in rides; its a toy after all.
Probably not a BlueGoGo
As long as it's metal, it can be recycled after a long, useful, fun life when we finally get appropriately sized 25mm rear axles and 2 inch headsets etc. That keeps raw materials and the cost of manufacturing to minimum.
Another ecological point to highlight are the consumables on a bike - tyres particularly, brake pads, and DRIVETRAINS! If we had more robust drivetrains that would reduce the amount of waste exponentially - gearboxes bathed in oil that last forever FTW! I have a good excuse for running my tyres to the carcass - I'm saving the environment 😏
simondbarnes
But what about the pandas?
I like the black and white colour scheme but I find them a bit flexy
How environmentally friendly is lithium iron battery production, I wonder..
And don’t measure life in years, but in rides; its a toy after all.
Actually ^^This^^ makes the most sense... miles covered per kg of embodied carbon would be a better measure of environmental impact.
So I checked on Strava and the bike that's covered the most miles is my cheapest, gas pipe Taiwanese fixed commuter, most of those miles will have been offsetting hydrocarbons burned in driven commutes...
My second most used bike is my Carbon Road bike, bought used (broken in fact and repaired) which is very much a toy...
So I'd say my bike use is half and half between fun and "utility" and I count that utility use as actually offsetting some carbon.
So how many Carbons are embodied in the production of a typical steel/Aluminium/Carbon/Titanium/Bamboo bicycle? anyone know?
It's important to bear in mind that bikes are themselves relatively low-impact (compared to, say, a car) and that using them can be positively beneficial where it replaces other, high-impact forms of travel. Even the most spendthrift, consumerist flipper of bikes will be doing the world a favour if they cycle said bike(s) to work instead of burning a load of dinosaur juice; expending fine particles, Co2 and tyre / brake dust in the process.
With that said, I suppose we should also look at bike drivetrains, tyres etc - rather than just a the frame. The main triangles of a bike are symbolically important, but I think wheels, suspension forks and so on would get a fairly big mention if you break things down analytically.
The most obvious conclusion is that buying fewer, higher quality components / frames - and then using them a lot - is "better" for the plant.
The energy required to reprocess it would be significant
True, although as people smarter than me point out we have sources of "free" energy, we just choose not to use them. Proof of concept for e.g. smelters which use parabolic mirrors to focus sunlight already exists. They are being used to superheat steam. We just don't do it yet.
The argument about wood and the like still rages. There are competing claims about whether it takes out more carbon than it puts back in at EOL. Also water and arabke land is required. Plus as soon as something becomes popular (see palm oil) we destroy huge swaths of good diverse vegetation to grow it.
How environmentally friendly is lithium iron battery production, I wonder..
Production isn't bad. The biggest environmental problem is, as usual, mining and extraction of the raw material. Recycling is getting there, though. The cobalt can be recovered which is good as iirc that comes from mines in the DRC, so there is less risk of them becoming the next OPEC. The lithium itslef is harder. Afaik there is no way to recycle it yet into new batteries because you need about 99% pure. There was a guy at a University in California who had come up with a process a couple of years ago but it required manual disassembly so couldn't really be scaled
Interesting that ^^
and
[i] I suppose we should also look at bike drivetrains, tyres etc – rather than just a the frame. The main triangles of a bike are symbolically important, but I think wheels, suspension forks and so on would get a fairly big mention if you break things down analytically.[/i]
What do people do with old chains and cassettes? Most of my linger in the garage, but should we find a way to recycle (no pun etc) them?
my solution to old chains, lights etc...looks much better now its on a stand and painted.
Even the most spendthrift, consumerist flipper of bikes will be doing the world a favour if they cycle said bike(s) to work instead of burning a load of dinosaur juice; expending fine particles, Co2 and tyre / brake dust in the process.
What fraction of bikes spend their life doing that though? The bulk of mountain bikes are strapped on the back or top of a dinosaur juice drinker making them more thirsty and driven across the country before being ridden in pointless circles. Road bike mostly get ridden in pointless circles from the front door. The best most cycling can be praised for is being less bad than other pointless activities.
Probably the most environmentally friendly thing we could do is gather all the marketeers in the world, pile them up in a huge pyramid, and burn the lot. 🙂
and burn the lot.
All the fine particulate and burning bull....er...oney would be an environmental disaster. Better just to let the pile rot down and use it for fertilizer. That being what they are good at in the first place makes it ironic. I think.
Yup, marketing is just a process to make you dissatisfied with what you've got.
Recycle your old bike yourself...
What do people do with old chains and cassettes? Most of my linger in the garage, but should we find a way to recycle (no pun etc) them?
mine go in the recycling bin?
‘There are of course some 40+ year old steel frames still about, indicating the materials longevity if looked after, but how many of them are in regular use?’
My Rouke, now 40 years old is still in regular use and my Stumpy, now 32 years old is also in regular use!
I was pondering this very topic the other day.
Carbon appears to be a bit of an environmental horror show due to lack of recycling options. Alu is recyclable but not easily repairable and steel is both repairable and recyclable so surely this makes it the most eco-friendly material? Maybe a tad simplistic but there's some logic there.
It would make for a fascinating PhD study or something!
I've used old chains to make home made chain whip tools. Used some to hold up some shelving too. I probably wouldn't trust it to hold a lot of weight but it was pretty nice looking.
I have a good excuse for running my tyres to the carcass – I’m saving the environment
But all those plastic particles are going into the environment.
Don't underestimate the CO2 that goes into a metal frame, or recycling one.
I reckon the best frame material is one you get from the scrappy and build into a bike frame with minimal energy use.
Are biodegradable tyres a possibility?
I can't remember which company but isn't someone scaling up the production of dandelion latex/rubber for tyres? Probably not biodegrade after the fact, but a more sustainable source than rubber trees (higher yield power acre I think it said) and oil.
Edit- here it is, comparable yield, but in 6 months, weather dependant like many crops.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/product-news/continental-launches-bike-tyre-made-dandelions-424634
then the global economy would go into major recession, no?
Why would that be a bad thing? Why do we consider growth to be a good thing?
Maybe it’s time for a new material? One that’s tough, has low environmental impact to produce and is easily recyclable. I have no idea what that might be though unfortunately.
I would guess that the impact of the frame would be negligible in comparison to, say, driving to the trails, buying new gear regularly, using a water bottle or hydration pack only a few times or having a steak when you get back.
Why would that be a bad thing? Why do we consider growth to be a good thing?
Because the free market capitalist brainwashing has worked?
Favourite bikes that still get used regularly are an 80's Peugeot road bike & early 90's Diamondback mtb, and a 1940's Raleigh Clubman, all steel frames that have needed nothing, not much in components replaced over the years and suspect they will keep going forever. Find 8 speed drivetrains are great too, right balance of sturdiness/longevity and gear ranges.
mine go in the recycling bin
What? The one for cardboard, plastic, tin..? Or does your council have a special "bike parts" recycle bin?
Cam I just be controversial and say it's probably whichever allows people to enjoy riding the most? The environmental and social benefits of building that bike vastly outweigh the costs.
Also only a small proportion of the materials in the bike are in the frame so you need to consider other components particularly consumables.
Maybe it’s time for a new material? One that’s tough, has low environmental impact to produce and is easily recyclable. I have no idea what that might be though unfortunately.
Horses?
Because the free market capitalist brainwashing has worked?
So far, but encouraging stuff I've been reading lately suggests that reconsidering growth as good is entering relatively mainstream thinking.
roach
Member
If everybody started buying used stuff and making more sustainable choices then the global economy would go into major recession, no?
Yip, which is the pertinent point. It's the entire system that has to change, individual do gooders are doing heehaw but make themselves feel a bit better.
It's like I see adverts for people living environmentally and off grid. Aye that's all fine and good if you've the cash resources to do that, but it's simply not scaleable, nor an option available to the majority.
Ultimately, it's all a game of brinkmanship, well keep going till the shit hits the fan. And then probably a bit further...
Systemic change will happen. I heard someone mention the concept of Eco-authoritarian governments of the future elsewhere. I guess something I like that could possibly happen.
A few individuals making feel good choices ain't going to do heehaw though. Consumerism and growth will continue until to breaking point..
Necessity will be the mother of invention I'd guess.
disk brakes will and have improved things as the rims do not wear out using disks although no doubt the brake fluid is pretty bad for the environment.
When I changed out my road bike's knackered three year old drivetrain last month, my first ride on it was to the county recycling area to chuck the old stuff in the metal skip. My mountain bike is a 2006 steel frame I bought off here plus 12 year old wheels and (steel) forks. And, and, I take the train to get to rides! I'm going to save the planet!
Nah, not really, we're ****ed. The 'recycling' gets shipped to Bangladesh or the Philippines for sneaky dumping, but at least I get the warm glow.
Might be better to rephrase the question to 'which frame material is worse for our planet in production and end of product life terms'
I might suggest that would make a Carbon fibre the worse (as a whole bike a Carbon e-bike would be even worse)
If everybody started buying used stuff and making more sustainable choices then the global economy would go into major recession, no?
Not necessarily. It would depend on the speed of the change and how well businesses responded to it. There is a growing movement towards "right to repair" for electronic devices. The companies that are supplying parts and repair services are doing quite well. The money that comes out of phone makers and into repairers is still in the economy and still moving around which is the key.
Buggy whip makers had hard times. Car makers picked up the slack and then some.
The ‘recycling’ gets shipped to Bangladesh or the Philippines for sneaky dumping, but at least I get the warm glow.
I'd be surprised it that was true of metal. There is a market for it. Plastic and the like, though.....
Also the Phillipines (I think) is getting tough. Wasn't it them that recently demanded the US or Canada take back a bunch of rubbish that was supposed to be recycling?
Carbon appears to be a bit of an environmental horror show due to lack of recycling options
Well yes, but it's actually very repairable and doesn't suffer from fatigue due to repeated flex unlike metals, so if you were prepared to repair it when damaged, it could conceivably last a very, very long time.
BadlyWiredDog
Subscriber
doesn’t suffer from fatigue due to repeated flex unlike metals
Metals only suffer flex fatigue if it's above their tolerance. This is the part of the post where I say "Young's modulus", and then pretend like I really know what that means.
Metals only suffer flex fatigue if it’s above their tolerance. This is the part of the post where I say “Young’s modulus”, and then pretend like I really know what that means.
Yeah I know, but in real life, most metal frames crack eventually, just more quickly if they're badly designed. It's the reason I can't bring myself to buy a Cotic SodaMAX despite it being a frame I'd really like in theory. I can't contemplate a £1700 ti frame with a two-year warranty.
Talking of which, a genuine lifetime, repair-based warranty would be good for sustainability, but then you have to factor in other stuff - my Ragley Ti went back to the States for a warranty repair, was sent back to them, modified, and then sent back to me. So it crossed the Atlantic four times, five times if you include the original export from the US to the UK, which probably wasn't very good for its sustainability rating even if it extended the life of the frame.
Ecological cost isn't always where you think it is in a process - it may be the packaging or the way the factory and offices are run or in the distribution rather than in the product itself.
Bottom line though: the most sustainable thing we can do is simply to buy less stuff, but we've built a world based on consumption of unnecessary crap, including bike-shaped unnecessary crap.
Metals only suffer flex fatigue if it’s above their tolerance. This is the part of the post where I say “Young’s modulus”, and then pretend like I really know what that means.
I thought that was true of steel but Alu would fail due to flex fatigue even if it was below tolerance - its a work hardening cumulative thing.
Young's Modulus, err pythagorean theorem, and er Schroedinger's cat.
Horses?
I’m liking your thinking. The only downside is that their shoes are made from metal and that puts us back at square one.
Do they need shoes if you only ride them off road?
Metals only suffer flex fatigue if it’s above their tolerance.
The jury is still out on this, for practical purposes you can consider a limiting stress but it's pretty low.
And then you have stress concentrations, some around flaws, some of which will be planar flaws, which will give a theoretically infinite SIF. And you have residual strains.
So practically, for something like a bike, if it's well designed, it won't crack for a long time, but it will crack. A carbon frame won't necessarily fatigue (individual crack in a single fibre doesn't really matter), but it will one day suffer from some other degradation mechanism. Or get crashed badly.
I thought that was true of steel but Alu would fail due to flex fatigue even if it was below tolerance – its a work hardening cumulative thing.
Aluminium and some stainless steels have no elastic limit, and there's no suggestion that they have an endurance limit. They also in reality are worse from a fatigue point of view as their stress-strain behaviour follows the Ramberg-Osgood curve rather than having a linear portion up to yield stress - noting that fatigue damage is determined by strain cycles not stress cycles.
follows the Ramberg-Osgood curve
If thats the one where stress/strain cycles cause the fatigue limit to drop slowly, then hit a cliff then flatten to almost infinite but not actually infinite limit. So as the material hits a point at which its stress limit is much lower than new and never hits 0 but comes close.
Then thats what I was thinking of. Whereas cromoly and the like retain much more of their original limit for much longer.
Do they need shoes if you only ride them off road?
There are a couple that hang out in a field near my house. I’ll ask them next time I’m passing. Always best to get this sort of information straight from the horses mouth.