prairiepedaler

The Steel is Real guys are sure to schwing their thumbs up on this article. The bike is the most elegant and energy efficient form of transportation ever to emerge from the mind of Western Man. Some of the modern day materials they are constructed from though, like the heavy energy and resource consumptive batteries in electric bikes and cars, do not exhibit traits of longevity like their older brethren. An interesting article in any case. One author at that same site did a study on laptop computers which is also worth a read.

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/20...ble-again.html

rossiny

I tried to skim the article, it seems they are comparing how much pollution in making the bike. Once a bike is made , it pretty much doesn't make pollution while using it, you can't say that for cars. . Another thing , steel, titanium, aluminum , can all be melted down and reused. I read some where that recycling 1 aluminum can save about a gallon of gas because of the production process to extract and process. Now carbon fiber bikes , I have no clue if the carbon fiber can be reused....

Fahrenheit531 

Quick! Shut the barn door! The horses are gone!

DangerousDanR

Let me summarize the link you posted:
The writer of it is wrong in so many ways it is pathetic. And praising the Paris Subway? Give me a break.

One side note: I bought an aluminum car specifically because it will last longer in the Great White North than a car made of steel.

Fredo76

This is the real argument against the directions the bicycle manufacturers have taken - both for cheap mass-produced bike-shaped objects, and for fancy proprietary tech. It's a solid argument, and will likely be pooh-poohed by selfish people of all stripes, if they care enough to read it. Oh, well.

Greta's right, you know.

prairiepedaler

The doomgoblin is always good for a laugh. Or, I should say Dr. Doomgoblin now (considering the honourary doctorate in theology).

shelbyfv

Please just go back under the bridge.

Koyote

I appreciate the author's intent, the interest in sustainability, and the somewhat thorough sourcing. The article provides much food for thought. With that said, there are some rather glaring errors of logic and fact; as an example of the first, consider the author's claims that "the change from cassette bodies with ten sprockets (around 2010) to cassette bodies with eleven, twelve, and most recently thirteen sprockets have made many wheelsets obsolete, and the same goes for the rest of the drivetrain including shifters and chains." Those wheelsets and chains and shifters all still work well with each other, and with other bikes of their same eras, in most cases. If the fact of eleven, twelve, and even thirteen speed drivetrains makes nine speed wheels obsolete, someone forgot to tell the twenty-year old wheels I was riding on just the other day.

Another juicy statement: "Disc brakes, which are now on almost every new bicycle, all have different axle designs, meaning that every vehicle now requires proprietary spare parts." Umm, what? Different axle designs? I'm not even sure what that means. Sure, different disc brake calipers take different pads, for example...But that's true of different rim brake calipers, too -- as is obvious to anyone who's tried to figure out which aftermarket pads to order for such brakes.

He even refutes his own arguments in the first few paragraphs where he explains that he owns several decades-old bikes that he uses for transportation. He doesn't grasp that his old bikes are still working fine, regardless of the existence of these new 12-speed bikes. He's even still apparently able to get spare parts. What is this nonsense about obsolescence?

More fundamentally, the author fails to note the different categories of bikes; many are intended (and purchased) for sport riding, while those that are intended (and purchased) for commuting and shopping are more likely to conform to his recommendations (steel frames, few or no cf bits, etc.). Thus, one could interpret the author as implicitly arguing against cycling as a recreational activity. If that's really his intent, he should state it clearly; if it's not his intent, he should sharpen his argument.

The author also seems to want perfection (on his terms) rather than improvement. While acknowledging that any bike trip is more efficient than an auto trip, he still seems to complain about e-assist bikes and bikes made of materials other than steel. That sort of reasoning, applied to any social problem, is paralyzing -- a sure way to prevent any progress. (If someone chooses to commute on a cf-framed e-assist bike rather than in a motor vehicle, I'm not going to pooh-pooh the decision. It's still an environmental improvement.)

Again, I appreciate the intent of this piece, and I found it interesting. And I support sustainability. I spent years commuting by bike, and still use one to get around town when possible. But this sort of reductive reasoning is counterproductive.

mschwett 

strange article, which mixes seemingly authoritative facts, assumptions, and just silliness more or less completely out of context.

that a carbon frame has greater embodied carbon than a steel frame is very believable…. but the amounts referenced are almost meaningless assuming one is not buying (and throwing out) a new carbon bike every week. the highest stated estimate, which came not from a carbon frame maker or an independent study but from a steel frame maker (biased much?) shows the equivalent of around 30 gallons of gasoline consumption. not great, but hardly a reason to avoid an entire category of product which has other benefits.

the life cycle emission chart per km is just ridiculous, is there even such a thing as a “carbon fiber cargo bicycle with electric motor?” never seen one. and the range of possible life spans for the calculation - 5,000km to 20,000km for an “aluminum bicycle” are absurd. I’ve ridden my road bikes 10,000km in one year, and would expect them to last 10 to 20 years at least, cutting the emissions per km by an order of magnitude, revealing just how trivial the carbon emitted in the production of the frame and other components are.

the author clearly has an agenda. I’m sure the clouds are cowering at his fists.

Russ Roth

I do think the desire to mass produce carbon everything in bicycles is reaching a stupid level. GCN recently did a piece on the advantages of a high end aluminum bike vs an equivalent priced, low-end carbon bike and I tend to think along similar lines. Cheap carbon, which isn't recyclable, doesn't need to be made just so people can feel they've got a cutting edge bike when alternate materials, that are recyclable, can produce as good a product. Of course, I've also got some 55mm deep aero carbon rims for my road bike and 27.5 carbon rims for the wife's mtb arriving this monday so I might be slightly hypocritical.

Fredo76

It's not the obsolescence of his old bikes that he's concerned about, it's the obsolescence of newer ones. Almost like it's planned...

Fredo76

Part of what the author is inveighing against is pictured here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/20...cycles/556268/

veganbikes

Some of those pictures are sickeningly beautiful. I remember when some of those brands invaded my area and it was a nightmare. It is still a problem but most of the china brands are gone and now it is Uber branded crap and a ton of those dumb scooters.

tomato coupe

Of course they will, because he’s one of them:

”The main reason why I have opted for old bicycles is that they are much better than new bicycles.”

VegasJen

I disagree. That poor child is a victim of psychopathic parents. She is the world's leading example of psychological child abuse.

wolfchild

Going proprietary, reducing compatibility and interchangeability is the only way for bike industry to remain profitable and survive. Not all innovation is about making it better for the consumer, a lot innovation is about reducing production costs while at the same time jacking up prices for the products which now take less money to manufacture. This whole argument that all innovation is for the benefit of a consumer is BS.

Atlas Shrugged

6 million years ago you would have argued against the trend towards walking upright saying it is nothing but a conspiracy and we are all doing well walking on all fours.

It’s always amusing where each individual draws the line for progress and innovation. If any of these Luddites were honest it would be interesting to actually place them in a situation where they have a full spectrum of well fitted bicycles at there disposal. The plan would be to ride a challenging 160+ km course which bike would they choose. It would be really hard to believe any rational and informed person would not choose the latest high end endurance bike such as a 2023 S Works Roubaix or equivalent whether steel, titanium or carbon.

Lastly the whole concept of carbon footprint and bicycle manufacturing is completely ludicrous when looked at through the lens of the ultimate expression of 1st world excess which are these forums. I am presently on a month long bike tour in Vietnam on a carbon bicycle. I flew over 14 hours to get here and countless shuttles, ferries and busses in country all with the absolute minimum of pollution control devices. This country has over 50 million scooters and produces approximately 3 million new scooters domestically each year. Almost every where I stay and eat is air conditioned and this energy comes over 50% from outdated coal plants. The carbon footprint and pollution generated in SEA is unbelievable. This authors take is moronic and the ultimate expression of this “steel is real” crowd acting like a deluded cult and losing all objectivity.

You like steel then ride it, you like old bikes ride them but to scold or judge those who have moved on you are acting ridiculous.

Maelochs

If the guy really cared he would walk and tow a wooden wagon.

NO manufactured vehicle is "sustainable" unless it is made entirely of biodegradable, naturally occurring (or derived) materials ..... so you don't have a rubber-tree plantation? What do you do with your old tires? Of course vegetable oil is your only lube, derived from rapeseed pressed in a human-powered press, right? Unpainted steel will corrode .... but paint? Horrible chemical processes involved in making good paint.

Worst of all ... Roads. Bikes need roads, and roads ....

Yup. Walk your talk, literally. Go back to walking.

There is a Bible quote I don't know about complaining about the mote in another's eye while ignoring the beam in one's own.

This guy publishes Online! Using Electricity! The reason behind global warming is in part, as best as I can tell, beyond certain natural fluctuations .....the enormous increase in the use of electricity and motor fuel. More cars equals more miles driven .... and anyone who has not lived car-free might not get it, but for most situations, bike transport is only possible for a very few people in a very few situations. And as for electricity .... everything is more efficient yet we still use more, more more ....

"Total U.S. electricity consumption in 2021 was about 3.93 trillion kWh and 13 times greater than electricity use in 1950." (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...lectricity.php)

We have made slight improvements .... possibly related to Covid and lowered commuting. It will be interesting to see the 2023 numbers ....

"With less than 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. consumes almost 17% of the world’s energy and accounts for 16% of world GDP. In comparison, the European Union has 6% of the world’s population, uses 10.4% of its energy, and accounts for 16% of its GDP, while China has 18% of the world’s population, consumes 25% of its energy, and accounts for 18% of its GDP.
Each day, U.S. per capita energy consumption includes 2.5 gallons of oil, 8.86 pounds of coal, and 246 cubic feet of natural gas.
Residential daily consumption of electricity is 12 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person.
In 2021, total U.S. energy consumption decreased 3.1% from 2019 peak levels. (https://css.umich.edu/publications/f...stem-factsheet)

Electricity only: The US uses 3.902 tn kWh of electricity annually. (https://www.worlddata.info/america/u...onsumption.php)
United States per capita ------11,756.77 kWh
Europe per capita -----------5,516.86 kWh

I am not going top bother trying to figure out how much of that is used by the bicycle industry.

The biggest polluter is obviously the entire petrochemical industry, which gives us, among many other things, a host of oil products, and plastic. Plastic is only marginally recycleable, as it loses properties with each remanufacture and eventually is worthless for anything but pollution and killing sea life. At the same time, reusable plastic containers almost don't exist (because the petrochemical industry is about the biggest player globally in terms of financial impact and this political impact) and the effort is not to create biodegradable non-petroleum plastics, but to increase plastic production to replace other materials as much as possible. Let's not talk about Hemp, which could transform the entire industrial landscape with high-protein seeds, fertilizers, oil, and fiber which can be used from everything from clothing to making bricks ......

This guy cares Nothing about the environment. If he did he would suggest things which could actually have an impact in the long run. This is just some retro-grouch "virtue-signalling" and p1$$ing all over people and things he doesn't happen to like for no reason except to flatter himself and make a buck with his writing. Even if the entire bicycle industry converted to steel----and Why Not Bamboo? if the guy is so concerned about reuse-recycling-lowered environmental impact?-----global energy consumption would not drop. The bike industry is sort of dwarfed by some other industry .... like say, the Automobile Industry? Why is the guy shooting at bikes when the hugest consumption of energy is driving, and roads, and refineries and the whole petrochemical industry's feeding a car-dominated lifestyle so that we keep using oil products?

If the guy really cared about the environment he would be advocating more bikes for everyone, whatever they were made from. he would be advocating for public transport. He would be advocating for urban and suburban planning laws which favor non-auto-centric designs.

The guy is just another opinionated blogger making a buck but polarizing a set of readers with an outrageous claim designed mostly to get responses, which increases ad traffic and thus his personal revenue. The guy probably doesn't even ride a bike .... his Magna beach cruiser is rusting behind his garage, which contains his Tesla and a Mercedes SUV.

SurferRosa

Obviously, we need more share bikes.





.

prairiepedaler

Where you'll be waiting? Trollheim is a gated community

Koyote

Then why did he write this:

”For road bikes, the change from cassette bodies with ten sprockets (around 2010) to cassette bodies with eleven, twelve, and most recently thirteen sprockets have made many wheelsets obsolete, and the same goes for the rest of the drivetrain including shifters and chains.”

shelbyfv

Guess the switch to cassettes and the obsolescence of freewheels wasn't a worry.

Chuck M 

Good grief. If my bike with an "obsolete" 11 speed cassette is obsolete and a problem for the author of the linked article, what are my multiple bikes with freewheels doing to upset him/her/they/them?

tcs

April 1, 2026 - Switzerland Today the UCI announced that beginning in the 2031 season, every component and frame of all bicycles must be recyclable in a useful way to be allowed for use in UCI competitions.

base2 

So let me get this right...An aluminum bicycle weighs some 40&1/2 pounds? Sure. It's not like that would almost maybe skew the numb3erz or anything.

It sort of reminds me of that one article from a few years ago that claimed a gas guzzling Hummer H1 was better for the environment than an e-car by measuring the combined total of all emissions and expenditures of a pit mine for all minerals & metals there derived and lumping all of it on to one single use & discarding the rest.

This guy deserves no clicks.