The Environmental Impact of Bicycle Manufacturing

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
whatever Interesting stuff.

( Still counter-intuituve that eBikes can have better carbon/km than a human-powered one :P )
 

a.twiddler

Veteran
A thoughtful and thought provoking article. Henry Ford would have continued producing the Model T for many years longer than he did, had he not had to buy into other car manufacturers' planned obsolescence ethos to remain competitive. It was tough, reliable, repairable, suited to bad roads and met many people's needs. This outlook of disposability has infected every aspect of consumer goods since. Outsourcing manufacture, international transportation with its dependence on fossil fuels, the bicycle industry is as culpable as any other in this respect.

I wince when I see adverts for electric vehicles because all that is happening is that manufacturers are disingenuously pushing one form of vehicle congestion to replace another. The manufacturing and transportation infrastructure remains the same for these goods, so the same problems will remain. As with bicycles, the end product may be less polluting but the same production and distribution process still exists. Improved public transport, less dependence on private vehicles, better promotion of active transport, reduction of the idea that you have to change a vehicle for change's sake are needed.

Due to the deep seated psychology of motor vehicle ownership it will be a brave manufacturer who bites the bullet and recognises in their adverts that less is better rather than the empty road fantasies of current car advertising. Otherwise we will just end up with electric vehicle jams instead of fossil fuel vehicle jams and nothing will significantly change in the quest for carbon reduction. Mass planned obsolescence essentially started with the motor industry (and what an opportunity for advertisers with the change to electric vehicles!) but perhaps a change in outlook will lead to a trickle down effect into other aspects of people's purchasing habits.
 

BrumJim

Forum Stalwart (won't take the hint and leave...)
You are, of course, utterly right in what you say. It is very much in the interests of car manufacturers not only to perpetuate the private car ownership and usage mindset, but to build obsolescence into the design.

We have an electric car, mainly because my wife needs it for essential activities due to lack of mobility (doctors, pharmacists, etc) and because it is convenient, but there is very much a temptation to increase usage to make life a bit easier, as the car is not powered by fossil fuels. Such as doing the weekly shop by car, rather than carrying groceries back, particularly if it includes a 12-pack of Guinness. And of course electric cars are much more efficient than diesel/petrol over small distances or if you are stuck in heavy traffic. But nothing like as efficient as bicycle / walking, especially when you consider the space required.

Even amongst electric car users, there is still the same usage pattern, with some people doing 20,000 miles a year or more, with many journeys that are not necessary or could be substituted by train / coach travel instead. And the desire to upgrade their car at the next opportunity to something with even features, range and power. Not helped by the charging network moving away from Type 2 connectors, making a change of car necessary for those seeking to do longer journeys. It would be a very brave manufacturer who would make a modular "future-poofed" car that can upgrade the charging, battery, infotainment system, etc, so that existing owners can upgrade to the latest technology without having to buy a new car.
 
OP
OP
Drago

Drago

Legendary Member
We have an electric car for no other reason than Mrs D wanted one, and it worked out cheaper than even a middle spec 5 series.

Neither of us are kidding ourselves that its doing anyrhing substantive to save the planet from oblivion. Just the opposite - its a handy excuse the manufacturers are trotting out to maintain the idea of unfettered private car use, and thus maximise their shareholder profitabilty. The damage its doing to water tables, the chemical pollution, the use of child labour in more than half the worlds lithium production are inconveniences to be glossed over. It shifts the pieces around the board a bit, but ultimately saves no one from nothing.

Trek are at least being open and honest - yes, the use of their products is far less damaging than the motorised alternatives, but there are still negative consequences. If only car manufacturers could be so forthright - instead we get the empty road scenario as the car swishes past a wind turbine, attractive female front seat passenger smiling smugly at the handsome male driving. And the public are wilfully gullible in their acceptance of this myth.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame that more cyclists can't be persuaded to think greener. I'd like more folks to think about this when brandishing their credit card:

... it can be illuminating to compare one bike to another.

Trek compared the aluminium and carbon-fibre versions of its bikes and consistently found that making the latter produces nearly three times the emissions. The same goes for wheels.

The report also shows that each technological “advancement” that is added to a bike – carbon wheels, electronic shifting, the addition of a motor – comes with an environmental cost. This culminates in a £10,000 electric mountain bike with a 320kg manufacturing carbon footprint. [that's about 3 times a standard bike!!- matt ]
Squeezing another 2 years out of your "older" bike will save a few polar bears.
Resisting carbon-for-everything will help keep ocean levels down.
etc ...
 

Dolorous Edd

Senior Member
hmm yes, electric motor slightly more efficient than than the food powered human motor....

Well any form of exercise has a carbon footprint, I suppose.
 
The fact that bicycle manufacture has a carbon footprint will be seized on by the anti cycling brigade. The fact that it is miniscule and even tinier over the lifetime of the product will be less significant.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
The fact that bicycle manufacture has a carbon footprint will be seized on by the anti cycling brigade. The fact that it is miniscule and even tinier over the lifetime of the product will be less significant.

Well you've only got to ride if for a month or two (400 odd miles) rather than the car for it to re-coup it's production co2
 

byegad

Legendary Member
Location
NE England
You are, of course, utterly right in what you say. It is very much in the interests of car manufacturers not only to perpetuate the private car ownership and usage mindset, but to build obsolescence into the design.

We have an electric car, mainly because my wife needs it for essential activities due to lack of mobility (doctors, pharmacists, etc) and because it is convenient, but there is very much a temptation to increase usage to make life a bit easier, as the car is not powered by fossil fuels. Such as doing the weekly shop by car, rather than carrying groceries back, particularly if it includes a 12-pack of Guinness. And of course electric cars are much more efficient than diesel/petrol over small distances or if you are stuck in heavy traffic. But nothing like as efficient as bicycle / walking, especially when you consider the space required.

Even amongst electric car users, there is still the same usage pattern, with some people doing 20,000 miles a year or more, with many journeys that are not necessary or could be substituted by train / coach travel instead. And the desire to upgrade their car at the next opportunity to something with even features, range and power. Not helped by the charging network moving away from Type 2 connectors, making a change of car necessary for those seeking to do longer journeys. It would be a very brave manufacturer who would make a modular "future-poofed" car that can upgrade the charging, battery, infotainment system, etc, so that existing owners can upgrade to the latest technology without having to buy a new car.

The issue is this. Once Purchased, Leased or on some form of HP, a car on the drive is so much more convenient and almost certainly cheaper that bus, or rail, for a specific journey.

Unless car sharing becomes the norm, and I don't see that coming anytime soon in sufficient numbers to matter, individuals, and I'm guilty as charged*, will use their expensive car in order to maximise the benefit to themselves.

Which is why the vehicle industry and politicians will spend a lot of time and treasure expediting alternate fuels for cars, be it Hydrogen Internal Combustion, Hybrid, Electric Battery or Power Cell.

Depressingly I don't see people in and out of governments being ready to make the kind of changes now needed to avoid busting not only a 1.5C rise but 2C and more. If we'd acted 25 years ago when the needed changes would have been smaller we may have made it.

*I bored my friends to death some 30 years ago about the danger of Global Warming and some 10 years ago gave up because all my efforts merely made me depressed. Now 70 and with a permanently disabled wife I drive a Hybrid, keep my mileage down to a third of what I might do if I didn't care, but I know I'm still part of the problem.
 

sasquath

Well-Known Member
Read the article - they aren't MY figures!

But note that it depends on how your mains electricity is generated. Polish coal power can ruin all this.
Check this out:
My average power on commute run is 180w. It's strava calculated, not actual data. And yes, I can't go easy, always flat out.
My average calories consumption is 360kcal per 25 minutes of commute.
My mechanical output is 75Wh
My fuel intake is 418Wh
My efficiency is 17%
Averag coal power plant efficiency is 33%

E-bike charged using 100% coal electricity and running 50/50 muscle/battery power has roughly 20% lower co2/km. And roughly 40% lower co2/km when run on pure battery power.
 
Top Bottom