Interesting Article on the sustainability of bicycles on solar.lowtechmagazine.com/

[Deleted member 69416]

Do you think modern less expensive bikes are comparable in quality to their retro equivalents ? Did older cheaper bikes have less on them than their expensive counterparts as opposed to the same features but of a much lower quality ? Disposable society , landfill fodder bikes ?

 

[grantoury]

Do you think modern less expensive bikes are comparable in quality to their retro equivalents ? Did older cheaper bikes have less on them than their expensive counterparts as opposed to the same features but of a much lower quality ? Disposable society , landfill fodder bikes ?

Your question made me think of this illustration, of BSA fork choices from the 30s:



Clearly here quality concerns the beauty of the part, the quality of the material to a lesser extent.

I think that since that time production has increased and therefore simplified or unified and production values have become lower for affordable objects. To the point where we are now, that some things are made to break, so the manufacturer secures for himself a market.

 

[Deleted member 69416]

Your question made me think of this illustration, of BSA fork choices from the 30s:

View attachment 735454

Clearly here quality concerns the beauty of the part, the quality of the material to a lesser extent.

I think that since that time production has increased and therefore simplified or unified and production values have become lower for affordable objects. To the point where we are now, that some things are made to break, so the manufacturer secures for himself a market.

So we now accept , no corner left uncut , for a lower bottom line price but a specification that looks , to the uninitiated , to offer the same as a more expensive item . All the while knowing {sub consciously?} that it's landfill really ?

 

[grantoury]

So we now accept , no corner left uncut , for a lower bottom line price but a specification that looks , to the uninitiated , to offer the same as a more expensive item . All the while knowing {sub consciously?} that it's landfill really ?

All based on the naivety of the buyer.

 

[Imlach]

Cheap suspension bikes are a good example of bicycles built to be entirely disposable. The suspension is there for nothing but looking the part, not allowed for offroad use, seizes up almost instantly and isn't serviceable

 

[CassidyAce]

I'm not sure how to expand, but I'll try since you want me to.
To me bicycle is deeply political because to me it is very much the antithesis to the direction things are going. People are desperately searching for ethical ways to continue living as luxuriously and comfortably as they are today, but everything is pointing towards humans having to make do with less, but they aren't willing to make compromises. and to genuinely make a difference, that is a requirement.

And by difference, I mean a difference not just applying to the population white, western world, which of course is more easily saved that the godforsaken south in the minds of idealists. The bicycle is therefore deeply political to me, as it acts as a solid stand point. If someone refuses to drive a motorised vehicle and instead drives an 'organically driven' vehicle like a bicycle, then that's a huge positive.

The problem though is that the bicycle industry as a whole now follows the direction of the car industry, and it's a popularity contests pushing utter nonsense you don't need. So, promoting the buying of second hand bicycles and pushing for old standards to be preserved is a good idea. Because it takes away the wasteful side of the cycling industry and focuses on the good. The bicycle could change the world in the urban regions around the world, but if we're merely pushing another luxury, expensive lithium mined electric bicycles, all that effort is wasted. Why destroy something that could be beautifully sustainable long term for the sake of a trend that won't last?

We have to reject the consumerist elements of the bicycling industry. We have to make longevous bicycle available to the masses so they can get to explore the world on their own terms while improving their physical and mental health, and we've found through a multitude of studies that exercising is the key to tackling many of the stresses and pains on modern day society, and if that's the case then I think it's worth investing into. And I think it should be pushed and encouraged in every way possible.

I thought that might be interesting, and it was: the bicycle as both symbol and means of sustainability, and its corruption by consumer capitalism. I guess the inherent conflict between the imperatives of ecology and the imperatives of capitalism are reflected in bicycles as much as anything else, and perhaps the conflict is reflected in bicycles more than much else.

I'm not surprised by that. The article seems to have set out with a particular position in mind, and found evidence to support it. One thing that also occurred to me is from the original article is that the author has a fairly high mileage for each ride (which suggests it's not for utility purposes only) - and one way of making a bike last longer is to do less miles. I suspect a lot of people who use bikes just for utility make them last a really long time. I've seen people commuting on/riding to the pub on what many would regard as knackered old BSOs for years - they might only be doing 1-5 miles slowly each way but it all adds up.

Yes. There did appear to be an element of confirming a pre-existing opinion. The writer also uses Reynolds steel for the comparison and Reynolds uses 100% recycled steel; recycled steel does not have the carbon footprint of new steel, so the contrast with other materials was heightened. In any case, some new developments might reduce environmental footprints in the long run: stainless steel disc brake rotors presumably have a lower environmental impact than the replacement aluminium rims that rim brakes will eventually require.

 

[greencat]

So we now accept , no corner left uncut , for a lower bottom line price but a specification that looks , to the uninitiated , to offer the same as a more expensive item . All the while knowing {sub consciously?} that it's landfill really ?

For three hundred quid or thereabouts you get a lot more new bike now then you did in the 90s. My first proper mountain bike was a Saracen Sahara equipped with 200GS for £300. My most recent was a Vitus Nucleus 27 VR for £340. It has passable front suspension, hydraulic disc brakes and tyres that won't try to kill you (mostly). It's already lasted longer without anything needing repair and seems to have less plastic too.

 

[Deleted member 69416]

For three hundred quid or thereabouts you get a lot more new bike now then you did in the 90s. My first proper mountain bike was a Saracen Sahara equipped with 200GS for £300. My most recent was a Vitus Nucleus 27 VR for £340. It has passable front suspension, hydraulic disc brakes and tyres that won't try to kill you (mostly). It's already lasted longer without anything needing repair and seems to have less plastic too.

By the 90's the current mindset was firmly established and we were paying a premium for mtbs as they were , relatively , the newer thing . I was thinking further back than that ,{50s , 60s and 70s} when the choices were more limited by the materials available and local manufacturing was still financially viable and people expected things to last longer . I didn't say that , apologies . That said £340 for a Vitus of that spec is a great deal , kudos .
Edit : I just checked and Vitus are listing it at £600 , still a good deal .

 

[grantoury]

Yes. There did appear to be an element of confirming a pre-existing opinion. The writer also uses Reynolds steel for the comparison and Reynolds uses 100% recycled steel; recycled steel does not have the carbon footprint of new steel, so the contrast with other materials was heightened. In any case, some new developments might reduce environmental footprints in the long run: stainless steel disc brake rotors presumably have a lower environmental impact than the replacement aluminium rims that rim brakes will eventually require.

It is clear that the writer is biased, I agree. But that doesn't mean the article can't be helpful. Even if the writer's bias is the same as my own...

 

[CassidyAce]

It is clear that the writer is biased, I agree. But that doesn't mean the article can't be helpful. Even if the writer's bias is the same as my own...

Yes, I agree. Some of the details can be challenged but the author does raise important issues and has provoked a lot of thinking about them. As you said, it's an 'interesting article.'