Touring - Ortlieb Classic vs Plus fabric

Hi, I'm going to be in the market for a new set of Ortlieb panniers soon, and currently I'm pondering the choice between the Classic (thick pvc) and Plus (thin coated cordura). I know the "conventional wisdom" is that the Plus is supposed to actually be tougher, but I have read the odd comment here and there that implies the Classic material might actually be more tough in the real world. The Plus is supposed to put up with being rolled up regularly better, but I've read that the Plus doesn't dry as fast, and holds onto mud and dirt more, whereas the Classic is much easier to wash off, and is, well, thicker.

I have had a set of the front & back roller plus since 1998, and did a TransAm with them back then. They seemed fine, of course. A pitbull put a hole in one of my rear ones, which I recently sent back to Ortlieb USA to have professionally fixed. They said the bag was unrepairable, due to the large amount of Seam Grip goop I had put on the thing for the temp repair. But they also said that there turned out to be a number of "pinhole" tears elsewhere on the bag. It just makes me wonder if the thicker Classic material might actually be tougher.

Anybody got any insights there?

Thanks!

Neil

I have both. Classic up front, plus in the back.

They're both amazing. You can't really go wrong, but I'll tell my experience.

My front ones are 1st or 2nd generation classics from a LONG time ago and have about 10,000 miles on them. The only issue I've had is a small puncture hole from severe overstuffing (a u-lock end got pushed through).

My rear are the "tourist" panniers. They are made of the plus material. They definitely scuff and hold onto dirt more than the classics, but it will happen on either type.

I can't speak to the long-term durability of the plus fabric.

Are your front classic style panniers the rolltop kind? If so, I'm curious as to how the classic pvc has dealt with the frequent rolling. I've heard that it has a tendency to weaken in areas of constant folding because it is stiffer, which eventually causes those spots to fatigue.

I find myself kind of wanting to try out the Classic, if only because of some kind of gut feeling that the thicker classic material may actually be more robust. Ortlieb USA pushes the cordura Plus, saying that it is more environmentally friendly (not sure why) and lighter, and more flexible etc, but to be honest I can't see how a material that is lighter, easily frayed and easily scuffed can be more durable than a thicker material that is inherently waterproof (as opposed to requiring a coating). The Plus material is coated on the inside, which I can imagine over time would eventually wear off with constant use. Of course, Ortliebs have such an excellent reputation that this may not be an issue at all... but still, the thicker material on the Classic has me thinking. If anyone can put me right here, please feel free...

Thanks again!

Neil

On our tour we each had one set of classics and one set of plus. The classic material is more durable, resists mud and dirt better, is easier to clean and faster to dry. The plus material is a tad lighter weight and looks more like a bag and less rubber-raft like the classics.

That said, we met a nice Dutch couple while traveling who told us of a European based boycott of Ortlieb packs a few years back because the classic material is PVC. In response Ortlieb began the Plus line which is not PVC based and issued a full set of.....

http://www.greenpeace.de/typo3temp/GB/d2cf65eb0b.jpg

PVC is evil. That is why I chose the new style Ortlieb.

PCV is poly-vinyl-chlorine, and is a huge environmental nightmare. The dioxin pollution from PVC manufacture is horrific, and if burned and/or landfilled when you're done using them, dioxin, lead, and other contaminants are released. There are other nasties, but, this seems enough to list here. You can do a search; I used "pvc environmental pollution", and got several nice links. The one below is the one of the more terse summaries:

http://www.healthybuilding.net/pvc/ThorntonPVCSummary.html

I avoid PVC like the plague, at home and on my bike.

I have the plus fabric, traditional (hood-over-top) style. I like them very much. The fabric is lightweight but strong. I use them for commuting as well as touring. I've put books, glass-jar quarts of milk, and clothes, and they hold up just fine. I'm not sure anything will stop a pitbull from biting through anything, but I'm also not buying everything to withstand a pitbull. If so, I'd end up riding a car.

Damn... so every time I buy an Ortlieb Classic pannier, God kills a kitten?

I was getting ready to decide on the classic style, since it seems they are a bit more robust and easier to clean, etc.

If it's so bad, why do they even still make it at all?

Damn... so every time I buy an Ortlieb Classic pannier, God kills a kitten?

I was getting ready to decide on the classic style, since it seems they are a bit more robust and easier to clean, etc.

If it's so bad, why do they even still make it at all?


No, be reassured. It's fine to buy them as long as you recite 100 mea culpas whenever you reach your campsite.;)

Are your front classic style panniers the rolltop kind? If so, I'm curious as to how the classic pvc has dealt with the frequent rolling.I've got the old classic roll top rear panniers. They're several years old now, and I use one or both of them daily while commuting. No problems so far with frequent rolling.

--J

To answer your question Neil, I use the "packer" variety, and don't do any rolling. Frankly, the rolling I find unnecessary. Is anyone really submerging their bikes lol?

Frankly, the rolling I find unnecessary. Is anyone really submerging their bikes lol?Hopefully not, and Ortlieb advises against submerging the Rollers too. But in my case, for example, the panniers sometimes double as drysacks in kayak on short paddle trips. I'll bike to the seashore anyways, so it's handy to just throw them in the boat from the rear rack.

--J

On the Roller vs Packer thing: When I camp, I usually leave the panniers just outside the tent, under the vestibule. There have been times when it rained very heavily overnight, and the panniers ended up on their sides in a deep puddle. I always liked knowing that even if that happened, my stuff was still going to be bone dry. No "if" or "as long as it stays upright...". I know that the usual case for panniers is to be upright, but on tour "stuff happens". Also, I've read elsewhere that the Packer design isn't bug proof (ants, specifically, as I recall). So that "100% waterproof" thing can actually come in handy at times, even if you think you won't need it... I guess if you were going somewhere really dusty then the rolltop would probably keep that stuff out better too. Dust has a way of finding its way into the most unlikely places - anywhere that's not totally sealed, basically.

I need to take myself back to the TransAm I did, and remember the big lesson I took away from that - keep it simple. I really, really liked my Ortlieb panniers on that trip. I guess I'm talking myself into getting the Rollers again, and I'm curious as to whether the Classics would be more durable... seems to me they might just be, kittens aside.

So now I just need to figure out just how I feel about kittens.

Why do they still make PVC panniers? Same reason people still make PVC pipe, and PVC shower curtains, etc...

Ortlieb is in business to make money, and there is still a demand for PVC panniers.

I don't think it's good for anyone to be using PVC when there are lots of other alternatives. I also don't think it's good when people buy 10,000 sq foot Mcmansions for their family of three to live in, or when they buy SUVs for solo twenty mile commutes to work, or that people still think it's OK to have pizzas delivered to their house. But people do things that deleteriously impact the sustainability of our society all the time. Mostly, I think, it's due to a lack of education and societal norms that are shaped by marketing.

Damn... so every time I buy an Ortlieb Classic pannier, God kills a kitten?

I was getting ready to decide on the classic style, since it seems they are a bit more robust and easier to clean, etc.

If it's so bad, why do they even still make it at all?

Not just kittens, but fish and deer and elk and elephants and tigers and birds (think soft egg shells) and ... people, especially around the areas where this stuff is produced, who also don't have the money to go to a doctor when they are sick from the poisoning and are less likely to have a lawyer to defend them and force this kind of thing from being manufactured.

As for why it's still being made---politicians. But, if you don't buy it, there will be less demand for it.

Aside, in the usual BF way: One thing you did not mention in your question was the Carradice (sp?) bags. Have you considered these? I've been reading in this forum how some members have field-tested the waxed cotton bags and seem to like them and feel they are waterproof enough. I might consider these once my Ortliebs have fallen apart. Cotton is one of the more polluting fibers ever grown, and it would be very interesting to see a comparison on the petro-chemical use and pollution of the cotton vs. the thin-coated cordura.

I've used canvas type bags before, and wasn't all that impressed. I found that the nice thick material was quite stiff and tended to always fold in the same place to produce little peaks, which then frayed because they tend to always get brushed first. Maybe other people have different experiences, but that's just mine.

I guess the PVC thing is one of those "where do you draw your line" things. There are just so many things in this world to care about that if you really paid attention then it wouldn't be possible to participate in modern life at all. I mean, not to get this thread too off-topic, but for example that applies to everybody here: Computers. They are incredibly toxic, people in Asia are getting very sick from scavenging through piles of old discarded hardware. And electricity - we all use it, and in the US it's produced often by coal, which is a huge polluter. And that computer (and websites) you're using now? Apparently carbon dioxide emissions from information and communications technology is on the same level as the aviation industry - 2 percent of global emissions (New Scientist, 5th Jan 2008, p.20). And how many things we buy now are made in China? Nothing against China itself, mind you, but there was a recent issue of Mother Jones magazine that went into all the issues there in depressing detail. I quite honestly find myself overwhelmed by the number of things that we might do, but don't. So some people go live on a commune or whatever, but that doesn't really solve the problem. They still depend on the larger products of the toxic society in which we live, they benefit from all the little advantages that our total domination of the planet provides. And who hasn't visited Wal-Mart on occasion, "just this once" because what you need just ain't available anyplace else?

Yes, we have choices. I'm not trying to defend anything, or make any righteous stand. Even if I shop organic and buy local and ride my bike, I'm pretty much a polluting scumbag along with everybody else in one way or another, and I know it. We all just do what we can and draw our own little lines in the sand. For some people that'll include eschewing PVC panniers, for others it'll mean moving to Alaska and living off the land. Trouble is, not everybody can go live off the land - the planet just couldn't support it, we need agriculture, and transportation, and energy production... ugh, it's a huge problem, I get a headache just thinking about it. Basic thing, as far as I can see, is that the biggest possible benefit any of us can do for the world is simply to not have any more kids. There's already enough people, as far as I can tell, and they all want the same quality of life that Americans enjoy, and that's going to be a huge problem in the years to come. If there were just fewer people, then things would be a lot better. So no kids for me thanks. But everybody draws their own line, so I don't want to make this into an environmental "more sustainable than thou" thing.

On the scale of things, PVC panniers... I dunno. I'm already depressed, I just want to get some bags that'll last a good long time and not get little pinprick holes in them like my "Plus" ones evidently did. I've been trawling the net for opinions on Classic vs Plus, and I seem to keep reading little asides from people about how the Plus got holes more quickly than the Classics, and how the Classics probably last a lot longer. So what if the Classics do last longer? Doesn't that offset some downside?

Ok, ok, I can see there's no way to come out of this one looking good... if I buy the Classics, it's pretty much indefensible and I'm a polluting scumbag. Damn, ignorance really was bliss... I really shouldn't ask so many questions.

Neil

What about buying a set of used Classics? You're reusing something somebody doesn't want anymore and potentially saving it from the dump. It's a win win!

Ok, ok, I can see there's no way to come out of this one looking good... if I buy the Classics, it's pretty much indefensible and I'm a polluting scumbag. Damn, ignorance really was bliss... I really shouldn't ask so many questions.

Neil

Look at it like the Kyoto Accord, you do good for the environment every day by biking, so you get some "credits". Then you cash them in when you buy PVC panniers. Happy Touring!

I have both styles of Ortlieb fabric [Plus and the Classic] as well as both the roll top and the bike packer style panniers. They are all good and in a pinch I'd use any combination of them. Given a choice I prefer the PVC material. I don't think the environmental impact is an issue that would keep me up at night buying panniers every 10 years or so.

I like the bike packer bags better than the roll top, but it isn't a big difference.

Some choices are hard, some are easy. When the market offers basically equivalent products, I try to support the manufacturer whose product is environmentally friendlier. Ortlieb has certified that the PLUS have NO PVCs. That's worth supporting.

God won't kill a kitten. The PVC kitten has rabies and will come to play with your children and grandchildren. (Yeah, that's over the top, but do some reading...PVC products are very profitable, but very toxic during the manufacturing and disposal phases of their existence)

I know the rollers are waterproof even when submerged. However, let's say my panniers are going to encounter a windy day where it pours all day. Are the Plus panniers as waterproof as the Classics?

I'm thinking I'll get rollers. I'm thinking that top bit that normally gets rolled might afford some extra space for a loaf of bread, or cans of chili if I really need some extra space.

Any comments?

Thanks!

I know the rollers are waterproof even when submerged. However, let's say my panniers are going to encounter a windy day where it pours all day. Are the Plus panniers as waterproof as the Classics?

I'm thinking I'll get rollers. I'm thinking that top bit that normally gets rolled might afford some extra space for a loaf of bread, or cans of chili if I really need some extra space.

Any comments?

Thanks!

Plus & Classic materials are both 100% waterproof.

I think you have the right outlook on this. Nobody can be perfect, and it sounds like you are doing the best that you can. You've researched all of the alternatives, and you are making an informed decision to go with a PVC bag. It may be polluting, but it's still infinitely better than traveling in an RV. Maybe the next time that you need to purchase panniers somebody will have invented a good replacement for PVC.

I'm thinking that top bit that normally gets rolled might afford some extra space for a loaf of bread, or cans of chili if I really need some extra space.I've cycled with unrolled Rollers with just the closing strap buckled over the top (when I needed ventilation for the damp clothes inside, for example). You need to be careful and watch for the weather and such, obviously, but it works.

--J

I think you have the right outlook on this. Nobody can be perfect, and it sounds like you are doing the best that you can. You've researched all of the alternatives, and you are making an informed decision to go with a PVC bag. It may be polluting, but it's still infinitely better than traveling in an RV. Maybe the next time that you need to purchase panniers somebody will have invented a good replacement for PVC.

umm, I think dioxins are actually worse than traveling in an RV--unless there's more PVC in an RV than the PVC bags.

Dioxins are just nasty.


And, I'm a little surprised (level of 'WTF') at the analogy about poor in other countries taking apart computers and being exposed to toxins? Oy! The computer situation is NOT relevant to panniers. Double Oy!

In the case of panniers, we have a choice. No PVC or PVC.

In the case of computers, (I'm 99% certain) we don't have a choice of materials being used. We can't order a mercury/lead/silicon/etc-free computer. We can do things like cut back on how many computers in our lifetime we own, replace parts instead of buying a new computer, do research on the companies who recycle computer parts and find out what type of OSHA standards they are following/not following, and/or determine how much is recycled overseas (and thus likely no OSHA standards being followed).

Attempting to use only poison-free computers would end many of our careers. Using PVC-free panniers won't end our careers, won't end our biking, and our stuff would still be dry.

It's a no-brainer to stick w/ the 'plus' for me, I have 2 bags in that fabric, they are light, waterproof, tough (no punctures despite extensive packing folding crumpling). There is a price difference, but once you gulp down that, well, you've got panniers for a long time.

Tangential to waxed cotton, I wonder if Soma will come out w/ waxed hemp/linen panniers to go with their wedgepacks: http://www.somafab.com/bags.html

Flowerblossom,

It's not a straightforward choice. If the two products (PVC and non-PVC) were equivalent in every way, then it would be easy, of course. But the whole point of this thread was that it looks like the PVC version is actually better, in that it is tougher and will last longer. True, both products are 100% waterproof when new. But the big question for me was how waterproof they would remain after heavy extended use on tour. As far as I can tell, the Classic material is quite a bit tougher in that respect than the Plus. So then it becomes a question of, What are you willing to put up with? What tradeoffs are you willing to make? Do you see it as being a big issue to buy a pair of these panniers every ten years or so? Who knows, maybe the environmental impact of two pairs of the Plus panniers exceeds the environmental impact of one pair of the Classic. I have no idea. But I am buying these bags maybe once in a decade. To be truthful, I don't really see the PVC issue in bicycle panniers as looming large in my life. I know it's an indefensible position, because no doubt you can point to lots of studies that prove just how bad PVC is. The simple truth is that I guess I don't care enough about one set of bags in 10 years. If it was something I was buying every week and discarding similarly frequently, then I'd probably pay more attention. But not once in ten years. Sorry. Just being honest.

People can feel free to beat me up about this, really. It's your right. But don't forget that there are 1001 other toxic products in your life which, let's face it, you could probably give up if you really wanted to. But you don't, because it's convenient to keep them around and keep using them. If anybody denies this, and tries to pretend that they are some kind of super righteous uber being who always does what's right and has zero environmental impact, then fine, good for you. If you have any children, that's probably the biggest single negative environmental action you will ever take in your life, propagating the human species. Over that child's lifetime, they will produce yet more pollution and consume yet more resources. If we were all totally honest about it, then the best thing we could all do is just leave. I mean it. We're bad for the place, it's better off without us.

Sorry if there's no snappy ending to this, I'm not really in the mood and anyway, it just seems like one of those things where there's no good answer. I'm tired of caring about every damn thing in my life and having zero impact on the world as a result. It seems like we can all use organic food and long life lightbulbs but it doesn't seem to be doing one whit of good - the rainforests continue to be cut down, the oceans continue to be fished to extinction, and the air continues to be filled with toxins. I'm tired of caring.

Neil

A few years ago I stumbled upon the journal of a couple who had ridden from Singapore to China (http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3Tzut&doc_id=853&v=1fP) and read it with great interest. Weeks later, in a chance encounter, I had the pleasure of meeting the same couple.

That journal and chance meeting changed my life forever.


I'm tired of caring about every damn thing in my life and having zero impact on the world as a result.

Your impact is far from zero.

umm, I think dioxins are actually worse than traveling in an RV--unless there's more PVC in an RV than the PVC bags.



If I remember correctly, the insulation for a lot of electronic wires is made of PVC. RVs have miles of wiring and dozens of electronic devices. The amount of PVC in an RV could easily be comparable to that of a set of panniers.

It's easy to get disillusioned. But I think your heart is in the right place. Why would you tour by bicycle if you weren't compassionate about environmental impacts? I don't think most people are doing this for the sore ass.

If this discussion doesn't bum you out about the unintended consequences of how we live, you might try reading The World Without Us (http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html). This is a very well written book about the impacts that humans have had on the world and how long some of them will be around. Incidentally, it is on CD if you want to listen to it while you ride with your MP3 player.

One of the things I didn't know was that there are places in the oceans (I think 5 in total) where there is a permanent high pressure and the wind only blows into them, not out (the Doldrums). All the trash that enters the oceans (most of what is thrown away?) eventually ends up in one of these 5 places, breaking down as much as it can in water along the way. The description of what is there and how much of it there is was truly eye opening and has made me even more aware of how much plastic there is and how much ends up in my own trashcans. I am even more vigilant about reusing plastic food bags (or not taking them in the first place) since I read the book.

I don't mean to hijack the thread (any more than it already has been) but PVC is one thing to be aware of among hundreds of others. If we are going to pay attention to PVC, then we should also be aware of what other things (we use everyday) we might watch out for.

Ray

I've been wanting to read that book for a while now. It seems that the discovery and history channels have developed shows that seem to be inspired by that book. Too bad I don't have a television, as they might be pretty good.

My wife and I will be getting two new sets of Ortlieb roller classics.
I do not know the policy of Ortlieb but for many products sold in Europe there is a special "tax" that everyone pays for products that contain dangerous chemicals. This "tax" is payed for the safe disposal and/or recycle of these items, tv sets, computers, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc...
I don't know about other places but I believe there is enough being done (here) for the enviroment so we will not be losing any sleep for purchasing a few bicycle panniers.

I need to bump this. It is a straight-forward choice. Making a pros-cons list doesn't work with dioxins. Dioxin is the single-most deadliest chemical ever known to humans. And we are producing tons of it each year.

Apologies I didn't state this more clearly sooner.

While PVC might last longer, it truly lasts longer in ways we don't want it to last, amongst other issues. Buying PVC once is waaaaaay too much.

For a simple but elegant explanation (watch the whole thing, it's worth it):

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Or Google "dioxins".

YOU might not see the effects, yet, or know that the effects of PVC/dioxins are occurring, but it's out there. As I stated earlier, there is no pro/cons argument or rationale that can make PVC a more-reasonable choice. It's insanely horrible stuff.

Don't get me wrong; I have a feeling more people will be compelled to buy PVC by my constant arguments against it than dissuaded. But, I had to say it. It's the truth, and someone's gotta say it.

Don't get me wrong; I have a feeling more people will be compelled to buy PVC by my constant arguments against it than dissuaded. But, I had to say it. It's the truth, and someone's gotta say it.

If that's your logic than you are saying making yourself feel good by posting about PVC is more important to you than the negative impacts of PVC on the environment. That's some twisted logic....:rolleyes:

The problem with jumping on one aspect of a product like this is that you are not assessing the whole life cycle impact and you are not assessing the performance of the product. You also have no idea where Ortlieb in particular gets the Classic fabric for its bags and what the environmental impacts of that source are. If you want to do the necessary research than you could come up with some useful information to base a decision on.

Here is an excerpt from this website (http://www.vintex.com/Environment.htm). I don't provide it to prove anything other than it is a complex issue that is not easily resolved in a cycling forum.

"Are products containing vinyl or PVC safe for the environment?

Yes. Recent studies have shown that vinyl products are as safe and environmentally acceptable throughout their life (from extraction of materials to recycling/disposal) as other commonly used materials – and, in fact, can be better than some alternatives. Most recently, the European Commission concluded a comprehensive review of 250 life-cycle assessments of PVC and competing materials. The Commission found that vinyl products offer environmental benefits equal to or better than those of other materials.

The manufacture of vinyl uses as little as one-third the energy of alternative materials. In packaging alone, vinyl saves the equivalent of 2 million barrels of oil per year compared to a common, competing material. Its manufacture also releases less carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) than many competing materials. Almost all the scrap generated in the manufacture of vinyl products is recycled back into the next production run."

That web site belongs to a PVC manufacturer. As I recall, makers of asbestos, and tobacco, to name only a few, made similar safety claims regarding their products.

The arguments for the Classic bags that I've read in this thread seem to summarize to:

1. I want Classics.

2. I know PVCs are bad but, gosh, something else might be worse.

Do what you will, buy what you want. I sure can't stop you. But don't try and rationalize your decisions and convince yourself that PVCs are a better choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride

That web site belongs to a PVC manufacturer. As I recall, makers of asbestos, and tobacco, to name only a few, made similar safety claims regarding their products.

The arguments for the Classic bags that I've read in this thread seem to summarize to:

1. I want Classics.

2. I know PVCs are bad but, gosh, something else might be worse.

Do what you will, buy what you want. I sure can't stop you. But don't try and rationalize your decisions and convince yourself that PVCs are a better choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride

I read the Wikki link before posting as well as quite a few other sites from both perspectives. Unless you have determined where Ortlieb gets its PVC from how in the world can you tell me that the PVC impact from that source is worse than the life cycle impact of the Plus fabric panniers? I'd say you are rationalizing the choice not to buy Classic panniers because you clearly aren't basing it on any actual knowledge of the manufacturing impacts and life cycle consequences of the specific material at hand.

The fact is PVC is ubiquitous in a huge number of products we all use and are used to support our societies. The only solution to mitigating environmental impacts is not to do away with the product. You can mitigate the impacts by addressing them at the various stages they occur.

It always sounds really noble to back up your own rationalization with "...I'm saving the environment!...", but the fact is nobody in this thread who is anti-PVC has come up with any specific information about the fabric Ortlieb is using or what the life cycle of that fabric is vs. the Plus material. If you have no specific information applicable to the decision then how can you jump to such a certain conclusion?

From the limited research I have done the dioxin problem with PVC is at the production and disposal stage. Both of which have solutions. So assuming the manufacturer Ortlieb sources their PVC from uses state of the art processes/equipment to avoid dioxin contamination and you dispose of the classic panniers in a way that doesn't release dioxins [avoid low temp incineration] what is the problem????

I'm simply pointing out that nobody in this thread has demonstrated any significant understanding of the specific life cycle environmental impacts of either choice and therefore any conclusion based on it is meaningless. You have no idea if the buying/using a set of Classic panniers has more or less environmental impact than a pair of plus panniers.

If someone really wants the classics, but is being held back by some aspect(s) of the environmental issues, there are some other options that might potentially resolve the dilemma.

One option is to do some kind of compensatory work, or take some actions that will make up for (or more than make up for) the environmental impacts that are of concern.

Neil, I defer to your greater experience, but if the only issue with the cordura bags is durability could you reinforce the corners - eg. use fabric glue or urethane glue/sealant to glue corner protectors made of a layer or two of nylon cloth or even hard plastic. The corners and bottom edge of a pannier are the only places I've seen significant wear.

If you really want the PVC, just get the PVC. Yes there are issues, yes commercial pressure will help dissuade the manufacturers from using it - but if you really want the PVC, just get the PVC.

Or, like I said earlier, buy a pair of used Classics. Re-using these panniers doesn't damage the environment. When you're done using them, and if they're still in good condition, sell them to somebody else. If they're in bad shape and unrepairable, consider using them for something else.

If you have any children, that's probably the biggest single negative environmental action you will ever take in your life, propagating the human species. Over that child's lifetime, they will produce yet more pollution and consume yet more resources. If we were all totally honest about it, then the best thing we could all do is just leave. I mean it. We're bad for the place, it's better off without us.
Neil

Most radical post, eV-AR.
:eek:

The world was created for our use (not abuse, though). The answer is to stop being so wasteful, not stop having children..... We're supposed to propagate the species.

My vote goes for the classic style panniers. Cordura isn't so easy to clean. The PVC in these panniers isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what is used in the construction industry (PVC pipe for example). The environmental impact question is really a moot point in this case. The Cordura panniers are just Ortlieb's answer to the euro-hippie boycott.

Just buy one of them and forget about it.
No damn difference that you'll notice.

The world was created for our use (not abuse, though).



Most anthropocentric post EVER!

What a ridiculous idea, that the world was created for us. The world existed long before humans got here, and it will be here long after we are gone.

I don't think there is any call for the elimination of the human species, but reducing our global population would probably be a smart move, in addition to reducing the per capita consumption and impact on the planet.

Perhaps we could all try to eliminate our own personal consumption of pvc. If you build a house or replace existing plumbing you could choose to use good old copper, instead of using more pvc. You can't control other people's behavior, but that doesn't mean that you have to make the same bad choices that they do, and that includes bicycle panniers. If you know what you're doing is bad, and you know that there are reasonable alternatives that are less bad, there is no excuse to not make the right consumption decisions. Now if you think that pvc panniers are so superior to cordura that you don't even consider cordura to be a viable option, that's one thing. But if you base your decision solely on which material is easier to clean, regardless of environmental impacts, well that's a pretty lazy way of thinking.

Just buy one of them and forget about it.
No damn difference that you'll notice.

Assuming that you don't live downstream from a PVC factory, you'll never notice the difference.

The fact is PVC is ubiquitous in a huge number of products we all use and are used to support our societies. The only solution to mitigating environmental impacts is not to do away with the product. You can mitigate the impacts by addressing them at the various stages they occur.

From the limited research I have done the dioxin problem with PVC is at the production and disposal stage. Both of which have solutions. So assuming the manufacturer Ortlieb sources their PVC from uses state of the art processes/equipment to avoid dioxin contamination and you dispose of the classic panniers in a way that doesn't release dioxins [avoid low temp incineration] what is the problem????


The problem is that those are some huge assumptions to make. Depending on where you dispose of your trash, you have no idea what the ultimate destination of your panniers will be after they are thrown away. Unless you plan on burying your panniers in your own back yard when you are done with them, you can't be sure that they won't be incinerated. And seeing as Ortlieb hasn't bothered to certify the environmental credentials of their PVC manufacturers, I'd have to assume that they are not using PVC that comes from state of the art manufacturers. If they were, which would mean they would probably be paying a great deal more for it, I'm pretty sure that they would be trumpeting that fact on their website.

Yes, no one has presented any solutions for completely eliminating PVC from the market, but that doesn't mean that making MORE of it than is absolutely necessary is a good thing. Especially because there are perfectly reasonable non-PVC products that can replace all of the uses of PVC that I know of. PVC is just used because it is cheap and easy to work with. Curbing PVC consumption can be looked at in a similar fashion to curbing CO2 emissions. Nobody has come up with a way to completely eliminate anthropogenic sources of CO2, but that doesn't mean that it's alright to crank up your air conditioning or drive (or fly) around in a gas guzzling vehicle.

Most anthropocentric post EVER!

What a ridiculous idea, that the world was created for us. The world existed long before humans got here, and it will be here long after we are gone.


{thread hijack mode fully engaged**

It is actually not ridiculous. See Genesis. The earth was in fact, made for us only days before the first man was created. This earth is not some accident of evolution or whatever other convoluted theory modern science is pushing these days. I am in in fact a scientist myself and used to buy into the whole evolution thing until I did some research. There are so many holes in the whole "big bang" theory. I could spend 2 hours talking about them all.




If you build a house or replace existing plumbing you could choose to use good old copper, instead of using more pvc.

Wrong. Copper and PVC are not interchangeable in plumbing applications. Each has their specific use. I want to see you use copper for your drain lines and vents.

CPVC is the only PVC that can handle hot water in supply lines and it is rarely used anymore. Regular PVC cannot be used for hot water supply. Copper and PEX (polyethelyne) are the most common supply lines used nowdays.

PVC is used in DWV applications (drain and waste vent (sewer lines and vent lines)). There is (to my knowledge) NO suitable alternative to PVC in this application. Before PVC, iron was used for vent stacks and drain lines. It can be argued that using iron is more damaging to the environment b/c of the huge increase in transportation costs/fuel not to mention the shorter lifespan.

So there really is no choice here. Not saying they couldn't come up with something different.. just that nothing exists today.

It is actually not ridiculous. See Genesis. The earth was in fact, made for us only days before the first man was created. This earth is not some accident of evolution or whatever other convoluted theory modern science is pushing these days. I am in in fact a scientist myself and used to buy into the whole evolution thing until I did some research. There are so many holes in the whole "big bang" theory. I could spend 2 hours talking about them all.

There are no holes in the big bang theory.

There are no holes in the big bang theory.

Hole #1: Life cannot "evolve" from non-living matter. If you agree with this, the debate is over.


.
.
.
.

Hole #9,999,999: Where did the first matter come from?

Hole #1: Life cannot "evolve" from non-living matter. If you agree with this, the debate is over.

Hole #2: An "explosion" cannot create ordered complex things. It creates disorder. You don't explode a stick of dynamite and expect to get a BMW.

.
.
.
.

Hole #9,999,999: Where did the first matter come from?

What is life? It is a complex series of chemical interactions. No mystery there. You take an aqueous solution of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc, and add energy, you get complex chemistry. Given a lot of time, say hundreds of millions of years, and trillions of chemical interactions, it isn't surprising that life results.

You don't go from an explosion immediately to a BMW, or to a simple bacteria, for that matter. First you get energy, which was present at the time of the big bang. Energy and matter are pretty much the same thing (E=MC^2). Quantum theory predicts that there will be inherent irregularities in the distribution of matter, even if it is distributed evenly at the time of the big bang, which isn't necessarily a correct assumption to begin with. Irregularities lead to variations in the distribution of matter, so that some areas will be more dense than others. Gravitation will lead to magnifications of minor variations in the distribution of matter, so that dense areas will become extremely dense, and less dense areas will become much less dense. The very dense areas become stars. Small stars produce light elements, large stars also produce light elements, but also some heavier elements. Those heavy elements get distributed when stars die out. Those heavy elements get incorporated into planets. On planets, chemistry leads to simple life. Simple life becomes more complex through the process of evolution. Complex life builds BMWs.

Matter comes from energy (E=MC^2). Where does the energy come from? Well that is a hole. Nobody knows why the big bang happened, or why it was so energetic. But creationists can't explain the origin of a supernatural all-powerful deity. And any explanation of such a deity would inherently be more complex than explaining the origin of the energy that is contained in the universe, and no religion offers any reasonable explanation for the ultimate origin of any deity in the first place. Thus Genesis offers an inferior hypothesis to the big bang theory.

Matter comes from energy (E=MC^2). Where does the energy come from? Well that is a hole. Nobody knows why the big bang happened, or why it was so energetic. But creationists can't explain the origin of a supernatural all-powerful deity. And any explanation of such a deity would inherently be more complex than explaining the origin of the energy that is contained in the universe, and no religion offers any reasonable explanation for the ultimate origin of any deity in the first place. Thus Genesis offers an inferior hypothesis to the big bang theory.

I suppose we've really hijacked the thead big time at this point.... but....

All energy came from God. There is no origin. He always was. He is outside of time. This is not a concept that can be understood totally from a human's point of view. This is where faith comes in. You trust the Word because it came from God.

Have you considered that the "big bang" "explosion" that scientists believe they have detected could have been simply when God created everything? And that it wasn't billions of years ago (google the fallacy of carbon dating)?

If you accept that you can't explain the origin of energy or the reason for the "explosion" from science, you by default have accepted that there is a supernatural being. You have confirmed that God exists.

BTW.... you have more to lose here. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. If you're wrong, you go to hell.

Wow, whodathunk that we could get from "What's the best Ortlieb pannier" to arguing over the Big Bang, evolution, how life started, and God?

Hooboy.

(backs away slowly)