Living Car Free - Buyer's Guide to the most ethical bicycles

Thought this forum might be interested in this article (http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/FreeBuyersGuides/traveltransport/bicycles.aspx). I'm biased, I ride a Moulton. :)

That article was so poorly written and the criteria for scoring was so vague that my guess is they pulled those numbers out of their collective asses. Seriously.... and never mind the fact that it is more than two years old.

So I have to buy a funny-looking used bike in order to be EC (environmentally correct)? :lol:

I think this is a crock. Compared to cars, or even buses and trains, a bicycle--any bicycle--is a godsend for the environment.

Most of my bikes are re-used. That's probably most ethical, especially the two I took out of the waste disposal system.

Most of my bikes are re-used. That's probably most ethical, especially the two I took out of the waste disposal system.

Most (no all) of my bikes were bought used. Not because it's ethical, but because I'm a cheap basterd.

Well yeah... that too. :innocent:

Don’t buy new
If you do need to replace your old bike, or of course if you don’t have one already then buying second-hand will put less strain on the world’s resources. Check out your local second hand dealers, freecycle (www.freecycle.org) or Ebay.

As long as you remember that repairs may be a little more expensive. You can also customize your bike so it doesn't look/feel like a cookie cutter model.




But if you do
Obviously we’d recommend our Best Buys, the British hand-made bicycles of Moulton and Pashley, though unfortunately these will be out of a lot of peoples’ price range. It’s also worth considering that although heavier, fewer carbon emissions are produced in manufacturing a steel frame bike than one made from aluminium. Steel bikes are more sustainable in the long-run too as their tougher frames are more hard-wearing.

I'm not sure why the Pashley would be any better environmentally... especially if the tubes and components are shipped from South Asia (almost certainly the case...). However, considering the pollution involved with aluminum smelting, buying steel probably is the right way to go.

Steel is great for a couple of other reasons:
1) when steel tubing fails for any reason, it often fails more gradually giving the user time to repair or replace it. Aluminum seems to fail a bit quicker (and is famous for failing around the seatpost :eek: Carbon fiber failures are outright scary... often a complete catastrophe.

2) steel tubing is easier to repair.

3) many say steel rides better.... although some of that may be exaggerated.

The article mentioned that more energy is used to make aluminum. Would all of the extra calories needed to propel a steel bicycle for the life of the frame equal the extra energy put into creating an aluminum frame?

Is steel really that much heavier than aluminum? YES. Racing bicycles need the lightest weight frames to conserve energy for the rider. I think daily riders need to save weight just as much as racers. The biggest difference is that a fully loaded commuter bicycle in steel won't seem much tougher to pedal than an aluminum one because the frame is such a low percentage of the total loaded weight.

The aluminum frame uses less energy to propel it compared to a steel frame. It just isn't noticeable on a commuter bicycle. No matter, I still would prefer an aluminum frame. If I kept bicycles for many years and had frame problems I'd consider switching to steel.

Right now one of my aluminum comfort bicycles has a frame that twists quite a bit on bumps and when I turn the handlebars quickly. This wouldn't be noticeable except for the fact that there is about fifteen pounds loaded on the rear rack. That weight takes a bit longer to react to steering inputs and the frame begins to turn and react immediately at the headset but the rear of the frame reacts slowly. I've been wondering if there is a crack or something wrong with the frame. I regularly inspect it and everything is fine. A steel frame probably would behave the same way.

I'm considering adding a NuVinci hub to my next bicycle purchase (whenever that might be). I really like the idea of always having the perfect gear ratio. I hate pedaling into strong gusting winds needing a gear just between two others, which causes me to shift back and forth trying to get the optimum one. The hub has plenty of weight but on a loaded bicycle the percentage change isn't that much.

Some of my bikes were used and given to me, does that make them even more ethical?

I think daily riders need to save weight just as much as racers.

Relatively speaking, this is not true. For a racer, weight is perhaps the highest priority. For a commuter, it is one of several considerations, many of which directly compete with light weight. Durability of a commuter, for me, is a much more important property than weight. To a racer, it is of almost no consideration.

Thank you for the post. But what a useless article!
It seems that in general when people talk about the manufacturing of bikes they only talk about the frames. A bike includes a frame (alloy, steel, carbon, bamboo, wood..) and components.
Most of us could weld/build a frame in our garage given the appropriate materials.
However go try to make a derailleur, tires, tubes, cables, shifters or even chain in a workshop.
My understanding is that in this industry most manufacturers (US, EU, Japan, Dev World) use very similar components form the same production sites (mostly Taiwan, and China). So to me all the bikes have more or less the same environmental impacts. Even when a bike claimed to be made in the US in general it's the assembly and sometimes the construction of the frame that is done domestically.

Buy and ride bike it's good for all of us.

Thank you for the post. But what a useless article!
It seems that in general when people talk about the manufacturing of bikes they only talk about the frames. A bike includes a frame (alloy, steel, carbon, bamboo, wood..) and components.
Most of us could weld/build a frame in our garage given the appropriate materials.
However go try to make a derailleur, tires, tubes, cables, shifters or even chain in a workshop.
My understanding is that in this industry most manufacturers (US, EU, Japan, Dev World) use very similar components form the same production sites (mostly Taiwan, and China). So to me all the bikes have more or less the same environmental impacts. Even when a bike claimed to be made in the US in general it's the assembly and sometimes the construction of the frame that is done domestically.

Buy and ride bike it's good for all of us.

The article mentioned that more energy is used to make aluminum. Would all of the extra calories needed to propel a steel bicycle for the life of the frame equal the extra energy put into creating an aluminum frame?

Is steel really that much heavier than aluminum? YES. Racing bicycles need the lightest weight frames to conserve energy for the rider. I think daily riders need to save weight just as much as racers. The biggest difference is that a fully loaded commuter bicycle in steel won't seem much tougher to pedal than an aluminum one because the frame is such a low percentage of the total loaded weight.

The aluminum frame uses less energy to propel it compared to a steel frame. It just isn't noticeable on a commuter bicycle. No matter, I still would prefer an aluminum frame. If I kept bicycles for many years and had frame problems I'd consider switching to steel.

Right now one of my aluminum comfort bicycles has a frame that twists quite a bit on bumps and when I turn the handlebars quickly. This wouldn't be noticeable except for the fact that there is about fifteen pounds loaded on the rear rack. That weight takes a bit longer to react to steering inputs and the frame begins to turn and react immediately at the headset but the rear of the frame reacts slowly. I've been wondering if there is a crack or something wrong with the frame. I regularly inspect it and everything is fine. A steel frame probably would behave the same way.

I'm considering adding a NuVinci hub to my next bicycle purchase (whenever that might be). I really like the idea of always having the perfect gear ratio. I hate pedaling into strong gusting winds needing a gear just between two others, which causes me to shift back and forth trying to get the optimum one. The hub has plenty of weight but on a loaded bicycle the percentage change isn't that much.

so,when i got my 63 cm. road bike i weighed it and it was a hiccup under 25 pounds. i did a quick search and a similar aluminum road bike (raleigh gran sport) was between 23-25 pounds. if my quick search was correct, that's not much of a difference. oh, and my frame does not flex with 15 pounds on the back rack.(other than normal).

you have convinced me to stay with steel.

Any weight that gets propelled needs energy to make it move. More weight means more energy to get it moving and keep it in motion. I'm not against steel in any way. My last recumbent was crom-molly and it was good. I didn't have any options regarding frame material. I liked the bicycle and bought it.

Some of the cruisers that interest me are all made of aluminum with steel forks. There are no options for frame material. They are take it or leave it. Are there many large manufacturers still using steel? I know that Electra had some steel frame bicycles last year. They also made aluminum ones.

Originally I wanted to mention the other parts of a bicycle that were made of aluminum. Rims, hubs, and many other parts have aluminum alloys and probably aren't available in steel no matter where you shop for them.

Years ago I owned an all steel Schwinn mountain bike that was bought new in 1982. It had steel rims. That was a heavy bicycle and at the time it was typical of the models available. It wasn't the top of the line but it wasn't the cheapest either. I had to abandon it when I moved away from Louisiana after hurricane Katrina. I didn't have the room for it in the truck.

When I went shopping for a new bicycle I was so pleased at how lightweight comparable models were made. They easily weighed five pounds less.

The article shouldn't have blasted aluminum. If lighter weight bicycles get people interested in riding then I'm all for it. Some people probably consider the weight when purchasing a new ride. They think of how easy it would be to carry up stairs or hang on a wall. That is important to some people.

while not a huge fan of trek I am surprised that tequila sunrise is more ethical than trek. Where does one mount a rack and doesn't seem pratical for longer distance. A quick search pulls this bike up.
133797

Relatively speaking, this is not true. For a racer, weight is perhaps the highest priority. For a commuter, it is one of several considerations, many of which directly compete with light weight. Durability of a commuter, for me, is a much more important property than weight. To a racer, it is of almost no consideration.:thumb:
A racing bike wouldn't last long on the potholes around here, not to mention the shortcuts I take on gravel roads and across vacant lots.

Also, most racers weigh about 140 pounds with 2 % body fat, and they won't even carry an energy bar on the bike (during a race) because of the extra wieght and drag. Five or ten fewer pounds makes a lot less difference to us "chunky" every day cyclists with our 20 pounds of groceries.

while not a huge fan of trek I am surprised that tequila sunrise is more ethical than trek. Where does one mount a rack and doesn't seem pratical for longer distance. A quick search pulls this bike up.
133797

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=133797&d=1263922790&thumb=1

Which begs the question: can a bicycle be totally useless and still considered an "ethical" choice? I'd argue that an ethically manufactured bicycle that serves no functional purpose is junk.

IIRC steel runs around $500 a ton to produce, virgin aluminum around $2000. Those numbers are based on US prices. Recycled aluminum and steel cost about the same to produce, with a slight edge to steel it is not as finicky as the aluminum alloys.

Aaron:)

I'll pass on the article -- or I should have, anyway.

Meaningless numbers, based on unexpressed criteria, rating obscure bikes (in many cases) alongside mis-named others... waste of time.

But at least someone cares about the enviro impact of bike makers.

FTR, my bike is alu, full-suss, 30+ lb., sturdy as racecar's rollcage, and such a joy to ride that it almost 'joins' with me when I ride it!

One set of car tires for one car have used & abused the environment more than every bike I've had this decade! It's kinda like the CFL light bulbs that are popular now -- bikes are 400% more efficient by any measure than a car -- at least!