another specific example where material could easily be eliminated:
manuals / instructions for use (IFU's) in packaging of aftermarket components.
A few examples, 12" ruler for size reference (sorry the images are rotated funky, my phone was being weird, but i think you'll get the point):
a shimano quicklink. both sides printed, 4L (languages)
xt shifter. both sides printed. 4L
a pair of SPD shoes (ME5 model). both sides printed. 32L. Yes, it is close to 3 feet wide.
XT 11 speed cassette. both sides printed. 4L. know what it says? "contact place of purchase or bicycle dealer for installation or adjustment instructions." there is also a URL for the instructions online.
this is from a Continental road tire i recently purchased. looks pretty thick.
surprise! its actually 3 IFUs. all printed both sides.
On that note, SRAM puts a piece of paper in every component box telling you that you can find a manual on its website. It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of sustainability, but always made me annoyed. Just print it on the damn box. Maybe it fulfills some sort of legal requirement, like the mandatory dork discs (AKA spoke protectors) that ship with high-end bikes and are immediately removed and Frisbeed into the trash. Otherwise I don't understand the rationale for printing thousands and thousands of small pieces of paper that have no actual information on them.
How about the MANY stickers from the best state in the world (I just threw up in my mouth)...
"This item may cause cancer.............oh, but only in Cali".
Few weeks ago a cycling specific company in Cali wanted me to use a brand new envelope (specifically), clean the electronic part in hand wash, wear gloves putting in it..and on and on and on to prevent ChinaFlu.
It went out in a "Recycled" Amazon envelope, filthy from being on my bike and away it went - recycling and not using more chemicals (for a warranty repair). See, doing my part ;-)
On that note, SRAM puts a piece of paper in every component box telling you that you can find a manual on its website. It's small...
On that note, SRAM puts a piece of paper in every component box telling you that you can find a manual on its website. It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of sustainability, but always made me annoyed. Just print it on the damn box. Maybe it fulfills some sort of legal requirement, like the mandatory dork discs (AKA spoke protectors) that ship with high-end bikes and are immediately removed and Frisbeed into the trash. Otherwise I don't understand the rationale for printing thousands and thousands of small pieces of paper that have no actual information on them.
yea, exactly. print it on the box. some components even come in large enough boxes you could print some basic instructions right on it.
FWIW - i work in the medical device industry, specifically orthopedic implants. that industry as a whole is moving away from printed / physical IFUs to electronic versions. if a heavily regulated industry like med device can do it, i'm sure the bike industry can too. it's not going to be as impactful as other changes, but its a pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to material reduction.
@Primoz - you know of course, the whole "green" thing has again, and again, and again been proven to be nothing more than virtue signaling, correct...
@Primoz - you know of course, the whole "green" thing has again, and again, and again been proven to be nothing more than virtue signaling, correct? I have no doubt that portions of my AXS batteries were made by slave labor in China (and other countries) where OSHA and the EPA are not even an after thought...if the MFG was in the US the costs would be thousands of times higher...so.........I would assume you know that the glossy packaging is almost always more "pollutive" than what is even in it...(SRAM ships in glossy red and white boxes).
Not sure what right-wing blog you got that "proof" from, but it is well known that our continuous consumption, using up resources and carbon emissions are accelerating climate change to a point that we won't recover from. The "green thing" is just trying to get everyone to change as much as they can across the board.....it might start off small but its better than nothing and hopefully builds enough momentum that things actually change
@TheSUspensionLabNZ no biggie, I pointed it out tongue in cheek of course. But yeah, when Apple says this kind of thing is happening. Boy!
@jonkranked, honestly... Okay, selling parts in shops is still a big part and packaging has an influence here, but with the amount of stuff being bought and sold online, does fancy, colorful packaging even matter anymore? It's nice to get a fancy box for the 'oooooooh' moment opening it up, but that's what, 5 minutes vs. a few years of using it?
As for printing and co., just print a QR code somewhere? Or put a sticker on the box?
Just make parts user serviceable, or at least do it for the customers instead of just throwing stuff away.
I have a dropper from One of the bigger post manufacturers, it was sagging due to a "nipped o-ring" in assembly. They sent me a new cartridge FOC, but when I asked about repairing the old one I got this reply;
Thank you for getting in touch.
I'm afraid we don't have an in house service center capable of pulling apart and servicing cartridges.
Please recycle your faulty cartridge.
But. on a serious note. One thing I bought recently was a jacket from Leatte. the jacket itself came in a very nice plastic? bag with a ziplock, I though cool I'll use this as a bag for wet clothes/shoes after a soggy ride but......
its made from some biodegadeable material that should rot away in a few months.. with "soy ink" so....
I threw it in the bin, dissapointed.. Single use plastic sucks but I could've got useage out of the bag if it wasn't biodegradable..
AND the whole thing was in another single use placstic bag from the distro and then another single use plastic postage bag........
But. on a serious note. One thing I bought recently was a jacket from Leatte. the jacket itself came in a very nice plastic? bag with...
But. on a serious note. One thing I bought recently was a jacket from Leatte. the jacket itself came in a very nice plastic? bag with a ziplock, I though cool I'll use this as a bag for wet clothes/shoes after a soggy ride but......
its made from some biodegadeable material that should rot away in a few months.. with "soy ink" so....
I threw it in the bin, dissapointed.. Single use plastic sucks but I could've got useage out of the bag if it wasn't biodegradable..
AND the whole thing was in another single use placstic bag from the distro and then another single use plastic postage bag........
Those bags are massively wasteful. If you did use one for wet clothes it would get gross and be difficult to wash. The only purpose they serve is looking nice on a display shelf where they can’t display a full pant/jacket. (Lots of shops have very limited retail space). Brands either need to supply a realistically reusable container (mesh bag for helmet or pads) or better yet just use as little packaging that has a minimal impact. These brands are competing for marketing with their packaging. Rather than looking at it from a what do we need to get this to the customer mentality.
While it’s important to discuss bike frames, for most people that isn’t a regular purchase. Most people can make a much bigger impact by looking at their daily life. Replacing wardrobe is certainly a big part of that and one of the most underlooked aspects of waste in society. The biggest impact would be simply stretching your wardrobes use. I also buy the majority of my clothes second hand. Pretty sure I got more new clothes in my vital box this year than I actually purchased for myself. Also important not to horde clothes. If you aren’t wearing something donate it, but don’t replace it with something else you barely wear.
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles are less pollutive than cars for transport, but mountain biking has little to no need to exist other than for our pleasure, so everything we do in the sport is adding to the issues. However none of us is going to quit riding all together, so how little could we get by with and have same amount of fun.
Debunking the 'green thing' is irrelevant as even if science on climate change is flawed, the material waste and chemical outputs are visible, tangible and are obviously not good for the planet, so surely for the sake of things just being cleaner and less polluted reducing these waste outputs is a win. How much would you sacrifice to do it?
Would you give up carbon as a choice of material? Would you be happy to pay more for parts built and sourced from your own country? Would you be happy to wait for something hand built locally rather than shipped from across the world? Would you be happy to have dramatically less choice if you HAD to buy product that was made more sustainably? Not sure many of us would but the industry can be steered by our buying decisions. The drastic changes to the industry can't happen without sacrifice somewhere and while we all guzzle it up, the industry is not going to stop serving it.
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles...
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles are less pollutive than cars for transport, but mountain biking has little to no need to exist other than for our pleasure, so everything we do in the sport is adding to the issues. However none of us is going to quit riding all together, so how little could we get by with and have same amount of fun.
Debunking the 'green thing' is irrelevant as even if science on climate change is flawed, the material waste and chemical outputs are visible, tangible and are obviously not good for the planet, so surely for the sake of things just being cleaner and less polluted reducing these waste outputs is a win. How much would you sacrifice to do it?
Would you give up carbon as a choice of material? Would you be happy to pay more for parts built and sourced from your own country? Would you be happy to wait for something hand built locally rather than shipped from across the world? Would you be happy to have dramatically less choice if you HAD to buy product that was made more sustainably? Not sure many of us would but the industry can be steered by our buying decisions. The drastic changes to the industry can't happen without sacrifice somewhere and while we all guzzle it up, the industry is not going to stop serving it.
@Topper - EXACTLY! In a world where we will spend $1000 to save fractions of seconds, the delusion that we are "helping" is laughable. For instance, just this week I installed a new 34SC that I did not need (I had a 34SC...) The only reason I got the new fork is the lead time for service @ Fox...did not want to be without a bike for weeks. Sure, a first-world problem (we are re-using the box to ship the other fork back to Fox).
As you so eloquently pointed out, if folks "really" want to help they will stop riding bikes altogether.
I do my best in my life. I have faith in people to do the same. I still want to ride bikes, snowboard and go climbing. I want the same for my children, if they want to. But you have to try to do it in the best way you can.
That is not to say the little things that we as consumers or companies do are not important or irrelevant. Every little helps. But afew little things do not negate the big. The way the industry is setup is as wasteful and unfriendly to the environment as it can be. Materials shipped from all over the planet to be manufactured into various iterations of the same or similar thing, to be reshipped to assembly locations then reshipped to distributors then reshipped to consumers. All along the chain there are going to be those that ignore good practice for profit.
It is the economy we live in.
For sake of argument and ignoring components and tyres et etc, would you be happy if as an American consumer you could only by Intense frames welded in California, as a British consumer would you be happy if you could only buy Orange frames?
One thing is for sure if we all decided right now to ONLY buy 'local' and ONLY buy from responsible vendors the industry would collapse, but then adapt. But though I maybe naive I don't see real change coming from less paper and packaging.
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions for trail users. I'm thinking of areas like Eagle Bike Park in Boise, Galbraith Mountaiin Bellingham, or even little old Patapsco State Park near Baltimore. There's an unbelievable demand for outdoor recreation right now, but so many perfectly good potential riding/hiking/running areas near cities are essentially lying fallow. This forces outdoor users to drive farther to access recreation.
I think this can be a big win for mountain bikers, because instead of looking like all we want is "me, me, me" when we ask for trails to be developed, we can point to social responsibility and climate change. Similarly, it's popular for the opponents of trail projects to point to environmentalism when they want to keep mountain bikers out of potential riding areas, but that argument falls apart when you consider the added carbon footprint of "offshoring" outdoor recreation to surrounding counties.
People are going to recreate somewhere. Given that fact, it seems pretty obvious that we should be developing recreation areas near major city centers so people can recreate closer to home. It doesn't make sense for an "enlightened" environmentalist city like Portland, Oregon to have 4 wilderness sanctuaries and no mountain biking.
The county I live in is creating a long-term plan for our local riding area, a 4000 acre wooded area 10 minutes away from a medium-sized city (Port Gamble Park near Poulsbo, WA). There were three options proposed for long term planning, ranging from minimizing human usage as much as possible to developing the area for passive recreation like hikes, runs, bikes, outdoor classrooms, concerts, etc. I voted for option C, and here's what I put in my "why" answer: "There is a crushing need for sustainable local outdoor recreation and parks. Look at weekend traffic across the Hood Canal bridge headed into the Olympic Mountains! Let's cut down some of the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation by giving people a great alternative that's closer in! This is not a pristine remote wilderness, this is aggressively-harvested timber land close to a major population, so it's a perfect park to develop for human use."
Just make parts user serviceable, or at least do it for the customers instead of just throwing stuff away.
I have a dropper from One of...
Just make parts user serviceable, or at least do it for the customers instead of just throwing stuff away.
I have a dropper from One of the bigger post manufacturers, it was sagging due to a "nipped o-ring" in assembly. They sent me a new cartridge FOC, but when I asked about repairing the old one I got this reply;
Thank you for getting in touch.
I'm afraid we don't have an in house service center capable of pulling apart and servicing cartridges.
Please recycle your faulty cartridge.
Big fail.
This is a big one. I have a friend with an older Fox fork that the shop said they can no longer get dust wipers for. Perfectly good fork otherwise but it will end up in the bin.
Small parts from shimano and sram are almost non existent as well so if you bend your cage good luck finding a replacement even for you new AXS.
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions...
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions for trail users. I'm thinking of areas like Eagle Bike Park in Boise, Galbraith Mountaiin Bellingham, or even little old Patapsco State Park near Baltimore. There's an unbelievable demand for outdoor recreation right now, but so many perfectly good potential riding/hiking/running areas near cities are essentially lying fallow. This forces outdoor users to drive farther to access recreation.
I think this can be a big win for mountain bikers, because instead of looking like all we want is "me, me, me" when we ask for trails to be developed, we can point to social responsibility and climate change. Similarly, it's popular for the opponents of trail projects to point to environmentalism when they want to keep mountain bikers out of potential riding areas, but that argument falls apart when you consider the added carbon footprint of "offshoring" outdoor recreation to surrounding counties.
People are going to recreate somewhere. Given that fact, it seems pretty obvious that we should be developing recreation areas near major city centers so people can recreate closer to home. It doesn't make sense for an "enlightened" environmentalist city like Portland, Oregon to have 4 wilderness sanctuaries and no mountain biking.
The county I live in is creating a long-term plan for our local riding area, a 4000 acre wooded area 10 minutes away from a medium-sized city (Port Gamble Park near Poulsbo, WA). There were three options proposed for long term planning, ranging from minimizing human usage as much as possible to developing the area for passive recreation like hikes, runs, bikes, outdoor classrooms, concerts, etc. I voted for option C, and here's what I put in my "why" answer: "There is a crushing need for sustainable local outdoor recreation and parks. Look at weekend traffic across the Hood Canal bridge headed into the Olympic Mountains! Let's cut down some of the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation by giving people a great alternative that's closer in! This is not a pristine remote wilderness, this is aggressively-harvested timber land close to a major population, so it's a perfect park to develop for human use."
"onstruction of more trails close to population centers"
This would mean that there would need to be liability laws (in the US). Some states do have these in place (FL I know 100% does). Until such time that the lawyers are not out all day every day trying to find someone "at fault"...well, we get what we get.
I agree with your idea 1000%...the reality however is just not that cut and dry.
@mtbman99 - I have I think 7 or 8 Fox lock out levers...broken...sitting in a drawer. No parts to be had.
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions...
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions for trail users. I'm thinking of areas like Eagle Bike Park in Boise, Galbraith Mountaiin Bellingham, or even little old Patapsco State Park near Baltimore. There's an unbelievable demand for outdoor recreation right now, but so many perfectly good potential riding/hiking/running areas near cities are essentially lying fallow. This forces outdoor users to drive farther to access recreation.
I think this can be a big win for mountain bikers, because instead of looking like all we want is "me, me, me" when we ask for trails to be developed, we can point to social responsibility and climate change. Similarly, it's popular for the opponents of trail projects to point to environmentalism when they want to keep mountain bikers out of potential riding areas, but that argument falls apart when you consider the added carbon footprint of "offshoring" outdoor recreation to surrounding counties.
People are going to recreate somewhere. Given that fact, it seems pretty obvious that we should be developing recreation areas near major city centers so people can recreate closer to home. It doesn't make sense for an "enlightened" environmentalist city like Portland, Oregon to have 4 wilderness sanctuaries and no mountain biking.
The county I live in is creating a long-term plan for our local riding area, a 4000 acre wooded area 10 minutes away from a medium-sized city (Port Gamble Park near Poulsbo, WA). There were three options proposed for long term planning, ranging from minimizing human usage as much as possible to developing the area for passive recreation like hikes, runs, bikes, outdoor classrooms, concerts, etc. I voted for option C, and here's what I put in my "why" answer: "There is a crushing need for sustainable local outdoor recreation and parks. Look at weekend traffic across the Hood Canal bridge headed into the Olympic Mountains! Let's cut down some of the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation by giving people a great alternative that's closer in! This is not a pristine remote wilderness, this is aggressively-harvested timber land close to a major population, so it's a perfect park to develop for human use."
I’d love this too. Where I live there has been a lot of progress made at many local parks. With hopefully a lot more to be made in the next 10 years. I think the key is mtbers and parks realizing there is a way for everyone to be happy but that bikes will probably have to do the most work and make the most consolidations. But as long as bikes have access and a reasonable amount of freedom to make good trails they have no issue putting in the work.
One of my goals in my local area is to expand access and some trail mileage so more people can bike to our small closed loop system rather than drive. The roads here are extremely busy and bad for bike commuting. However there is a ton of double track, single track, and open space to allow people to commute to the trails on their bikes. This is particular can open access for kids whose parents may be far more comfortable if they can get out without being on major streets. It also would give much better opportunity for commuters than road riding. The state park here is very thin and connects much of the community despite not being a ton of acreage. Honestly it’s a wildly under appreciated asset.
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles...
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles are less pollutive than cars for transport, but mountain biking has little to no need to exist other than for our pleasure, so everything we do in the sport is adding to the issues. However none of us is going to quit riding all together, so how little could we get by with and have same amount of fun.
Debunking the 'green thing' is irrelevant as even if science on climate change is flawed, the material waste and chemical outputs are visible, tangible and are obviously not good for the planet, so surely for the sake of things just being cleaner and less polluted reducing these waste outputs is a win. How much would you sacrifice to do it?
Would you give up carbon as a choice of material? Would you be happy to pay more for parts built and sourced from your own country? Would you be happy to wait for something hand built locally rather than shipped from across the world? Would you be happy to have dramatically less choice if you HAD to buy product that was made more sustainably? Not sure many of us would but the industry can be steered by our buying decisions. The drastic changes to the industry can't happen without sacrifice somewhere and while we all guzzle it up, the industry is not going to stop serving it.
Regarding the questions in the third paragraph (I know it was general questins, but I figure it might spark additional debate
):
-yes. Already have, since quitting racing XC in 2008 I haven't owned a carbon frame and could somewhat make the case for carbon only in road cycling (as I'm not up to speed enough to argue against it). I will every single time go for the aluminium MTB with better equipment though. No questions asked, there is not a single benefit of carbon that could sway me over.
-If there was a measurable quality benefit or some other benefit, I want to say yes. While I realize going local and supporting garage shops is important, I am also a consumer and I do want the best for least amount of money... I know, it's a bit two-faced, but it is what it is at this moment
-Same as above, if there was a tangible benefit (custom geometry or something similar), then yes. Again no, if the only difference is local sourcing.
-Don't know what to say here. I could argue there is very little choice as is - for example, buying complete bikes it's hard to get a well specced Al bike, if it also comes in carbon. Add to that different geometries and if you're a slight (right...) nitpicker, the choice is limited as is.
As for buying decisions, for sure, we drive the market. But it's hard to drive the market, if there isn't a product that fits the wishes, if the market doesn't know what it wants at all and if the market can't communicate what it wants as well.
As for only local, we actually somewhat had this before - Commencal, Canyon, YT and Propain used to not be present in the US. Canyon and YT, for one part, likely because of the FSR patent. The patent expiring I think was a major driver for these two to go to US with the other two following at the same time? It would though depend on the health of local markets (if enough brands were present, I don't think it would be a huge issue) and the few persistent buyers would still manage to get that exotic brand over.
Regarding trails close to population, look at Ljubljana. It was even the green capital of EU in 2016 and it has well known (and busy!) trails a few kms from the old city centre, within the highway ring surrounding the city. And there's a lot of riding with ~10km of the ring. But I guess talking about that in Slovenia is kinda moot as you can drive across the country by the longest axis in under 3 hours...
While I do drive a lot (150-ish km in each direction) in the winter, to go ride near the coast, where there is no snow and it's warmer, it's unimaginable to me to have to drive everytime I wanted to ride. Well over 50 % of my rides start at home and a vast majority of them are over 2 hours and around 1000 meters vertical.
We have it good over here and not enough people realize that -_-
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions...
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions for trail users. I'm thinking of areas like Eagle Bike Park in Boise, Galbraith Mountaiin Bellingham, or even little old Patapsco State Park near Baltimore. There's an unbelievable demand for outdoor recreation right now, but so many perfectly good potential riding/hiking/running areas near cities are essentially lying fallow. This forces outdoor users to drive farther to access recreation.
I think this can be a big win for mountain bikers, because instead of looking like all we want is "me, me, me" when we ask for trails to be developed, we can point to social responsibility and climate change. Similarly, it's popular for the opponents of trail projects to point to environmentalism when they want to keep mountain bikers out of potential riding areas, but that argument falls apart when you consider the added carbon footprint of "offshoring" outdoor recreation to surrounding counties.
People are going to recreate somewhere. Given that fact, it seems pretty obvious that we should be developing recreation areas near major city centers so people can recreate closer to home. It doesn't make sense for an "enlightened" environmentalist city like Portland, Oregon to have 4 wilderness sanctuaries and no mountain biking.
The county I live in is creating a long-term plan for our local riding area, a 4000 acre wooded area 10 minutes away from a medium-sized city (Port Gamble Park near Poulsbo, WA). There were three options proposed for long term planning, ranging from minimizing human usage as much as possible to developing the area for passive recreation like hikes, runs, bikes, outdoor classrooms, concerts, etc. I voted for option C, and here's what I put in my "why" answer: "There is a crushing need for sustainable local outdoor recreation and parks. Look at weekend traffic across the Hood Canal bridge headed into the Olympic Mountains! Let's cut down some of the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation by giving people a great alternative that's closer in! This is not a pristine remote wilderness, this is aggressively-harvested timber land close to a major population, so it's a perfect park to develop for human use."
As someone who is lucky enough to live in Vancouver, I can say that it's not just having them nearby, I think increasing transit access should be included.
Now obviously I don't need busses to be shuttling me (except on Burnaby mountain... U-pass laps!) But not having a vehicle for much of my university time meant I could barely get to north shore trails.
Obviously this is a niche example fraught with external factors (traffic to the north shore is bad already, transit is bad already) but I use it as my only lived example of how trail access isn't just about them being nearby but them also being accessible.
I remember on a trip to Spain, seeing a bus drive by with 6 bikes on a rack in the back. Busses around here can only fit 2 bikes (and 29ers are very snug in the racks). If the city can recognize that mountain bikers are a significant user group, running just one or two busses a day two and from trail centers could take dozens of cars off the road. That is, assuming those dozens of bikers can get their bikes onto the bus in some way.
Somewhat rambly, not very well thought out, but yeah having transit options for trail centers would be a great way to decrease emissions. Plus then you can have an extra trailside beer and not worry about driving
Busses work very nicely for things like this, yeah. I remember riding in Meribel, doing the ridgeline traverse from over 2000 m high up and then dropping in all the way to Moutiers (500 m altitude), you'd go for an icecream, wait up to half an hour for the bus to arrive and be taken back up to Meribel, where the gondolas took you back to the top of the bikeparks. The bus ticket was included in the lift pass of course.
Similarly in Alpe d'Huez, dropping all the way to the bottom of Megavalanche in Allemont, you used to do a bus ride to Oz-en-Oisans, where the bottom gondola station taking you back to Alpe d'Huez was. For this year they made an additional gondola covering the old bus trip though.
I also remember that somebody put up a two seat chairlift somewhere in Colorado I think, didn't put in any groomers and just catered to freeriders. The chairlift took people to the ridge, where they could gain additional height by skitouring, but there was a bus going back and forth in the valley, picking up the skiers and taking them back to the bottom of the chairlift.
Incorporating transit into schemes like this could make a lot of sense. The beer is an added bonus too.
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles...
For the sake of this conversation it is probably better to look at what you are prepared to give up for a more sustainable industry. Bicycles are less pollutive than cars for transport, but mountain biking has little to no need to exist other than for our pleasure, so everything we do in the sport is adding to the issues. However none of us is going to quit riding all together, so how little could we get by with and have same amount of fun.
Debunking the 'green thing' is irrelevant as even if science on climate change is flawed, the material waste and chemical outputs are visible, tangible and are obviously not good for the planet, so surely for the sake of things just being cleaner and less polluted reducing these waste outputs is a win. How much would you sacrifice to do it?
Would you give up carbon as a choice of material? Would you be happy to pay more for parts built and sourced from your own country? Would you be happy to wait for something hand built locally rather than shipped from across the world? Would you be happy to have dramatically less choice if you HAD to buy product that was made more sustainably? Not sure many of us would but the industry can be steered by our buying decisions. The drastic changes to the industry can't happen without sacrifice somewhere and while we all guzzle it up, the industry is not going to stop serving it.
Regarding the questions in the third paragraph (I know it was general questins, but I figure it might spark additional debate :P):
-yes. Already have, since...
Regarding the questions in the third paragraph (I know it was general questins, but I figure it might spark additional debate
):
-yes. Already have, since quitting racing XC in 2008 I haven't owned a carbon frame and could somewhat make the case for carbon only in road cycling (as I'm not up to speed enough to argue against it). I will every single time go for the aluminium MTB with better equipment though. No questions asked, there is not a single benefit of carbon that could sway me over.
-If there was a measurable quality benefit or some other benefit, I want to say yes. While I realize going local and supporting garage shops is important, I am also a consumer and I do want the best for least amount of money... I know, it's a bit two-faced, but it is what it is at this moment
-Same as above, if there was a tangible benefit (custom geometry or something similar), then yes. Again no, if the only difference is local sourcing.
-Don't know what to say here. I could argue there is very little choice as is - for example, buying complete bikes it's hard to get a well specced Al bike, if it also comes in carbon. Add to that different geometries and if you're a slight (right...) nitpicker, the choice is limited as is.
As for buying decisions, for sure, we drive the market. But it's hard to drive the market, if there isn't a product that fits the wishes, if the market doesn't know what it wants at all and if the market can't communicate what it wants as well.
As for only local, we actually somewhat had this before - Commencal, Canyon, YT and Propain used to not be present in the US. Canyon and YT, for one part, likely because of the FSR patent. The patent expiring I think was a major driver for these two to go to US with the other two following at the same time? It would though depend on the health of local markets (if enough brands were present, I don't think it would be a huge issue) and the few persistent buyers would still manage to get that exotic brand over.
Regarding trails close to population, look at Ljubljana. It was even the green capital of EU in 2016 and it has well known (and busy!) trails a few kms from the old city centre, within the highway ring surrounding the city. And there's a lot of riding with ~10km of the ring. But I guess talking about that in Slovenia is kinda moot as you can drive across the country by the longest axis in under 3 hours...
While I do drive a lot (150-ish km in each direction) in the winter, to go ride near the coast, where there is no snow and it's warmer, it's unimaginable to me to have to drive everytime I wanted to ride. Well over 50 % of my rides start at home and a vast majority of them are over 2 hours and around 1000 meters vertical.
We have it good over here and not enough people realize that -_-
@mtbman99 this needs to be fixed, yes.
"Regarding the questions in the third paragraph (I know it was general questins, but I figure it might spark additional debate tongue"
See, that is the thing. Many folks claim "debate" when it is nothing more than conjecture based on potentially flawed hypothosis. From there, turns rapidly into virtue signaling and venomous judgment on this here Internet thing. We all do our parts...I even stopped using fuel oil to poison the manatee that are about a mile from my home...thank god the trails and riders there are too occupied being more alike than different - while we are there.
I know this is a huge surprise to the Vital collective, but I have a pile of thoughts on this one
Fortunately, Robot and DCamp covered a lot of my sentiment. Its refreshing to see so much forethought around the idea of "sustainability".
Few things to add...
1) There is a difference between sustainability and carbon footprint. Right now there is a lot of focus on one's carbon footprint, but this doesn't mean wasteful actions with respect to materials that might be more carbon neutral equals a total free lunch. I don't want to make this more complicated than it already is, but there is an argument to be had around sustainability beyond carbon neutrality. EG, as a non-bike example, nuclear power is (basically) carbon neutral but we still have to manage the nuclear waste. (I'm still for nuclear, but it illustrates what I'm saying). In the bike world e-bikes might be good if they somehow reduce the amount a person drives, but we still have to manage the batteries at the end of the bike's life cycle.
2) Consumerism drives the (entire) outdoor industry. I often get into it with Protect Our Winter athletes who are sponsored by big companies selling us shit we don't need all the while telling us our government must "fix this problem through legislation". While I agree government programs will be important, so too will human behavior. The only company I know of who really aims to "sell less" (but somehow still sells more) is Patagonia. They will openly tell you to not buy a new jacket if your current jacket is fine. The culture of "fixing shit you have" is not very prolific in any outdoor industry. And why would it? Its a surefire way to make less money.
The bike industry is maybe the worst offender when it comes to incremental gains & engineering for performance over durability. Though I agree with David, and I know there are cut offs around what people are really okay with as far as weight and performance actually goes, I also know if we put as much energy/effort into chain durability as we did adding another gear to our cassettes we'd be better off, but there isn't any incentive to do this (really).
3) As it stands, I'd bet most normal riders are totally okay with the durability of a bike. Vital is not a good representation of the "norm". Most people don't go through bikes at the clip we all do. That said, I'm still very impressed with how much more durable my stuff has gotten over the last few years.
We've also hit a plateau with respect to technology & "good" vs "bad". Though I often make fun of the "perpetual 4 star reviews" the truth is there aren't many truly bad products on the market. The incremental gains made year to year are harder to feel & see with respect to performance. We've seen this in other industries such as skiing, moto, and climbing. What this should equate to is longer product life-cycles & more focus on durability, replaceability and cost. Obviously, we haven't seen this in full yet, but in theory the market should go this direction.
Ultimately, if bikes are designed around being maintainable for the long haul, less of them will meet an early demise. Its unfortunately really difficult to track product life-cycle right now (one good use of blockchain...but difficult to implement). If we can better understand failure points, why consumers put a bikes/parts in the trash can etc. we can do a better job fixing problems. "Racing durability" isn't the end all be all.
One closing thought, we are really grasping at straws here. Ultimately this is not the make or break around climate change or the environment, as I'd argue there are big qualitative/behavioral benefits to people becoming passionate mountain bikers (city centric people care more about the environment). However, the droves of K-Mart & Wal-Mart bike are offensive and frankly should not be built. There should be focus on very simple low cost bikes that are designed to last, not knocking off what looks to be a mountain bike and relegating these products to the dump in a matter of months.
I know this is a huge surprise to the Vital collective, but I have a pile of thoughts on this one ;)
Fortunately, Robot and DCamp...
I know this is a huge surprise to the Vital collective, but I have a pile of thoughts on this one
Fortunately, Robot and DCamp covered a lot of my sentiment. Its refreshing to see so much forethought around the idea of "sustainability".
Few things to add...
1) There is a difference between sustainability and carbon footprint. Right now there is a lot of focus on one's carbon footprint, but this doesn't mean wasteful actions with respect to materials that might be more carbon neutral equals a total free lunch. I don't want to make this more complicated than it already is, but there is an argument to be had around sustainability beyond carbon neutrality. EG, as a non-bike example, nuclear power is (basically) carbon neutral but we still have to manage the nuclear waste. (I'm still for nuclear, but it illustrates what I'm saying). In the bike world e-bikes might be good if they somehow reduce the amount a person drives, but we still have to manage the batteries at the end of the bike's life cycle.
2) Consumerism drives the (entire) outdoor industry. I often get into it with Protect Our Winter athletes who are sponsored by big companies selling us shit we don't need all the while telling us our government must "fix this problem through legislation". While I agree government programs will be important, so too will human behavior. The only company I know of who really aims to "sell less" (but somehow still sells more) is Patagonia. They will openly tell you to not buy a new jacket if your current jacket is fine. The culture of "fixing shit you have" is not very prolific in any outdoor industry. And why would it? Its a surefire way to make less money.
The bike industry is maybe the worst offender when it comes to incremental gains & engineering for performance over durability. Though I agree with David, and I know there are cut offs around what people are really okay with as far as weight and performance actually goes, I also know if we put as much energy/effort into chain durability as we did adding another gear to our cassettes we'd be better off, but there isn't any incentive to do this (really).
3) As it stands, I'd bet most normal riders are totally okay with the durability of a bike. Vital is not a good representation of the "norm". Most people don't go through bikes at the clip we all do. That said, I'm still very impressed with how much more durable my stuff has gotten over the last few years.
We've also hit a plateau with respect to technology & "good" vs "bad". Though I often make fun of the "perpetual 4 star reviews" the truth is there aren't many truly bad products on the market. The incremental gains made year to year are harder to feel & see with respect to performance. We've seen this in other industries such as skiing, moto, and climbing. What this should equate to is longer product life-cycles & more focus on durability, replaceability and cost. Obviously, we haven't seen this in full yet, but in theory the market should go this direction.
Ultimately, if bikes are designed around being maintainable for the long haul, less of them will meet an early demise. Its unfortunately really difficult to track product life-cycle right now (one good use of blockchain...but difficult to implement). If we can better understand failure points, why consumers put a bikes/parts in the trash can etc. we can do a better job fixing problems. "Racing durability" isn't the end all be all.
One closing thought, we are really grasping at straws here. Ultimately this is not the make or break around climate change or the environment, as I'd argue there are big qualitative/behavioral benefits to people becoming passionate mountain bikers (city centric people care more about the environment). However, the droves of K-Mart & Wal-Mart bike are offensive and frankly should not be built. There should be focus on very simple low cost bikes that are designed to last, not knocking off what looks to be a mountain bike and relegating these products to the dump in a matter of months.
This is where we can find more fertile ground.
Just my $0.02.
This was actually way fewer words than i expected after seeing your name as the last reply
I know this is a huge surprise to the Vital collective, but I have a pile of thoughts on this one ;)
Fortunately, Robot and DCamp...
I know this is a huge surprise to the Vital collective, but I have a pile of thoughts on this one
Fortunately, Robot and DCamp covered a lot of my sentiment. Its refreshing to see so much forethought around the idea of "sustainability".
Few things to add...
1) There is a difference between sustainability and carbon footprint. Right now there is a lot of focus on one's carbon footprint, but this doesn't mean wasteful actions with respect to materials that might be more carbon neutral equals a total free lunch. I don't want to make this more complicated than it already is, but there is an argument to be had around sustainability beyond carbon neutrality. EG, as a non-bike example, nuclear power is (basically) carbon neutral but we still have to manage the nuclear waste. (I'm still for nuclear, but it illustrates what I'm saying). In the bike world e-bikes might be good if they somehow reduce the amount a person drives, but we still have to manage the batteries at the end of the bike's life cycle.
2) Consumerism drives the (entire) outdoor industry. I often get into it with Protect Our Winter athletes who are sponsored by big companies selling us shit we don't need all the while telling us our government must "fix this problem through legislation". While I agree government programs will be important, so too will human behavior. The only company I know of who really aims to "sell less" (but somehow still sells more) is Patagonia. They will openly tell you to not buy a new jacket if your current jacket is fine. The culture of "fixing shit you have" is not very prolific in any outdoor industry. And why would it? Its a surefire way to make less money.
The bike industry is maybe the worst offender when it comes to incremental gains & engineering for performance over durability. Though I agree with David, and I know there are cut offs around what people are really okay with as far as weight and performance actually goes, I also know if we put as much energy/effort into chain durability as we did adding another gear to our cassettes we'd be better off, but there isn't any incentive to do this (really).
3) As it stands, I'd bet most normal riders are totally okay with the durability of a bike. Vital is not a good representation of the "norm". Most people don't go through bikes at the clip we all do. That said, I'm still very impressed with how much more durable my stuff has gotten over the last few years.
We've also hit a plateau with respect to technology & "good" vs "bad". Though I often make fun of the "perpetual 4 star reviews" the truth is there aren't many truly bad products on the market. The incremental gains made year to year are harder to feel & see with respect to performance. We've seen this in other industries such as skiing, moto, and climbing. What this should equate to is longer product life-cycles & more focus on durability, replaceability and cost. Obviously, we haven't seen this in full yet, but in theory the market should go this direction.
Ultimately, if bikes are designed around being maintainable for the long haul, less of them will meet an early demise. Its unfortunately really difficult to track product life-cycle right now (one good use of blockchain...but difficult to implement). If we can better understand failure points, why consumers put a bikes/parts in the trash can etc. we can do a better job fixing problems. "Racing durability" isn't the end all be all.
One closing thought, we are really grasping at straws here. Ultimately this is not the make or break around climate change or the environment, as I'd argue there are big qualitative/behavioral benefits to people becoming passionate mountain bikers (city centric people care more about the environment). However, the droves of K-Mart & Wal-Mart bike are offensive and frankly should not be built. There should be focus on very simple low cost bikes that are designed to last, not knocking off what looks to be a mountain bike and relegating these products to the dump in a matter of months.
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions...
Something I'd love to see emphasized in mountain biking is the construction of more trails close to population centers to reduce drive time and carbon emissions for trail users. I'm thinking of areas like Eagle Bike Park in Boise, Galbraith Mountaiin Bellingham, or even little old Patapsco State Park near Baltimore. There's an unbelievable demand for outdoor recreation right now, but so many perfectly good potential riding/hiking/running areas near cities are essentially lying fallow. This forces outdoor users to drive farther to access recreation.
I think this can be a big win for mountain bikers, because instead of looking like all we want is "me, me, me" when we ask for trails to be developed, we can point to social responsibility and climate change. Similarly, it's popular for the opponents of trail projects to point to environmentalism when they want to keep mountain bikers out of potential riding areas, but that argument falls apart when you consider the added carbon footprint of "offshoring" outdoor recreation to surrounding counties.
People are going to recreate somewhere. Given that fact, it seems pretty obvious that we should be developing recreation areas near major city centers so people can recreate closer to home. It doesn't make sense for an "enlightened" environmentalist city like Portland, Oregon to have 4 wilderness sanctuaries and no mountain biking.
The county I live in is creating a long-term plan for our local riding area, a 4000 acre wooded area 10 minutes away from a medium-sized city (Port Gamble Park near Poulsbo, WA). There were three options proposed for long term planning, ranging from minimizing human usage as much as possible to developing the area for passive recreation like hikes, runs, bikes, outdoor classrooms, concerts, etc. I voted for option C, and here's what I put in my "why" answer: "There is a crushing need for sustainable local outdoor recreation and parks. Look at weekend traffic across the Hood Canal bridge headed into the Olympic Mountains! Let's cut down some of the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation by giving people a great alternative that's closer in! This is not a pristine remote wilderness, this is aggressively-harvested timber land close to a major population, so it's a perfect park to develop for human use."
"onstruction of more trails close to population centers"
This would mean that there would need to be liability laws (in the US). Some states do have...
"onstruction of more trails close to population centers"
This would mean that there would need to be liability laws (in the US). Some states do have these in place (FL I know 100% does). Until such time that the lawyers are not out all day every day trying to find someone "at fault"...well, we get what we get.
I agree with your idea 1000%...the reality however is just not that cut and dry.
@mtbman99 - I have I think 7 or 8 Fox lock out levers...broken...sitting in a drawer. No parts to be had.
RE: Liability on public lands
No clue if it's different in other states, but the liability issue isn't that big of a problem on public lands. Even private landowners are getting a lot of local protections for allowing recreational use of their lands.
hogfly - here in FL we have great laws for liability for horses, mountain bikes and other things. Other states, well, you can ride your bike, drunk and naked into a wall while stabbing yourself in the eye....and sue the property owner. Mostly, those are the states like IL, CA, NY and other bastions of ignorance.
manuals / instructions for use (IFU's) in packaging of aftermarket components.
A few examples, 12" ruler for size reference (sorry the images are rotated funky, my phone was being weird, but i think you'll get the point):
a shimano quicklink. both sides printed, 4L (languages)
xt shifter. both sides printed. 4L
a pair of SPD shoes (ME5 model). both sides printed. 32L. Yes, it is close to 3 feet wide.
XT 11 speed cassette. both sides printed. 4L. know what it says? "contact place of purchase or bicycle dealer for installation or adjustment instructions." there is also a URL for the instructions online.
this is from a Continental road tire i recently purchased. looks pretty thick.
surprise! its actually 3 IFUs. all printed both sides.
"This item may cause cancer.............oh, but only in Cali".
Few weeks ago a cycling specific company in Cali wanted me to use a brand new envelope (specifically), clean the electronic part in hand wash, wear gloves putting in it..and on and on and on to prevent ChinaFlu.
It went out in a "Recycled" Amazon envelope, filthy from being on my bike and away it went - recycling and not using more chemicals (for a warranty repair). See, doing my part ;-)
FWIW - i work in the medical device industry, specifically orthopedic implants. that industry as a whole is moving away from printed / physical IFUs to electronic versions. if a heavily regulated industry like med device can do it, i'm sure the bike industry can too. it's not going to be as impactful as other changes, but its a pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to material reduction.
@jonkranked, honestly... Okay, selling parts in shops is still a big part and packaging has an influence here, but with the amount of stuff being bought and sold online, does fancy, colorful packaging even matter anymore? It's nice to get a fancy box for the 'oooooooh' moment opening it up, but that's what, 5 minutes vs. a few years of using it?
As for printing and co., just print a QR code somewhere? Or put a sticker on the box?
I have a dropper from One of the bigger post manufacturers, it was sagging due to a "nipped o-ring" in assembly. They sent me a new cartridge FOC, but when I asked about repairing the old one I got this reply;
Thank you for getting in touch.
I'm afraid we don't have an in house service center capable of pulling apart and servicing cartridges.
Please recycle your faulty cartridge.
Big fail.
its made from some biodegadeable material that should rot away in a few months.. with "soy ink" so....
I threw it in the bin, dissapointed.. Single use plastic sucks but I could've got useage out of the bag if it wasn't biodegradable..
AND the whole thing was in another single use placstic bag from the distro and then another single use plastic postage bag........
While it’s important to discuss bike frames, for most people that isn’t a regular purchase. Most people can make a much bigger impact by looking at their daily life. Replacing wardrobe is certainly a big part of that and one of the most underlooked aspects of waste in society. The biggest impact would be simply stretching your wardrobes use. I also buy the majority of my clothes second hand. Pretty sure I got more new clothes in my vital box this year than I actually purchased for myself. Also important not to horde clothes. If you aren’t wearing something donate it, but don’t replace it with something else you barely wear.
Debunking the 'green thing' is irrelevant as even if science on climate change is flawed, the material waste and chemical outputs are visible, tangible and are obviously not good for the planet, so surely for the sake of things just being cleaner and less polluted reducing these waste outputs is a win. How much would you sacrifice to do it?
Would you give up carbon as a choice of material? Would you be happy to pay more for parts built and sourced from your own country? Would you be happy to wait for something hand built locally rather than shipped from across the world? Would you be happy to have dramatically less choice if you HAD to buy product that was made more sustainably? Not sure many of us would but the industry can be steered by our buying decisions. The drastic changes to the industry can't happen without sacrifice somewhere and while we all guzzle it up, the industry is not going to stop serving it.
As you so eloquently pointed out, if folks "really" want to help they will stop riding bikes altogether.
It is the economy we live in.
For sake of argument and ignoring components and tyres et etc, would you be happy if as an American consumer you could only by Intense frames welded in California, as a British consumer would you be happy if you could only buy Orange frames?
One thing is for sure if we all decided right now to ONLY buy 'local' and ONLY buy from responsible vendors the industry would collapse, but then adapt. But though I maybe naive I don't see real change coming from less paper and packaging.
I think this can be a big win for mountain bikers, because instead of looking like all we want is "me, me, me" when we ask for trails to be developed, we can point to social responsibility and climate change. Similarly, it's popular for the opponents of trail projects to point to environmentalism when they want to keep mountain bikers out of potential riding areas, but that argument falls apart when you consider the added carbon footprint of "offshoring" outdoor recreation to surrounding counties.
People are going to recreate somewhere. Given that fact, it seems pretty obvious that we should be developing recreation areas near major city centers so people can recreate closer to home. It doesn't make sense for an "enlightened" environmentalist city like Portland, Oregon to have 4 wilderness sanctuaries and no mountain biking.
The county I live in is creating a long-term plan for our local riding area, a 4000 acre wooded area 10 minutes away from a medium-sized city (Port Gamble Park near Poulsbo, WA). There were three options proposed for long term planning, ranging from minimizing human usage as much as possible to developing the area for passive recreation like hikes, runs, bikes, outdoor classrooms, concerts, etc. I voted for option C, and here's what I put in my "why" answer: "There is a crushing need for sustainable local outdoor recreation and parks. Look at weekend traffic across the Hood Canal bridge headed into the Olympic Mountains! Let's cut down some of the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation by giving people a great alternative that's closer in! This is not a pristine remote wilderness, this is aggressively-harvested timber land close to a major population, so it's a perfect park to develop for human use."
Small parts from shimano and sram are almost non existent as well so if you bend your cage good luck finding a replacement even for you new AXS.
This would mean that there would need to be liability laws (in the US). Some states do have these in place (FL I know 100% does). Until such time that the lawyers are not out all day every day trying to find someone "at fault"...well, we get what we get.
I agree with your idea 1000%...the reality however is just not that cut and dry.
@mtbman99 - I have I think 7 or 8 Fox lock out levers...broken...sitting in a drawer. No parts to be had.
One of my goals in my local area is to expand access and some trail mileage so more people can bike to our small closed loop system rather than drive. The roads here are extremely busy and bad for bike commuting. However there is a ton of double track, single track, and open space to allow people to commute to the trails on their bikes. This is particular can open access for kids whose parents may be far more comfortable if they can get out without being on major streets. It also would give much better opportunity for commuters than road riding. The state park here is very thin and connects much of the community despite not being a ton of acreage. Honestly it’s a wildly under appreciated asset.
-yes. Already have, since quitting racing XC in 2008 I haven't owned a carbon frame and could somewhat make the case for carbon only in road cycling (as I'm not up to speed enough to argue against it). I will every single time go for the aluminium MTB with better equipment though. No questions asked, there is not a single benefit of carbon that could sway me over.
-If there was a measurable quality benefit or some other benefit, I want to say yes. While I realize going local and supporting garage shops is important, I am also a consumer and I do want the best for least amount of money... I know, it's a bit two-faced, but it is what it is at this moment
-Same as above, if there was a tangible benefit (custom geometry or something similar), then yes. Again no, if the only difference is local sourcing.
-Don't know what to say here. I could argue there is very little choice as is - for example, buying complete bikes it's hard to get a well specced Al bike, if it also comes in carbon. Add to that different geometries and if you're a slight (right...) nitpicker, the choice is limited as is.
As for buying decisions, for sure, we drive the market. But it's hard to drive the market, if there isn't a product that fits the wishes, if the market doesn't know what it wants at all and if the market can't communicate what it wants as well.
As for only local, we actually somewhat had this before - Commencal, Canyon, YT and Propain used to not be present in the US. Canyon and YT, for one part, likely because of the FSR patent. The patent expiring I think was a major driver for these two to go to US with the other two following at the same time? It would though depend on the health of local markets (if enough brands were present, I don't think it would be a huge issue) and the few persistent buyers would still manage to get that exotic brand over.
Regarding trails close to population, look at Ljubljana. It was even the green capital of EU in 2016 and it has well known (and busy!) trails a few kms from the old city centre, within the highway ring surrounding the city. And there's a lot of riding with ~10km of the ring. But I guess talking about that in Slovenia is kinda moot as you can drive across the country by the longest axis in under 3 hours...
While I do drive a lot (150-ish km in each direction) in the winter, to go ride near the coast, where there is no snow and it's warmer, it's unimaginable to me to have to drive everytime I wanted to ride. Well over 50 % of my rides start at home and a vast majority of them are over 2 hours and around 1000 meters vertical.
We have it good over here and not enough people realize that -_-
@mtbman99 this needs to be fixed, yes.
Now obviously I don't need busses to be shuttling me (except on Burnaby mountain... U-pass laps!) But not having a vehicle for much of my university time meant I could barely get to north shore trails.
Obviously this is a niche example fraught with external factors (traffic to the north shore is bad already, transit is bad already) but I use it as my only lived example of how trail access isn't just about them being nearby but them also being accessible.
I remember on a trip to Spain, seeing a bus drive by with 6 bikes on a rack in the back. Busses around here can only fit 2 bikes (and 29ers are very snug in the racks). If the city can recognize that mountain bikers are a significant user group, running just one or two busses a day two and from trail centers could take dozens of cars off the road. That is, assuming those dozens of bikers can get their bikes onto the bus in some way.
Somewhat rambly, not very well thought out, but yeah having transit options for trail centers would be a great way to decrease emissions. Plus then you can have an extra trailside beer and not worry about driving
Similarly in Alpe d'Huez, dropping all the way to the bottom of Megavalanche in Allemont, you used to do a bus ride to Oz-en-Oisans, where the bottom gondola station taking you back to Alpe d'Huez was. For this year they made an additional gondola covering the old bus trip though.
I also remember that somebody put up a two seat chairlift somewhere in Colorado I think, didn't put in any groomers and just catered to freeriders. The chairlift took people to the ridge, where they could gain additional height by skitouring, but there was a bus going back and forth in the valley, picking up the skiers and taking them back to the bottom of the chairlift.
Incorporating transit into schemes like this could make a lot of sense. The beer is an added bonus too.
See, that is the thing. Many folks claim "debate" when it is nothing more than conjecture based on potentially flawed hypothosis. From there, turns rapidly into virtue signaling and venomous judgment on this here Internet thing. We all do our parts...I even stopped using fuel oil to poison the manatee that are about a mile from my home...thank god the trails and riders there are too occupied being more alike than different - while we are there.
Fortunately, Robot and DCamp covered a lot of my sentiment. Its refreshing to see so much forethought around the idea of "sustainability".
Few things to add...
1) There is a difference between sustainability and carbon footprint. Right now there is a lot of focus on one's carbon footprint, but this doesn't mean wasteful actions with respect to materials that might be more carbon neutral equals a total free lunch. I don't want to make this more complicated than it already is, but there is an argument to be had around sustainability beyond carbon neutrality. EG, as a non-bike example, nuclear power is (basically) carbon neutral but we still have to manage the nuclear waste. (I'm still for nuclear, but it illustrates what I'm saying). In the bike world e-bikes might be good if they somehow reduce the amount a person drives, but we still have to manage the batteries at the end of the bike's life cycle.
2) Consumerism drives the (entire) outdoor industry. I often get into it with Protect Our Winter athletes who are sponsored by big companies selling us shit we don't need all the while telling us our government must "fix this problem through legislation". While I agree government programs will be important, so too will human behavior. The only company I know of who really aims to "sell less" (but somehow still sells more) is Patagonia. They will openly tell you to not buy a new jacket if your current jacket is fine. The culture of "fixing shit you have" is not very prolific in any outdoor industry. And why would it? Its a surefire way to make less money.
The bike industry is maybe the worst offender when it comes to incremental gains & engineering for performance over durability. Though I agree with David, and I know there are cut offs around what people are really okay with as far as weight and performance actually goes, I also know if we put as much energy/effort into chain durability as we did adding another gear to our cassettes we'd be better off, but there isn't any incentive to do this (really).
3) As it stands, I'd bet most normal riders are totally okay with the durability of a bike. Vital is not a good representation of the "norm". Most people don't go through bikes at the clip we all do. That said, I'm still very impressed with how much more durable my stuff has gotten over the last few years.
We've also hit a plateau with respect to technology & "good" vs "bad". Though I often make fun of the "perpetual 4 star reviews" the truth is there aren't many truly bad products on the market. The incremental gains made year to year are harder to feel & see with respect to performance. We've seen this in other industries such as skiing, moto, and climbing. What this should equate to is longer product life-cycles & more focus on durability, replaceability and cost. Obviously, we haven't seen this in full yet, but in theory the market should go this direction.
Ultimately, if bikes are designed around being maintainable for the long haul, less of them will meet an early demise. Its unfortunately really difficult to track product life-cycle right now (one good use of blockchain...but difficult to implement). If we can better understand failure points, why consumers put a bikes/parts in the trash can etc. we can do a better job fixing problems. "Racing durability" isn't the end all be all.
One closing thought, we are really grasping at straws here. Ultimately this is not the make or break around climate change or the environment, as I'd argue there are big qualitative/behavioral benefits to people becoming passionate mountain bikers (city centric people care more about the environment). However, the droves of K-Mart & Wal-Mart bike are offensive and frankly should not be built. There should be focus on very simple low cost bikes that are designed to last, not knocking off what looks to be a mountain bike and relegating these products to the dump in a matter of months.
This is where we can find more fertile ground.
Just my $0.02.
No clue if it's different in other states, but the liability issue isn't that big of a problem on public lands. Even private landowners are getting a lot of local protections for allowing recreational use of their lands.
Post a reply to: How to make the industry more sustainable?