Pole Bicycles is a new brand that has gained a huge amount of interest over a very short period of time, due to either appearing with a bike that met the mode of extremely long, low, and slack at the right time, or being part of pushing that movement. The brand's Finnish founder, Leo Kokkonen, showed me some renderings of a carbon version of the 29'' wheeled Evolink 140mm that I tested earlier this year, followed by a scale 3D printed model. He then headed full steam ahead to a carbon factory in China to sign-off on the project.
He was excited about going carbon, like many brands are—the lure of lighter, stiffer, stronger, less limitation and poor ethics. Hang on... touting a product as unethical isn't something we hear in the marketing brochures and I am not here to say one way or another what I think of this material; industry stalwarts like Max Commençal and Gavin Vos (of Spank and IXS clothing) have been vocal in the past about sticking with aluminum production for various reasons, and there are some clear up, and downsides to this black art. The following is a short interview with Leo on what he found in China and how that affected his decision to cancel the carbon project.
You showed me a sneak peek of renderings of the carbon Pole project earlier this year, but how much time and effort did you invest in that?
Our goal is to create bikes that ride amazingly good. We started with the kinematics and geometry. Second, we choose the material that is strong enough and gives the best feeling to the ride. The third most important aspect for us is the aesthetics. We started the process in 2014 by ordering a study from a university student who was doing his master's degree. We needed first to understand the carbon design and manufacturing processes. Then we started to design the carbon frame. Carbon frame design differs from aluminum bike design a lot, and that means more 3D work than in individual tube design. There were two years of concepts, mockups, and two complete frame 3D printouts, so I would say that there’s a lot of work that is almost thrown away. Although the conceptual design will carry forward to our next aluminum bike.
What did you discover when you went to China to view the factory and sign off on the project?
Carbon fiber frame manufacturing is labor intensive work. We learned that there’s no way of automating the carbon fiber process. This means that all the labor in carbon manufacturing has to be in low-cost countries; Myanmar, for example. We found out that also the carbon waste is not handled properly. The factory where we visited stated that the carbon waste is “ocean fill.” I guess it means that they dump it in the ocean...
That might change in the future, but still, we are not interested in a process where you need to invest a lot in something that is so risky in many ways.
Did you just choose a crappy factory by accident that wasn't doing a good job? The big brands must use facilities with higher standards?
I think that there is no point in visiting crappy places. Personally, I hate wasting time on low-end processes. The factory we chose to visit makes frames for many big brands in MTB industry. My business ethics says not to tell which but let’s say that they have made one of the lightest full suspension frames on the market recently for a big player in Europe. Their process is as professional as it can be in my opinion. The factory was clean, and the workers looked relatively happy. The only thing they didn’t do professionally was the recycling. Lack of recycling is a big problem in the Middle East, and China is one of the worst.
400 [Failed to load instagram embed] https://www.instagram.com/p/BYnwhf9gkwu/?maxwidth=1000 What do you think the environmental/ethical costs are of producing a carbon frame in China over your alloy bikes that are made in Taiwan?
Aluminum is 100% recyclable, and there is a growing need for aluminum in the world. This means that even though aluminum needs a lot of electricity and the mining of Bauxite is not safe; we are helping society in the long term by adding more aluminum to the pool of material available to recycle. This means that every bike we make is going to be recycled to a different product after its life has ended.
Carbon is not recyclable, and the resin used in the frame is toxic. Most of the jobs that involve resins are ranked high in the health risk jobs. There is no need for recycled carbon fiber at the moment, and there is not a worldwide process that would recycle carbon fiber products. I can’t say how much of this problem is from bikes as the biggest carbon waste comes from airplanes, but still, there's not enough carbon waste that it would be a business – it's landfill material after use. The most toxic part of the carbon frame is the resin.
Besides that it's not really recyclable at the moment, what do you think the other disadvantages of carbon are?
The biggest of them all is that carbon frames really don't seem to give as big of an advantage that we might think. By our standards, the frame should take a real beating. The light full suspension MTB frames we have seen recently are close to the weight of road bikes from ten years ago. That’s insane from our perspective. We think that you should be able to ride fast with the bikes that we make. We want the frames to take a beating so that you don’t need to worry when you crash if the bike is ok or not. I personally have spent thousands of Euros on components and gear that I thought would last at least one season but they have failed because they have been designed with lightweight and not longevity in mind.
When we wanted to make a frame that is strong enough by our standards, the weight difference between metal and composite on trail bike seems to be fairly low. If riders invest their hard-earned money on properly choosing their parts, there will be a far bigger advantage than losing 1–2kg on the frame. For example, you can use light cranks to save weight and your budget is not going through the roof if they fail. And the best part is that if you break your cranks, they’re easy to replace and continue the season. If you break the frame, you won’t be able to get a spare as quickly as cranks.
How hard was it to can the carbon plan after so much of your time, money, and energy was invested? How close were you to saying "F-it, let's just go ahead with the project"?
Personally, not very hard. We want to do the best, and if we find out that the concept we have does not follow our philosophy, it’s easy to terminate it. It was a relief, actually. Big companies play it safe because they need to. We can lead the way because we can ditch stuff that we don’t like. Pole’s business is to make riding more fun by experimenting with the stuff that nobody has bothered to look at yet. We have already seen now that bigger companies start to turn their boats to new school geometry, slowly.
What are your plans for the future of this project, and what else are you doing to make your company more environmentally friendly?
We think that robotics, artificial intelligence, and digitalization are the keywords of modern business. If we harness these, we can make the world a much better place for everyone. We have a plan that is quite radical, and if it works, it will revolutionize the industry.
If you care about the environment and human rights, you should ask your brand how they make sure that these things are taken care of. Pole is a small company, and we cannot change the Chinese factory's strategies. We choose to use our brains over our wallets and create our own future. We have created a manufacturing method that is going to be the next big thing. It’s 98% ready, so you can expect news later this year.
Leo certainly has some strong opinions on carbon fiber and why he won’t be going down that road. Do you agree? Or is carbon the right material for the job?
Surely only some vague research, mostly done from a laptop would have revealed most of the truth about carbon bicycle frame manufacture - that could have been done long ago
Agreed. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but still makes you wonder.
I hope their new process is a 100% hydroformed front triangle. How cool would a seamless/weldless aluminium frame be?!
My favorite part, is him saying aluminum frame manufacturing is doing the world a favor, because we need these excess bikes for other products in the future. I guess he missed the article where they have seas of bikes that they don't know what to do with around China.
Everything is marketing what companies say so let's get this out of the table. These values what we tell here are our personal values put in to a company values. We don't want to be part of something that feels wrong. Here's everything put in to a nutshell:
1. Pole is not going to save the world.
2. Pole does not want to "create more jobs"
3.The world has bigger problems than carbon frames.
What we want to say is:
1. We want to move forward in the world to a cleaner and safer future for everyone
2. We think that working in factories is not for humans
3. Everything you do has an effect to the world. We want to minimize the negative effect.
There's more in to this on our website: www.polebicycles.com/why-arent-we-going-for-carbon-frames
My point is, your appear to be a forward thinking company, and you sell yourself as progressive environmentally in this article. Obviously, that is easy to applaud. That said, it feels like a Miss America pageant response. I get it, we all want peace (we'll most of us), global warming is bad (again, most of us agree), and we should all help suffering children and countries. I agree with all. Easy to do. So you admitted that everything is marketing, which I consider fluff. So what is the real reason for not moving to carbon? Recycling and environment issues aside. Easy answer. I'm on board with the recycling and environmental issues. If you're so progressive, which I bet you are, during the 2 year process of design and research (which you envolved a masters university student), what did you find in regards to waste and the process. Im calling BS on the easy answer. Again, you appear to be forward thinking, and this had to be clearly on your radar. I just feel there is more to it than what is listed in the article. I would have hoped for some deeper questions, and not marketing fluff, but that seems to have disappeared in today's society. Maybe too much to ask on PB, but it's toxic across all media outlets. Rant over
It could just be an honest response to all the potential disappointment. Maybe they are just explaining what they learned...and those things didn't sit right by them. Now they're just pandering to the public? People are so quick to judge.
In this day in age, everything is brand.
And, while there might be other extenuating circumstances that drove this choice (that we may never know), it's the action you have to pay attention to, not the words (truth or fabrication) that come before of after. As others have mentioned, this appears to have gotten pretty far down the road in terms of product development before pulling the plug, however the plug was pulled. While one can theorize as to the potential forces that ultimately pushed them in this direction, their pattern of behavior moving forward will provide a measuring stick for all to see.
Maybe you should point out, that in general fibrous dust can be hazardous or even carcinogenic. I think the CDC recommends the use of bio hazard cabinets for cutting or sanding operations of carbon parts, but then you see videos from production facilities of for example Giant or Sram, where those operations aren't even done with a mask.
But even here in Europe there are many companies, where carbon composites are processed without much safety measurements - for example: just go over to GCN on Youtube an watch the guy at the Mavic Headquarters grind down prototype carbon shoes without a respirator in a closed room.
When it comes to compute the carbon footprint of the final product this is VERY complex and you provide no data to support the claim of a smaller total footprint. For what I have seen around the cost from finished material to final bike is equivalent.
The carbon footprint of carbon when i comes to length of life is way smaller. Aluminum is very poor in this regard, you would have to go steel or titanium to achieve a higher life span than carbon.
And finally carbon IS recyclable.
"Lack of recycling is a big problem in the Middle East, and China is one of the worst."
My apologies for being direct, but you are seriously misinformed.
Not only does China recycle metal, cardboard, glass and plastic, they recycle just about everything ELSE that Americans and Europeans put into landfills. Labor cost is too expensive for Western countries to properly break down consumer goods for recycling. Many local entrepreneurs recycle items deemed to toxic to recycle in America - like every type of electronics, even individual AA batteries! Where can you find labor cheap enough to do this recycling? China.
Right now, I put a recycle bin out by the front curb in my Houston, Texas subdivision (with strict regulations from Waste Management about what they'll accept - and there is a LOT of easily recyclable material they won't accept) and give it away for free.
In China, the entrepreneurs I mentioned come door to door and PAY you in cash for your recyclables! They have a portable scale, separate different materials, and pay residents money. They would point at old broken electronics and quote a price, as they know exactly how to break those down to get the precious recyclable metals inside... I was astonished at the variety of things they would take. "It's all worth something!" they would say with a smile.
They pay money for bags of old clothes! It might be last year's style for you, but there are plenty of even poorer people in Tibet or Xinjiang that would love to pay pennies on the dollar for your old clothes... (clothes are something that westerners have an overwhelming abundance of... )
I could go on an on... So many stories. Point is, Chinese are incredibly good at recycling.
They just don't recycle carbon fiber. As you admit, nobody does! So not true to single the Chinese out and say they don't recycle. The factory owners do plenty of things that are terrible for the environment, but on the aspect of recycling - Chinese recycling puts America to shame.
Sources: I lived in China (mainland) for quite a few years.
Pics: Children's toy I bought this past summer in China for my son. Recycled AA battery case made into a tank!
www.pinkbike.com/photo/15169931
www.pinkbike.com/photo/15169934
When I first arrived so many years ago, sights like this Styrofoam recycling man's tricycle astonished me. They are actually very commonplace, and you'll see the tricycles piled high will all types of recyclable materials.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/15169927
www.pinkbike.com/photo/15169929
There is a company/start up in Port Angeles in WA state doing this with all the off cuts from the Boeing production line. They have a lot of waste even from new sheets that don't pass their QA process, which you can imagine is very thorough for building aircraft components.
I do think that Pole's decision has merit. He didn't like what he saw in the production process and ethically couldn't take that direction.
We believe in sustainable business and we think that it has more profit. This story is not "Miss America". We are actually doing something rather than just hoping for world peace
Overall, the entire process of transforming raw bauxite into aluminum is incredibly energy intensive, requiring copious amounts of electricity, water and resources to produce (that is the main reason why power plants are built solely to support the aluminum industry). Since pure aluminum ore is so stable, an extraordinary amount of electricity is required to yield the final product and, at least in the U.S., half of the smelting energy consumed is courtesy of coal, one of the most notoriously polluting fuel sources known to mankind. The EPA says that the release of perfluorocarbons during the aluminum smelting process are 9,200 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in terms of their affect on global warming. When bauxite is extracted from the earth, the strip-mining process removes all native vegetation in the mining region, resulting in a loss of habitat and food for local wildlife as well as significant soil erosion. The caustic red sludge and toxic mine tailings that remain are commonly deposited into excavated mine pits where they ultimately seep into aquifers, contaminating local water sources. Greenhouse gas emissions released during smelting and processing (which have been found to blanket surrounding regions with toxic vapors) include carbon dioxide, perfluorocarbons, sodium fluoride, sulfur dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and a vast list of other problematic elements. Particulates released during processing that are known to compromise air quality include combustion byproducts, caustic aerosols, dust from bauxite, limestone, charred lime, alumina and sodium salt.
I think we need to look at the whole picture, start to finish. I find it hard to believe that we won't find a way to reuse the carbon at some point. Even connecting a bunch or used pieces (and/or) frames to build a huge frame for something else would still be putting it back to use.
I'm with you on this one Bro Rat.
And with consumers interested in why or why not a company is going carbon it's probably a good practice to share that info. Gives us something to either bitch about or praise and get's Pole's name circulating.
There’s no doubt that carbon fiber costs a ton of energy to produce. In fact, it’s about 14 times as energy-intensive as producing steel, and the creation process spews out a significant amount of greenhouse gases. On the other hand, carbon fiber doesn’t corrode, degrade, rust or fatigue. That means it has a much longer lifecycle, so it potentially only has to be produced once where a steel part would have to be replaced multiple times. That makes its full lifecycle impact look a lot better. And, just as importantly, carbon fiber’s primary uses right now are in automotive and aerospace, where weight determines the amount of fuel used. Less fuel means fewer emissions, and since a carbon fiber part weighs about 20 percent of what a steel one weighs, that means an even better score for carbon fiber. Steel does have the advantage of being infinitely recyclable. A ton of steel can be made into thousands of miles of wire, a car chassis enough forks to make the Blue Raja weep with joy. And when you’re done with it, you can melt it back down and make … bowls or whatever. I don’t know what steel is used for these days. Guitars? Carbon fiber, on the other hand, is almost never recycled, and it survives for a loooong time in the landfill (see degradation above). And, of the 50,000 metric tons of carbon fiber that were produced last year, about 10,000 of those went into the waste stream without ever making it into a product. It ended up as scrap from the manufacturing process.
Can carbon fiber be recycled?
Abso-frickin’-lutely. Now. But that wasn’t always the case. Carbon fiber reclamation and recycling is a fairly new process. And, while it’s not quite as expensive as creating new CFRPs, it ain’t cheap. It typically happens in a process called pyrolysis, which literally translates to breakdown by fire. Sweet. The carbon fiber is heated to ridiculously hot temperatures in an oxygen-less environment, so it doesn’t actually catch fire. All the extra stuff melts away, and you’re left with pristine carbon fibers that can be reused for anything the original fibers were used for. Carbon fiber can also be recycled by milling or shredding, which is just as effective, but leaves you with a shorter fiber. Shorter fibers are weaker than longer ones, so the result isn’t quite as useful as pyrolysis-ized fibers, but they can still be used for things like electronics cases, which don’t need a crash rating. Recycling carbon fiber takes more energy than steel, but in the long run, it looks like it’s better for the environment.
I hope more riders start choosing "longevity" over "performance".
Thanks for the article.
I'm actually kinda surprised pinkbike was down for it since they're really only into giving all their bike industry buddies high fives for how rad everything is.
And looking the other way when it's not.
And definitely not accurately informing the readers of failures and quality problems that shouldn't cost us money or time off our bikes but always do.
The farce of carbons benefits have gone on for too long.
The bike industry needs to start adding the words longevity and durability to its marketing angles.
High five for you sir.
But if you have an alternative study please give us a reference, otherwise please don't make unverifiable claims or alleged environmental consciousness when there is in fact little of it supported by facts ...
Thanks for the research link. It's the first time I see it and it has obviously some valuable informatio. Here's a quote from the research: "The carbon material itself has a higher impact then aluminum or steel, but the researchers attribute the low weight of the material to the relatively low environmental impact. The researchers note that the uncertainty in the environmental impact data concerning carbon is
relatively high and needs further research (Hout, 2014)"
What do you think about that?
"We know that a lot of energy is going to melting aluminium but that technology is moving forward. In the future we won't be using coal as a primary energy source. Melting aluminium in Scandinavia is a greener choise because of the water energy for example. Most of the aluminium is recycled in China because of the cheap coal. Some of the material is recycled in Iceland because they have hydroelectric and geothermal power. But of course we can not control this because it's out of our reach.
arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/aluminium-smelting-in-iceland-alcoa-rio-tinto-alcan-century-aluminum-corp"
1. Pole is not going to save the world.
2. Pole does not want to "create more jobs"
3.The world has bigger problems than carbon frames.
What we want to say is:
1. We want to move forward in the world to a cleaner and safer future for everyone
2. We think that working in factories is not for humans
3. Everything you do has an effect to the world. We want to minimize the negative effect.
There's more in to this on our website: www.polebicycles.com/why-arent-we-going-for-carbon-frames
When I visited there the air pollution was very high. We went mountain biking and the guys that I was biking with threw all the garbage to the ground. After the ride my lungs hurt and I needed to calf for one hour. If they can not handle these simple things like not throwing plastic bottles to the ground, I assume they can not handle bigger things like recycling the waste they produce. We still don't know how they process the resin that is left from the prepreg phase. All of the carbon frame factories have their own chemical factories.
Please Google for me any pics from the Chinese factories that produce carbon frames. If you can find their process described, I will reward you.
I´m not a vegan, i drive a car to the bikepark on a regular basis and i like nice things (like bicycle frames) that are not always inherently compatible with the idea of environmental conciousness. I also however like to make an effort if given a choice and this choice in todays world is getting rarer and rarer.
Just like it´s getting near impossible to get a phone without ridiculous and unnecessary features (i blame you Apple!) it´s getting harder and harder to find a reasonably priced bike that doesn´t utilize Carbon just for the sake of it.
I mean, look at Dirts recent Downhill bike weigh in. Most bikes were beaten in weight by the cheap and aluminium Solid Strike. A bike i personally own and cannot ask to do any more than it does. And we´re talking 10000$ bikes here.
We´ve reached a point where there are only marginal gains to be had from different bikes, so just like apple, bike manufacturers decided to sell us design and emotion instead of real advancements (at the cost of our wallets and the environment).
What Pole offers me is a choice to buy a bike, not an overengineered design object and while that is in its own way an inherently emotional choice, i can just applaud them for offering me that opportunity.
I'll second that.
It's very interesting and I need to read it through with better time.
"Carbon fiber bicycles are used by racers and many recreational riders, and
manufacturing carbon fiber bicycle frames can give off up to 20 times more greenhouse gas
emissions than steel, a common bicycle frame material (Halper, 2011)."
"Of the six products considered, the carbon fiber composite products use and consume the
most water. In fact, over 65,000 liters of water are used to make one Roubaix frame and over 30,000
liters are used to make one Roubaix fork. Considering Specialized’s annual sales of this bicycle
frame, enough water is used to fill almost 523 Olympic swimming pools each year. "
And last: "The results of the LCA show that carbon fiber composite consumes significant amounts of
water, aluminum bicycle manufacturing uses significant amounts of energy, and chain manufacturing
produces significant amounts of recyclable waste. The index results slightly favor the aluminum
bicycle frame, but do not robustly indicate the specific impacts unique to each product.
Qualitatively, the team found that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable bikes and the
media perceives bicycles and the industry favorably, but focuses on bicycle use over production."
www.hongfu-bikes.com/Technique/index.html & www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-01/27/content_23267520.htm talks about a new method (2016) for recycling carbon...
I think that mining is shit, but everything comes form the ground anyway. The resins that are used in carbon fiber process are oil based. At least aluminium mining is not bringing too much heavy metals to the surface and the aluminiumoxide will dilute after a while.
The energy used in aluminum process could be something else for sure and china is building more nuclear, solar and wind power to replace the coal power plants. Everything is oging forward and I bet the carbon recycling process is going to be better as well but nevertheless carbon process can not be automated and the frames will always be manufactured in the low cost labor countries like China, Burma, Vietnam and in the future somewhere in Africa where there is no proper human rights.
"Carbon is not recyclable"- were you misquoted in the article because that's exactly what they say you said.
Commencal's racers also manage to win golds on aluminum bikes.
Whenever a company says anything vaguely environmental I think speil....
I don't see how that would be related to environmental issues. It's not like materials wouldn't have to be shipped there too.
Or are you talking about carbon fiber production? In this case,probably because there's a lot of knowledge, equipment and experience needed which is hard to come by in most countries. And also because prices for such a bike would be astronomically high due to labour cost and (of course) environmental regulations. Check out the UNNO bikes and how long their development process already is and also what prices they're asking for an example. So for me it's not an either or question,it just comes down to whether you can accept the drawbacks of the one option you have. If not, you pretty much just have to stay away from carbon.
But anyway, it is just a part of the picture and my main point is that the picture is VERY complex. Look at the Specialized report, or any other attempt to quantify and/or compare the socio/economic/emission footprint of manufacturer processes and you will realize how difficult it is. Pole Bicycle but especially Pinkbike do a rather dismal work at that in this case, with Pinkbike as usual serving as a parroting megaphone without even a hint of doing some real fact checking ...
(madeinmarseille.net/actualites-marseille/2016/01/poisson-pollution-boue-rouge-calanque.jpg)
Also, you told us that humans should not be in a factory but can I know how are your alloy bikes welded?
Sorry but as it's been already said before, it really looks like you've dropped the idea of a carbon frame for one reason (frames too expensive? QC not satisfying?) and you came up like "let's make marketing out of this fail".
In the end, it's both dishonest and wrong.
CF has for sure a bigger footprint than aluminium but as it won't be subject to fatigue it's waaaaay more durable than aluminium. One efficient way to go eco-friendly would have been to design a future-proof bike (interchangeable dropouts etc.) and to encourage customer to keep their bikes longer. Not to invent a bs marketing story about aluminium being eco-friendly...
Kay Cee:
If you really believe in that then you'd stop consuming and make that pretty new carbon frame the last one you'll buy for the next decade.
Also, run your current car into the ground and use public transportation and ride everywhere that's close.
Good on ya mate. Just trolling a bit but this "I'm so holy because I ride aluminum" (non) trend that exists in a few forums now is already getting exhausting.
Except for when we are all wiped out. The steel and aluminum will all go back into the ground. The carbon will just sit there with the plastic for eternity.
Now you just need to imagine that India, china, and almost every country between pacific and Indian Ocean is doing the same.
I would say it's the Asian way, but it's probably not every country in Asia that does it. I don't think Singapore does, or Japan.
2) build military bases on them
3) ???
4) Profit
Sorry but if the brands that make their frames there are mostly concerned about profit and not educating these people, that why they make them there. If they were concerned about employees and environment, these frames would be made in usa, europe, etc..and would cost a fortune only a few could pay.it is not going to happen soon.
I would ask the brands to make a tour video of their faclities while people work building frames, etc.... we would choose our equipment wiserly
I think if you are concerned about what you eat and what is been done to get that food to you (as soja plantations deforestating amazonas for the sake of "healthy for me but not for the environment" green food), please check what has to be done to make your frame or anything you buy.
I believe in reducing and recycling and I try my best but dh is not eco friendly so try to balance that carbonprint someway. And I jus bought a second hand carbon dh bike but I try to keep my bikes for the maximun amount of time (around 7 years).
What POLE just did is admirable and educating in this IRONIC world. Sorry for the blabla
workers - for the money
companies - for the money
of course the difference in income on both sides is not comparable, but that doesnt change that both sides dont really give a f.
China also recently created a 'floating solar panel island' to the praise and cheers of the media, what they forgot to tell you was it was on a toxic waste pond... go figure.
www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/05/great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-a-myth-warn-experts-as-survey-sho/amp
The truth is that there is no white lies. You are grown up adults and should always be sceptical towards BS that you hear and say. In the end of the day you, yes you dear @BenPea go to vote for the world's most important leaders. You have the responsibility on your shoulders to be honest towards yourself and those around you, do research and find proofs to what you think. And God forbids us yet another white lie, that will have unpredicted consequences.
Interestingly he recommds "light cranks" that may fail. Does he mean carbon cranks??
Finally the revolutionary project with robotics is nice but you' d kill those jobs in China, and I don't see how it solves the problem of carbon recycling. Unless hés not talking about carbon ?
If you want to save the planet stop buying stuff.
Anyway. What if you already have light everything and still wanna shave 0.6 to 1.2 kg (semi random numbers, take note) and you could do it on a single item?
Or a bike at all, for that matter.
Humanity may be over at any given moment, but history cannot be foreseen with any degree of certainty.
Don't sell yourself short. Every movement has to start somewhere. I think this is the single most thought provoking article I've ever read on Pinkbike. I'm sure many others feel the same way. It made me seriously re-consider my future frame and component options....
Very happy about my 2018 Operator ALUMINUM.
*aluminium
This is why I intentionally try to purchase as much USA or EU Mfg stuff as possible. Very hard in this sport to do BTW.
There are many US based mfg building their own stuff. Support them. I ride a Guerilla Gravity now with Chris King hubs. To be perfectly truthful , that may be all the US/Euro mfg items on it as the SRAM stuff is Taiwan as is the Maxxis Tires, RF and Fox parts. Push needs to make a fork in 100% in house and an airshock and I will toss out the suspension for something US made.
Problem (or not?) is that many mtbers aren't as invested in the sport as the PB audience.
I'd love to see how a successful bike shop classifies it's customers. For example how many carbon $5k+ mountain bikes are just sold to walk-in customers with disposable income who want a cool mtb for one reason or another. They're then eagerly and inevitably steered toward a carbonium Bronson, Stumpy, Fuel, or whatever. They could give two shits about the frame material but heard from a friend that Santa Cruz makes "cool" bikes and that $5k is the going rate.
It seems like there are more and more consumers with more disposable income that'll just drop a hefty chunk on a bike even if they're newbies or are only gonna ride it one weekend per month.
Anyway, how about a PB poll on how many of us are riding carbon frames? And then why?
I've never been a fan of carbon and this is just one more reason. For me steel is the best material for a frame as it's easy and cheap to repair and it has some flex. I don't mind Aluminium as it can be recycled.
I also try to support local products however sometimes cost governs - my Pikes or Taiwanese cromo frame are examples.
www.pinkbike.com/news/greg-minnaar-broken-santa-cruz-v10-val-di-sole-dh-world-cup-2017.html
We shouldn't buy it if we know... individually we can all make that decision...perhaps don't buy unless you are convinced the manufacturer has genuinely tackled the issues?
Blame the leaders (us), not the soldiers.
There has been a discussion on being 'eco' between 'old' EU countries and Poland not so long ago. One of the vioces was that Poland (and other 'growing' countries for that matter) need to go through the 'coal' age (for producing electricity namely), before hopping on the 'wind, water, solar' bandwagon. Mainly because of lack of money to invest.
That being said I think it'd be better to 'skip' coal and go straight to what Germany or France are doing. BUT Where the money could come from to do this? Yeah, you'd borrow that from them... And the technology as well...
Applying the same to being 'eco' by China now. It seems they need to push through that all. And the main reason they may make the switch is push from customers (like Commencal and Pole) and change in mindsets. With the latter being harder to accomplish. Like in Poland: why would I invest in solar panels if I can just throw few buckets of coal...
"imagine there's a war and no one attends"
leaders ain't gonna fight each other personally...
@sourmix: Again I agree, England was awful to the world during their Industrial revolution and we used to be one of the worst whalers historically, but China aspires to be part of the third world yet refuses to update their thinking in line with the newer global consciousness we all aspire to. Sometimes fingers still need to be pointed even if it's with some caveats.
@szusz: you might notice that every example I gave was of China destroying wildlife for example "ocean fill" rather than use of their own materials coal etc. As a nation they have a total lack of regard for the life they are destroying across our planet. Of course I understand that they need to finish going through their industrial revolution, but the biggest leap they need to make is to leave behind the antiquated thinking that they cling to as a people that fuels trade in Ivory, shark fins and endangered animals, all either for status or for their nonsense "medicinal properties".
In any case now it is definitely up to each and every one of us ...
Go vegan! Food industry is disgusting. Who also owns the pharmaceutical companies who train write our doctors study books and materials. How do we think this is being run? Um, crap food = poison = doctors = pills, not fix the root cause of your issue. At least in the US. US system is BS. Lol
All about the almighty dollar.
-watch 'what the health'
If manufacturers were willing to do more like what Transition does, and build their alloy bikes stiffer, to the same standard as their carbon bikes AND offer higher end build kits, then maybe carbon wouldn't be as "necessary" except for riders looking for a super light bike. In the meantime, if we want higher end build kits or stiff frames, carbon is the only option for many manufacturers.
Look at the new Whyte S150...only one low end metal option.
Another point to take into consideration is that the whole processing cycle of aluminum demands far more energy than carbon composites. If you burn the resin of the composite you can get almost the same amount of energy consumed in it's whole processing cycle. Nevertheless i am not sure if carbon is the best material for a mountain Bike because of it's low impact tolerance
Just because something can be recycled does not erase any downside that came out of the mining or production of the product. Like how in this article Leo recognizes that with the mention of mining bauxite having issues.
Srsly trying to understand the e-bike movement and just cannot wrap my head around it. Maybe I am a luddite. Anyways, hats off to Pole on this article, definitely will consider them when my bike is due for replacement.....
But with the EU laws requiring the car manufacturers to be able to recycle up to 80% of a car, there will be an increasing pressure to develop better processes.
I just can't find the Canadian company anymore - their concept was quite interesting, leaving the resin and the unharmed fibres behind.
@cmscheip: With cars it is a litte bit different because you substitute fossil fuel. The production phase only accounts for about 17-20 % emissions of the product life cycle. The rest is use. So even if you charge a car with a poor electricity mix with around 600 g CO2/kWh, you still can have an emission advantage over conventional cars. But that does not apply for ebikes of course. So if an ebike is used without substituting shuttling or commuting in a car/scooter etc. the environmental impact is increasing.
Jay Zee -> riddle me this: so if an ebike ends up at the bottom of the ocean, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Going carbon is not really what I would call the hottest trend. That was rather 10 years ago. We're in 2017 man! I rather see a revival of aluminium.
Advantages of carbon? It's lighter (and even at lighter weight able to take a beating, no matter what's been said), you can make the shape you want, though so far it stayed pretty conventional. Conservatism or just in order to make a like-looking cheaper alu version? I don't know.
It would be interesting to hear the Hope view on this...they do things their own way so maybe they can teach the established bike frame brands a lesson?
@hopetech
www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/story/second_life
Then check environmental cost of recycling A
For instance ,"The atmospheric pollutants from primary aluminum production also produce acid rain when they mix with water vapor."
Wait, it gets even better..
Recycling aluminum requires only five percent of the energy required to manufacture new aluminum from bauxite. However, recycling aluminum produces many toxic chemicals that are released into the air. Furthermore, recycling aluminum produces a waste product called "dross" that is highly toxic and has to be buried in landfills. This dross must be tightly sealed in containers so that it doesn’t leak out and enter groundwater."
Facts suck don't they ...
Reasonable and enforceable productions standards is the ONLY reality. 3rd world tyrants are not really to concerned about anyone's environment including their own.
For the record, I own an alloy and a carbon bike so apparently I'm part of a problem I.
Wait .. would the fact that I use my bike for transportation instead of my evil gas powered vehicle alleviate some of my personal carbon footprint ??
The ridiculousness of transportation is best shown with plane/ train comparison. It is often cheaper to fly a plane. Plane is so much more convenient that it should easily cost double. It doesn't. Professors working with AI and AGI say it pretty clearly: idea that a super intelligent overmind would take only best decisions is an utopian archetype. Taking chances is a form of mutation falling subject to natural selection. Experimenting species progress faster, always. Then lazyness is one of forms of effectivity. So is lying.
Just because its produced in Asia doesn't mean people are pouring paint into rivers or sanding carbon with no respirators.
Steel, aluminium or titanium, they can be recycled, and they are durable (at least steel and mostly titanium).
The simple fact of having to use toxic glue to make a frame is damn stupid.
You want to loose 1 or 2 kg on your bike ? Guess what : eat a bit less, it's free, you'll loose the weight and even more.
Personally I see no real benefit in lower static frame weight either, unless you have already shawed rotating weight as much as possible. Maybe unsprung weight could matter on a FS but I couldn't tell the difference in carbon rear from alu in that sense. However, the impact to my wallet and from crashes is horrible.
And apparently the environmental impact too. :/
Ocean fill is an issue. If clothing industry drives prices down so hard that factories pour chemicals straight to rivers, keep people in buildings that may collapse, have no fire extinguishers, then I see little hope for it to be better cheap direct order sales companies, not to mention Ali-express.
I amy irritate some friends here, but sorry, bothing to you personally as a whole, we all do some stupid sht (I just ordered a cheap ass stem from Bontrager) but buying stuff from Ali express is just fkng low. Carbon seatposts cheaper than the cheapest truvativ alu post. Bars made of croissant dough, honestly, you deserve to end in hospital when that crap fails. You do.
However, the knock against recycling aluminum doesn't ring true to me. 3% of the world's energy consumption is used to smelt aluminum (!), so recycling even 100% of the world's aluminum bike frames won't make an iota of difference to the massive resources and global warming effects required to satiate the world's demand for aluminum.
arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/aluminium-smelting-in-iceland-alcoa-rio-tinto-alcan-century-aluminum-corp
We are choosing between two evils. More aluminium is produced nevertheless we are doing it or not. There is a growing need for metals anyway so we are just using it in the meantime before the metal turns in to a soda canister.
And too often I see fat ass crying for carbon to gain 1/2 a pound when themselves can lose 50 easily...
Hence, rather than a statement of, "we chose a poor factory, and are scrapping our plans" it has turned into a finger pointing, holier-than-thou, straw man argument, in which other brands do not have their ethical integrity.
But go ahead, purchase away based on this neo-marketing strategy millenials.
However, you are right.. most times, that person may be redundant and someone new comes in who is previously trained. A tough decision.
Same with Hope. I never heard anyone complain that they have their production done by devices that should be considered robots.
Expoydes are the n°1 cause of professional dermathisis. Hardeners are carcinogic and reproductive disrupters.
And china is known to be low ranked in term of health and safety at work.
I think you have to be realistic. In the coming decades a lot of jobs are going to disappear because of automation and AI (especially that combination). With the developments in autonomous cars, all truck drivers / taxi drivers / delivery guys will for instance lose their jobs. At the moment factory robots probably still need a programmer, but pretty soon that robot can program itself. Also maintenance can be automatized. I can imagine factories that do not need any personnel. As you can see above, Pole is just interested in selling bikes, not creating jobs, so they must also think along those lines (can't blame them). I just wonder who they are going to sell those bikes to when all these jobs disappear.
We think that robotization means a better future for everyone. We need to redefine work and maybe in future people don't need to work at all. We may play video games and mountain bike all day When I was a kid I visited USSR. They still had "communism" there. When we went to bathroom, there was a granny that sold pieces of toilet papers. I don't think "job" this is good for anyone. I bet the granny would make a better future if she would spend time with her family rather than doing a meaningless job.
We will put our effort to make factory jobs obsolete as hard as we can. In the process we might need to hire more designers, people who service the robots and people who teach the AI to work smarter. Also we might need more people to photograph, shoot videos and create more stories about we doing this.
And You will teach the world "ethics?" I will leave out the case of current government and the terrifying volume of its supporters.
Norwegian salmon, fk me
Just be honest, we couldn't make it work.
But it's ethical to automate and remove jobs from the job pool
"We think that robotics, artificial intelligence, and digitalization are the keywords of modern business. If we harness these, we can make the world a much better place for everyone." (Except those who lost their jobs)
mises.org/library/progressive-luddites-and-gustave-de-molinari’s-final-words
www.spinnova.fi
Regardless, each material has it own character, how it is built It is more important.
still primarily aluminum
But really, the only answer is wooden bike frame. Renewable resource, can easily make a bong out of a seat stay, can burn it if you get a real back country jam, people can actually use those expensive lathes they have in garage collecting dust, can be coated with a water proof sealant so it beads up water like a freshly waxed car, and it lends itself to a lot a shi!tty hard on jokes.
#woodisgood
#hippy but this right here is enough for me to never want to buy a carbon bike in the near/semi-near future. If 1/100 boutique brands are honest about this, you can guarantee the likes of Trek and Specialized literally doing the worst possible things for the environment.
my next bike 100%
ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta
I'm a little happy a carbon evolink isn't about to drop when I just got my aluminum one. Carbon however, would be awesome for a bike of these proportions, my large evolink 140 is somewhere between 35-37 lbs with a coil shock.
Keep up the good work @polebicycle "normal" geometry has effectively been ruined for me.
I'm seriously intrigued by a Pole (or a Whyte S-150) but don't know if its overkill for the hometrails.
Plus, tight turns are not my strong suite (I prefer to plow straight through steep and rocky terrain), that's why I don't know if I should rather stay with nible, playful bikes to help me with turns.
I have to admit though the natural fibre or bio resins that are biodegradable do not have equivalent mechanical properties.
38.5 times lower than high mod carbon...not even close
More environmentaly friendly than alu and carbon, and as Joe McEwan said, a well engineered carbon frame should cost way more than you allready think it's expensive,
Everyone except the people replaced by robots and A.I....
1. you are paying 5k€ for alu frame bike
2. you are paying 5k€ for a heavy bike
3. Even if long CS is better for cornering I prefer a bike that can be handled in tight forest and having such a long bike is just not very practical.
4. No Eagle option.
Bike companies f*ck people over with their different price points using the same carbon frame as a basis for setting the price of a bike. Some even give the same bike a different model name for the same frame but just upgraded or put different components. The lowest price for a carbon frame would be about 1-2 thousand dollars more than an aluminum framed bike. Then, they f*ck you over even more by jacking up the price by a couple of thousand dollars more for each upgrade level of components you want.
It is good that Pole has made an ethical decision to not go with carbon technology. I've worked in a fiberglass plant before and I know exactly where he's coming from in regards to the waste that comes out of it not only as a solid, but also from the chemicals that are disposed in the whole process.
Apart,of course, from all the people who will be put out of work (mostly in the poorest countries) by this.
Don't want to be picky but that about the difference between a downhill and a trail bike...
And not only enviornmental impacts - it is about durability in crashes as well. I mean don't you crash with your trail bike from time to time?
There is also a difference between not wanting lighter and lighter parts and wanting heavier ones
@CocaPump We know that the tires are creating a lot of waste. I did my job by inventing Huck Norris so you would not have to throw as much tires away. Huck Norris is Made in Finland and the material is easier to recycle than tires. We are currently trying to improve the lifespan of Huck Norrises as well. The packaging of Huck Norris can be used as a fender.
Is there anyway round this on the horizon? Eric 6'5"
You can read more here: www.polebicycles.com/why-arent-we-going-for-carbon-frames
F*ck carbon, I am intrigued by this new process. I
I would think that your medical bill budget could potentially skyrocket with a crank arm snapping.
It's a topic that needs to be addressed.
singletrackworld.com/2016/06/lightest-available-2017-cross-country-models-from-scott
a cleanly welded frame is a beautiful thing.
v1.0.1.elgcf.srvb.net4orce.nvas.io/recycled-carbon-fibre/the-process
Can't deal with every problem and this site is about bikes not child abortions.
But yes, you're correct.
That country is a disgrace.
Apples to apples, please. Bikes are aluminum tubing / plastic, with technology borrowed from other industries
www.pinkbike.com/news/Worlds-first-3D-printed-bike-2014.html
Toxic metal dust for workers, both for the workers who make the dust and the workers who 3D print. It is also expensive to buy the dust and the advanced laser metal printer. It is also time-consuming. That prototype bike cost £200.000 to make!
You are basically comparing Pole with companies that have marketing budgets larger than Pole's entire company turnover and wondering why the products dont look the same.
One thing that Pole may be beating them on though is geometry - you keep buying bikes for looks, some of us will buy them based on performance (for the record I dont think the Pole is particularly ugly anyway, certainly no more than the new Nomad which you probably gush over)
I do agree, bikes looks matter but you are maybe overplaying it a little, first thing myself and people I know do - Look at the geometry chart, looks matter but I think you are prokecting the things you find the most important on other people.
I would absoutely not ride a good looking bike with poor geo, I would ride an ugly bike with great geo though.
That Pole really isnt that ugly anyway, out of interst, what bike do you ride?
I wouldn't ride an ugly bike with great geometry, because there is always another choice anyway with similar geo. I ride a Focus Sam Team... but I got it at a good price at the shop I work at and I don't think it is particularly good-looking, nor does it have perfect geo for me as I'm tall and would prefer some more stack height, but price trumps all for me right now, and can't get close to it for spec at the price anywhere else due to my discount.
You say you won't ride a bike that you consider ugly with great geo but instead choose to ride a bike that you consider to have poor geo and it looks like crap too?
Cost is your excuse, this is exactly the same reason the Pole isn't quite as refined looking as some - cost.