Trek Finds Carbon Frames Produce Nearly 3 Times the CO2 of Alloy in its First Sustainability Report

Oct 11, 2021
by Ed Spratt  

Trek has become one of the first major bike brands to release an in-depth study into its environmental impact and ways it can improve sustainability in the future.

The Sustainability Report covers everything from the carbon emissions created by different models in its ranges, to recycled plastic usage, and different shipping options. We have taken a look through Trek's report to find some of the more interesting takeaways.




1. Carbon frames produce three times carbon emissions than alloy


The most interesting part of Trek's new report is a study completed on the carbon emissions created by the raw materials, manufacturing and transporting its bikes. Trek decided to investigate the carbon emissions for four of its most popular models (Madone, Marlin, Rail and Fuel EX), then broke each down by the different spec options. The biggest takeaway from this study is the significant impact carbon fibre can have on emissions, with carbon frames appearing to produce around three times higher emissions than their aluminium counterparts*.

To take the Fuel EX range as an example, the highest level alloy framed bike appears to produce ≈120 kg C02e on Trek's chart, way below the average in this test of 174 kg C02e. However, the base-level carbon Ful EX creates just above the average emissions level at ≈175 kg C02e. At the very top of the Fuel EX range, on a bike that contains a lot of carbon components alongside a carbon frame, the emissions rise even further to an estimated ≈225 kg C02e for the 9.9 X01 and XTR models. Incredibly, just the Fuel EX carbon frameset sits at around ≈80 kg C02e, meaning a carbon frame alone is not far off the emissions of a complete alloy Fuel EX 8 (≈120kg).

Of course, emissions aren't everything when it comes to the environmental impact of a bike and, as RC covered back in 2018, there is a lot more nuance to the debate of which material is more environmentally friendly. However, the new data from Trek does paint a picture that in terms of emissions, an alloy bike could be the better choice for the environment.

The numbers in the report appear to cover the raw materials, transportation and manufacturing emissions needed to create a bike, but the study doesn't include potential costs to recycle or dispose of the frames and components after use. In the report, Trek does recognise that depending on the use of the bike the carbon emissions cost can be mitigated or entirely offset and through its carbon emissions testing Trek has now found ways to potentially improve its manufacturing and supply chain processes.

*We reached the three times emissions figure by measuring the pixels on the chart supplied by Trek in the report. We found that the Fuel alloy frame is 74 pixels with 211 pixels for the carbon version. A very similar result can be found for the Rail eMTB with 61 pixels for the alloy frame and 221 for the carbon offering. We don't have the exact figures from Trek, which would provide more accurate results, but it is still interesting to see a ballpark figure of around a three times emissions increase for carbon frames.



2. eMTBs Come with a Big Emissions Impact


In news that will come as a surprise to no one, choosing an eMTB has a sizeable increase in the emissions of a bike.

Trek's Rail model was included in the study and the average emissions for this bike sit at 229 kg C02e. Once again, the frame material can play a big part in this total as the lower end alloy Rail 5 falls around the average of 174 for its emission but flying past this point is the top of the range Rail 9.9, which is the biggest carbon emitter from the dataset with a total of well over 300 kg C02e.

In the breakdown of parts, forks are the largest contributor at 16%, with batteries totaling 15% of the emissions and the frame assembly responsible for 11% of the Rail's carbon emissions.



3. A Full-Suspension Frame Doesn't Necessarily Mean More Emissions


While suspension can add a significant cost to a bike, with an almost $2000 gap between the lower end Marlin and Fuel EX bikes tested in this study, there does not seem to be that much emissions difference in adding suspension to a bike.

Trek's entry-level hardtail the Marlin was found to have average carbon emissions of 116 kg C02e, with the largest source being the frame assembly at 17%, whereas the Fuel EX has average carbon emissions of 153 kg C02e across the different models. Similar to the Marlin, the largest source is the frame assembly at 18%.

While this figure suggests an additional environmental cost of a full-suspension frame, the increase in the average figure mostly comes from the split between carbon and alloy frames. Looking at the emissions chart featured above, you can see that the alloy Fuel EX models do sit at or below some of the emissions levels of the alloy Marlin hardtails. It's worth saying that the comparison between these bikes is not a like for like in spec, but it's interesting to see a well-specced alloy full suspension bike can have the same carbon emissions as an entry-level hardtail.



4. Air Freight has 84 times the carbon footprint of Ocean Freight

No matter what the frame material or design of your bike, there's another factor that adds significant emissions - shipping. Transporting bikes around the world is one of the largest contributors to Trek's global emissions but the brand does have plans to reduce its footprint in this area.

There are two main ways to ship bikes, air freight and ocean freight, and in this contest, there's a clear environmental winner as ocean freight produces 84 times fewer emissions than air freight. In the report, Trek does note that while ocean freight is more efficient, cheaper and environmentally friendly it is far slower than using air to get products around the globe. To combat the massive negative effect of sending things by air, Trek has stated it wants to reduce air freight by 75% of pre-2020 levels by 2024. To achieve this lofty goal it has come up with the idea of reducing the number of trips needed by predicting which products will be in highest demand throughout the year.

Part of Trek's plan to reduce emissions from transportation also includes furthering its idea of consolidated shipping. Trek's sole distributor in Europe, located in the Netherlands, has put in place a weekly shipping window for retailers to combine multiple orders into a single shipment to reduce the impact of transporting the products. The new plan also means holding warranty, individual orders and inventory orders throughout the week to ship on one designated day in batch shipments.



5. 433,600 lbs of plastic packaging removed since 2020

Although we have already covered Trek's massive efforts to reduce its plastic packaging, the new report does reveal some interesting stats in the breakdown of the 433,600 lbs of plastic already removed. The number that stood out to us most was that Trek has removed 95% of landfill waste in the packaging of the Rail eMTB.





6. Trek is the only major bike manufacturer to release a sustainability report

While we have covered plenty of schemes and pledges in the past Trek's sustainability report is the first of its kind from one of the major bike manufactures. Alongside the report's coverage of each bike's carbon emissions and the impact of its business Trek also covered environmental goals for the future. The 10 areas Trek is focusing on improving are:

- Reducing the use of air freight
- Consolidate shipments to retailers
- Increase reliance on renewable energy
- Reduce corporate travel
- Increase reliance on alternative materials
- Create zero-landfill manufacturing facilities
- Establish and protect new trails
- Remove plastic waste from packaging
- Increase access to bike share
- Shift cycling mode share

Yes, it's going to be easy to pick apart individual practices and stats in this report, but you have to commend Trek for being so open and forthcoming with the data and being one of the brands at the forefront of cleaning up the bike industry. We commend Trek on its pledges and hope that it inspires other brands to follow its lead.


345 Comments

  • 353 7
 According to the internet Trek's ebike here emits the same Co2 as a Scoot flight from Singapore to Bankok, a 200ml glass of milk a day for a year, 585 road miles, heating a home for around a month, or the hot air in a single comment section on an Outside+ ebike article.
  • 54 2
 You've clearly never seen the flames coming out of an Outside+ ebike article
  • 12 2
 Ok, so it's enough to forbid milk and ebikes will be CO2 neutral Wink We just need to know how many ebikes are sold yearly to pick a country with similar population Wink
  • 62 7
 @lkubica: you can take my ebike but you'll never take my MILK
  • 15 7
 Thanks @browner for putting those numbers in perspective, it's easy to forget the environmental impact of other aspects of our lives and start chasing marginal gains instead of focusing on where we can actually make a difference. Turns out it's enough to forgo 20 small steaks (yeah, yeah, I've heard about regenerative farming but currently that's not the main source of meat) to offset buying an e-bike to give another example.
  • 70 34
 @browner: I am back from Pinkbike jail for downvote trolling(which I have no idea what I did lol). I would like to go back to jail with my comment that cow's milk is for, you guessed it, freakin' cows bud.
  • 75 3
 @kokofosho: I honestly don't mind your post, but am happy to supply the downvote you requested .... this is 2021 and we are both in the USA. I'm sure there is some marginally trivial reason for us to hate each other.
  • 16 3
 @dllawson819: Many thanks
  • 7 3
 @chriskneeland: what is Outside+?
  • 12 1
 What's an e-bike?
  • 3 4
 Loooosers
  • 40 3
 If you choose not to have kids, you can get a new e-bike every 3 months as far as I can tell
  • 9 2
 @timdgoodwin: I'm not sure not having kids saves quite that much money, close but not quite.
  • 4 1
 @dhridernz: pretty sure was referring to the respective emissions produced
  • 23 1
 Ebikes must be close to carbon neutral. The old folks zipping around my area on them are hardly breathing.
  • 3 3
 Wood is carbon neutral….
  • 1 1
 @timdgoodwin: ouch. That hits real hard.
  • 5 9
flag suspended-flesh (Oct 11, 2021 at 19:55) (Below Threshold)
 @browner: Milk is gross - have a pint or some Oatly.
  • 4 2
 @suspended-flesh: bruh you about to woke tf up
  • 2 1
 @kokofosho: I am intrigued. Downvote trolling who or what?
  • 2 1
 @SacAssassin: Depending on diet and energy sources, you might actually be correct.
If you eat to remain weight neutral, the emissions associated with a regular British diet are reduced more by riding an e-bike than what is output in order to charge the batteries.
According to Bikeradar, at least: www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-environmental-impact
  • 6 2
 Some of us feel eBikes are going in the wrong direction. I'm entitled to my opinion. Even if it goes against some consumers and mostly manufacturers and dealers. Whole idea of cycling is to get out there and burn off some beer and improve your health. We all started off with the discomfort of crappy cardio and sub-par skills and slowly improved.
  • 2 1
 @kokofosho: Even chocolate milk and icecream?
  • 2 1
 @canuck-rider: did we? Looking around the average bike park, I see no real evidence for your statement.
  • 1 1
 @Heidesandnorth: Chocolate milk or sub par skills..lol
  • 1 6
flag ajriding (Oct 12, 2021 at 11:06) (Below Threshold)
 The Rain Forest all LOVE CO2!!!!
CO2 is code for "you are a sucker who believes everything you see on TV"
Worry about actual air pollution instead and don't be suckered into a fool's conversation about nothing.
Wow, just wow. How dumb are people?
  • 2 6
flag suspended-flesh (Oct 12, 2021 at 12:28) (Below Threshold)
 @zmums: HAHA Keep on svckin they nips, milk-boi
  • 2 1
 @kokofosho: Yep it’s really not normal for adults of one species to drink the infant food of a very different species. While there are certain instances of some animals nursing an orphaned infant of another species. It is rare. Anyway … how’d we get to this? I thought this was a mountain bike page.
  • 184 3
 props to trek for publishing these number as first big brand. too bad shipping is not included in the per bike figures, since it is the biggest share.

and, secondly, the better you can REPAIR a bike, the lower the footprint. so, come in and offer us more carbon repair options

last: please offer recycling options for my old rig and parts, so take them in as return and dispose them in a circular way.

but: we're heading the right direction, so way to goo!
  • 21 10
 This is a big thing for me, and why I buy second hand carbon frames instead of new metal ones. I've saved the carbon footprint of a new frame, but it's also very easy to repair a carbon frame and keeping it going forever.
  • 38 17
 Now re-read it under this light: "A lot of carbon manufacturing workers in mainland China succumbed to COVID due to the inhuman working conditions, so we had to find a way to greenwash aluminium without cutting off the premiums we were charging for carbon frames".
  • 17 2
 @southoftheborder: na man, Aluminium Frames come from there as well. Carbon Fibe just isn't green...
  • 4 3
 @Kainerm: My point exactly. If the freight associated emissions are the same for carbon an aluminium, prices should go down if they start producing the top tier models in alu. But they won't.
  • 20 2
 @southoftheborder: Aluminum is HORRIBLE in initial impacts. But, long term, it beets the pants off of carbon because its recycled so much. Glass and metals can be recycled indefinitely without loss of material strength. And that is the thing, its the long term numbers that matter, not the first use or the short-term.
  • 11 13
 Trek does not have a lifetime warranty, and their warranty department is not the best.
  • 3 1
 @lukeb: too bad the lawyers wont allow them to sell broken bits for cheap...no warranty/liability etc so that buyer can decided to use for parts or fix.
  • 5 2
 @lukeb: yep, broke my frame twice and was able to get it fixed. Carbon isn't the greenest but it's fixable and can last longer if well taken care of.
  • 4 2
 @southoftheborder: The overhead to get an aluminum bike into production and all the associated costs of operating all facets of a company still exist even if the shipping costs are the same for the two different materials.. you're looking at only one slice of the pie.
  • 7 5
 @lukeb: Lol, it's not easy to properly fix a carbon frame. You think you can just slap some fibers over it and it's good because you can't see it?
  • 9 2
 @nickfranko: I sent mine to a professional and it came back looking perfect and as strong as new and he warranty is work the lifetime of the bike.
  • 11 2
 With regard to e-bikes one should also take into account the CO2 produced during use. Batteries need to be charged and not always with green electricity.
  • 6 5
 @Kainerm: Neither is aluminium though. The initial ecological impact of aluminium production is incredibly bad. Trek just swept the resource production of the raw material under the rug. Otherwise the numbers would be very different.
  • 3 1
 I have a dozen broken rear mechs waiting for recycling....
Do you hear me Shimano?
  • 2 1
 @CycleKrieg: I wonder how many frames I could make with a years worth of beer cans? I know I should be lowering my carbon footprint and filling my growler but I always forget the dam thing when I want a brew. Does anyone make a cage for a growler?
  • 2 1
 @bitterrooter: growlercage.com I found this on a quick Google search. There are other options out there if you look. Cheers!
  • 9 2
 @BenTheSwabian: eh, the Alu-energy-use myth. Drop in a bucket, because it is one of the most recycled materials in the world. Recycling reduces the energy required by about 95%. A typical Aluminium bike frame releaes about 5 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere - equivalent to driving a energy-efficient car for about 50km. Or a big gas SUV for 20km. Irrelevant.
Carbon fiber, on the other hand, is virtually impossible to recycle. It is simply landfill. I know, theoretically you can recycle carbon fiber by burning off the resin. By the time you are done with that, you've used more energy than it needed in the first place, and are left with low-grade short fibers.
  • 1 1
 I agree, this is a start but it avoid so many key variables, like the shipping as you mentioned.

In addition to that, I'd like to see more work done here that takes into account other environmental variables, like the usage of water in raw mat'l manufacturing. For instance, Lithium mines use up to 500k gallons of water per ton mined thru the salt evap process, and has a substantial potential to create a massive environmental disaster.

The second option for repair/replace parts or individual frames is a vastly better option in my opinion. This is better regardless of frame material. Logistics, extending product useful lifecycles, cutting down on raw material demand, et cetera..
  • 7 5
 RE-USE EVERYTHING WHENEVER POSSIBLE! don't buy so much 'new' Chinese crap you don't need. That TESLA you own is a computer on wheels that once the OS is obsolete, it's BRICKED. There is no secondary market or use for dead TESLA parts. They are a software company. You want more range? Pay $5,000 for the software upgrade. Your hardware won't support the latest OS? It's e-waste. But, I know, it's convenient for you if it parks itself and picks you up after your shark fin soup dinner.
  • 7 2
 If you look at the report (page four), transport and distribution made up about 5% (15,000 out of a total of 300,000 tons of CO2) of TREK's total emissions, while manufacturing the bikes made up about 83% of the total (250,000 tons). So on average, shipping emissions are probably about 6% of the production emissions.

I've seen another report which puts shipping emissions (by sea) at about 1% of the production emissions. My point is that the transportation component of emissions gets all the attention as it's one of the easiest to visualize, but it's probably one of the least important.
  • 2 1
 I know the UPS truck that pulls up in my driveway has lived a long and fruitful life and it's footprint has been vast.
  • 2 1
 @BenTheSwabian: aluminum smelters are so dirty the USA has closed most of theirs.
  • 1 1
 @seb-stott: good point, I did not figure that out from the numbers, yet. On average, this is true. But I guess the high end bikes and frames will be air freighted (less bikes with high emissions) vs bulk for the low end models (a lot of bikes at low transport emissions). And then the picture is very different. Nonetheless, this transparency (and their efforts to improve) is great, and we need more of it
  • 2 0
 repair is good (great, even), but my understanding is you cant recycle carbon. Once its had it, its burner fuel.
An aluminium bike can be melted down and the metal used again and again, surely?
  • 2 0
 @OllyR: Of course, nothing is perfect - even the recycling process is a filthy mess.. Carbon sucks until we can repurpose the spent frame material in some meaningful way. That said, I am on year 6 of a carbon bike I have used for every gravity discipline, crashed it more times that my broken bones can count and I still feel confident in its structural integrity. Metal fatigue is real and I would not feel as safe on an aluminum bike that has been through that. My next frame will be North American metal. however. I just try not to support the Chinese mainland in any way. They are currently doing exactly what the US did to its indigenous or 'different' (non-Han) peoples: murder rape torture and theft and global empire building.
  • 1 0
 @suspended-flesh: Buddy just shut down his business & hauled off all his scrap steel. Something like $200 was what the scrap yard gave him. $90 or so to rent a dumpster, plus fuel and haul time.

Massive pile of metal and less than $50 to show for his trouble, but told him he did the hard thing & the right thing.
  • 1 0
 @blowmyfuse: I say 10-4 good buddy
  • 116 1
 As with all consumer goods, the real answer is to buy less, is buy quality, and keep it longer.
  • 8 2
 Absolutely. The shit is, the stuff that's made to last is the first to become obsolete. Think Chris King hubs and headsets. It might settle down now but I can imagine it might have upset a few customers who had this in mind when they invested in their components. It is a bit of a gamble. It seems like the brake business has settled on PM tabs now (and hopefully flat mount or the Hope radial mount will never really take off) so you can indeed invest in brakes for life. But again, it is a gamble. Is there anything you trust that will be the same ten years from now? Some of the Olympic track racing bikes used 3/8" pitch chains IIRC and with the trend towards a larger gearing range (with some public resistance to those big heavy sprockets but awareness that very small sprockets won't last) I can imagine we'll get those too to realize more teeth on smaller sprockets.

Ideally, stay a good bit behind the bleeding edge of technological progress. If something has become somewhat popular, it may stay available for a little bit longer.
  • 1 1
 Agreed!
  • 4 1
 @vinay: but why do you care if standards moved on if the thing you invested in lasts? That's the whole meaning of consuming less.
  • 2 1
 You could also add - buy a bike made in the country you live in, or at least on the same continent.
  • 2 1
 I'm on a once every 5 years rotation which puts me about 20 years behind current trends.
  • 2 1
 @L0rdTom: Because not all components in a system last equally long. For instance, you could have a durable headset for a 1 1/8 straight steerer of a fairly durable fork. But even the most durable suspension fork isn't going to last as long as the most durable headsets. So you're going to have to replace the fork at some point and find out that at least you're going to have to replace the lower headset cup.

A very good brake caliper with IS brake tabs is another example. If you were using a regular front IS caliper on the fork, you could get an adapter to mount it to a 6" PM fork and run a 180mm rotor. But if you were already using a rear brake caliper on the fork (to run a 180mm rotor) or if your new forks have 7" PM tabs, things become more difficult.

It is not the end of the world. Just saying that it may be one reason (for some) to not invest in the most durable gear. At this point I'm not worried about getting spares or replacements for my bike, even though I'm running 26" wheels and a 10sp drivetrain.
  • 3 1
 Do not buy more. Buy better. And local/ country based as much as possible. Industry 9, We Are One, etc... Very well made and locally produced so the supply chain is not worldwide.
  • 7 1
 @jmhills: here’s a thought experiment for you. The US produces almost zero aluminum or bauxite (aluminum ore). Those mines and facilities are largely found in Asia but with Australia being the largest supplier.

Would you rather ship raw aluminum to the US to make frames and then pay to ship individual components from all over the Asia continent to be shipped across the ocean individually? Or would you rather concentrate everything into a relatively small geographic area where things can go from raw material to end product with the shortest steps between facilities and only then ship large quantities of finished goods in a single container to their retail location?

This thought experiment will firstly lead you to why mature global industries tend to concentrate in one geographic region (think Detroit for cars or Silicon Valley for computers) and secondly it will show you several more reasons why it’s currently so much cheaper to buy bikes of any quality level from China that has nothing to do with human rights.

-sincerely, an annoyed supply chain engineer who hates this topic.
  • 1 1
 @jmhills: i wish i could buy i9, but 600 dollar hubs are a no-go for me. just by used on pinkbike.
  • 7 1
 @HurricaneCycles: While I get all of your points, and they are absolutely valid, I would rather have raw materials shipped to the US where they are then manufactured into a finished good. I know that US companies are not allowed to just dump carbon left overs into the ocean (China). It is a little bigger than just supply chains for me.

I am also an outlier in that I have started to make it my goal to buy as much Made in the US/ North America as I can. If a worker here can benefit from it, I am all about it. If you proudly put the California, Colorado, or whatever flag on your bike, and it is not made here, I will not buy it from you. "Designed in America" is not as impressive as "Designed and Manufactured in America" in my book. I have started with clothes (LC King and Redwing) and moving that philosophy into bikes. As stuff breaks, I am trying to source as much of it as possible from US/ North American based and manufactured companies. Will it cost more? Sure it will. Does that suck? Maybe but I know that someone can put food on their table because of me.
  • 2 1
 @Bangbrosbike: And that is fine too. By buying used, you are keeping things from immediately being discarded. I have only ever bought one bike new in my life, and that is my current one. The rest were used. Same with cars, cameras, and a few other things.
  • 1 1
 @jmhills: I completely agree with that and definitely try to do the same where feasible. I just get frustrated when people talk about the greedy corporations or corrupt China. Destroying the world Blah blah blah blah. There’s maybe 5% truth to any of the claims in that direction that seem to permeate the Internet.

In this case, our supply chain is actually extremely clean given today’s level of technology. It will improve as technology improves and I’m glad Trek posts things like this in hopes that it stimulates more tech growth, but this madness about evil manufacturing monopolies is just lunacy.
  • 2 1
 @jmhills: Full Support for that approach. Our only vote is with our dollar.
  • 1 2
 @jmhills: don't yell at me.
  • 1 0
 @jmhills: I get your point but I'm not quite convinced. Most of the North American made aluminium products I see featured here are CNC machined. Let's say 75% of the material gets removed. That implies that if the billet to be shipped to the US weights four times as much as the stems if they were finished before shipping. Now of course the volume it takes inside the shipping container matters too but so it wouldn't exactly be a 1:4 ratio but it still matters.

This volume becomes more of a deal in case of extruded profiles and rim production in particular. In that case I'd say ideally the raw billets are shipped to the continent/area where the product is being finished. You don't really lose much material with aluminium extrusion but obviously the cross section area (hence the volume it occupies) does increase. Even more so when you bend it to a hoop. I don't know about North America, but I think in Europe the brands Ryde (Sapim), Mavic and DT Swiss do produce their own rims and as I live in The Netherlands, it makes sense to buy theirs. Now my current rims are Syntace MX35 but they're so similar to the Ryde Trace 29 OS (offset) rim that I think they're just rebranded.

Also good to realize that some brands already try to produce close to their customers. KMC (chains) already produces all over the world. And I noticed the Shimano Nexus 7sp geared hub on my commuter bike also states "Made in Europe". Not sure what part of it was produced here but at least some of it. Probably because these products are just used here primarily. Just because it says Shimano doesn't mean it is being made in southeast Asia.

Finally, I do agree about the environmental regulations which may be more strict in the US and Europe than they are in China. But I haven't really checked what they're like in Taiwan (sorry China), South Korea and Japan. And somehow it does feel ethically wrong to have a country to extract their natural resources but don't get them to actually add value to these raw materials. Especially as the mining is the most polluting part. If you only get them to do that, you're only allowing to do the "bad" stuff without balancing it with the "less bad".

Overall of course, it makes most sense to just invest in durable stuff. Stuff that either lasts or stuff that can be repaired. For instance I've got a Lupine Piko light from 2012 or so. They'd still repair it, current batteries still fit and they'll recycle old batteries. They do everything in house and their response is quick (except for their dog who I've mailed several times but never got a response. Could be I suck at barking.) I've heard Hope also continues to provide service for their older models. So that's one thing to keep in mind if you buy something like that. It may be a bit more expensive initially, but you're happy with how it performs then you should be using it for a good while. Unlike the cheaper brands where if something silly snaps or gets lost, it soon is cheaper to replace the complete product.
  • 1 0
 Or do like Jeff Bezos....build it, hop in, light it on fire & wave from the sky laughing then toss it in the ocean when you're done.
  • 1 0
 @blowmyfuse: Usually they retrieve the stages that get dumped in the ocean. It are the later stages that don't come back down that are either incinerated in the upper atmosphere or continue their career as space junk.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: total sarcasm on my part. Beer
  • 1 0
 @blowmyfuse: Cheers!
  • 168 66
 Nobody realy gives a damb about climate change, or you wouldn't be belly aching on you cobalt mine child slave labour mobile phone, with your kambodian lithium mined levo in the double electric garage door doing fuck all, looking at how you might be able to afford a tesla on the shitter in an air-conditioned office toilet.
  • 157 3
 woah, hang on, i think you'll find some of the companies im buying from are planting trees.
  • 11 5
 Pretty much this∆
  • 32 4
 You got it! I gave up hope after watching the woman fresh from yoga class(namaste shirt) wrap her plastic wrapped meat in another layer of plastic at the grocery store, then drive away in her giant SUV. And the amount of two year old "monster" truck sized trucks where I live though they never leave concrete. I'd guess 1% of people actually pay attention to what they do/their impact
  • 32 28
 Valcanos lives matter. What you gonna do turn the sun down next. With a new sun down tax. Is rolls Royce going to produce as many jet engines this year as thay can yes. Is apple going to bring another unneeded phone out yes.. And you're all gona wank off about it, rush out and get one, so you can take artsy fartsy pictures for your Facebook lief. Look at my kenevo iv plated a tree whoopee fukin doo...
  • 10 1
 @GlassGuy: many people know but we are first and foremost consumers. Also the whole purpose of this website revolves around consumerism.
  • 16 1
 But I can buy emissions offsets, right? That makes everything better!
  • 9 3
 @KalkhoffKiller: Not sure what your point is to me...sure, we're "consumers", but we all have a choice as to how much and what we consume. I didn't complain about this website. I ride bikes.
  • 15 4
 Hardly surprising when our governments lie through their teeth about these issues, for example banging on about hydrogen as a solution without mentioning the massive amounts of energy needed to produce it and the lack of sustainable energy production to make it viable. I just work on the assumption that we're all fucked.
  • 21 11
 I work at a factory that probably wastes more energy in a day (just waste energy) that I consume in a year. Actually, probably WAY more. And the energy that does get used? Going into buying commercial airplane parts so people can fly all over the world.

Hard for me to feel guilty driving my old oil burner to go ride my bike.

At least I am not having kids.
  • 8 2
 and how much bitcoin have you bought? those mines take a little energy lol
  • 58 7
 @JSTootell: one of the biggest cons of the modern era is the 1% convincing everybody else that they need to buy an electric car/start composting/etc to save the planet, while they keep investing in bitcoin and flying their private jets all over the world. globally, the richest 1% has the same carbon footprint as the poorest 50% (almost FOUR BILLION people!). send the 1% to the guillotine!
  • 17 0
 @tpg512: well that escalated fast!
  • 17 9
 @GlassGuy: childless vegan here so I dont feel that bad about my carbon bikes.
  • 5 5
 @tpg512: Or just levy a carbon tax. One of these is less evil than the other.
  • 12 2
 @tpg512: Hey, you do live in the USA right? More than half of Amercan wage earners are in the top 1% of world income. We set our poverty line at the about the 90%ile of world income.

Net worth to be at the 50%ile in world wealth is a little over $4k. Net worth to be at the 99%ile is a little under $100K.

Be careful what you wish for.
  • 2 2
 @WillW123: My guy, it escalated in 1789. That's not fast
  • 12 5
 @SJP: correct. nevertheless, within the US, those making over 150k a year have a carbon footprint that is at least 4x that of somebody making 40k a year. imagine the footprint of somebody making millions annually. just a reminder that, at least as far as carbon emissions are concerned, amongst the polluting elite (ie the majority of the US), the super-rich have a significantly outsized impact. CEOs, celebrities, and hedge fund managers are not your friends.
  • 15 9
 This thread is basically a massive finger pointing exercise to absolve ourselves of any responsibility. It's fucking sad.
  • 1 4
 @ybsurf: those are all bad things though
  • 1 1
 @tpg512: well said!!!
  • 1 1
 We need to harness lava it is more powerful than the sun!!!
  • 1 1
 @wburnes: what you mean? Explain?
  • 4 3
 @tpg512: Well, those goalposts moved from executing 77 million people to executing "CEOs, celebrities, and hedge fund managers" when you realized your neck would be on the chopping block. Maybe don't call for executions at all.
  • 3 3
 @ybsurf: What do you think of your parents not being childless...
  • 2 1
 @SJP: Of course this is measured in debt instrument called a fiat currency. And we all know that all fiat currencies return to 0.

So perhaps measuring wealth in a ponzi scheme is part of the problem?
  • 2 1
 @L0rdTom: OR, it's a finger pointing exercise at a global establishment that's selling all a line of BS about 5h1t heating up across space ship earth.

Nevermind that big yellow hot thing that lights up our day and has a magnetic field that stretches beyond the reaches of the solar systems farthest planet. The same magnetic field that protects us from cosmic nasties yet has the power to drive weather and fry earth born systems when it coughs.

Yeah... It's our fault.
  • 2 2
 @theberminator: "Valcanos lives matter. What you gonna do turn the sun down next."

Best phrackin' comment yet!

Mean while, nobody here knows about things like CME's and that wobbly feeling.
  • 1 1
 Best f***'n thing I've read in weeks.
  • 1 2
 @tpg512: enjoy your race to the bottom world. Not surprised your from Portland lmao.
  • 2 2
 @Mr-Monterey: is he wrong though?
  • 1 0
 @JSTootell: .....as far as you know....
  • 44 7
 It all started well by using SI units in the report then, all of the sudden, boom !! F@cktard/freedom/merica units out of nowhere! How can I trust a report without any consistency in the units used ??

Lol no I am joking, it's a really interesting insight ! Would be great to have other big boys from the industry doing the same thing. It would help confirm (or maybe not) some of the trends suggested by Trek.
  • 16 64
flag CXCsleeper (Oct 11, 2021 at 4:20) (Below Threshold)
 A good science education and CO2 alarmism rarely go hand-in-hand.
  • 5 4
 Nothing wrong with using different unit systems as long as you know what you're working with. Cannondale gives geometry numbers in cm, most other brands in mm. Both are SI and the conversion is simple but people could mess those up too. In Pinkbike articles pressures are typically mentioned in psi, tire carcasses are mentioned in tpi, they still mention the mid-size wheel diameter as 27.5" even though one could talk about 650b too. Yet most other measures are indeed mentioned in SI units (or both SI and imperial). Doesn't seem like it confuses anyone. And any half decent engineer should be able to work with different unit systems too. Especially as we have all these simple calculators/spreadsheets etc at our fingertips.
  • 4 1
 You give us far too much credit for fucktard imperial unit globalization
  • 3 1
 imagine not knowing both metric and imperial, yall mfs cant handle kips or slug
  • 2 1
 @vinay: Funny that you mention 650b, as it means absolutely nothing on any relevant unit system. Smile
  • 1 0
 @hirvi: We can agree that mountainbike wheelsizes are daft as they refer to the "expected" outer diameter of the wheel with inflated tire instead of to the diameter of the rim bed. And typically in case of mountainbikes, these approximates are too small. But that goes for the imperial size as well as the metric size. The mid size wheel with inflated tire is larger in diameter than both 650mm as well as 27.5". Both are off. Those who insist on using metric dimensions could just as well pick the metric version of the two.

Again, I don't mind mixing the different unit systems as long as you're aware of what you're working with. Mountainbike stuff is typically discussed in the English language yet so you may not see much mixing and matching here, but surely if people discuss mountainbikes in an other language, they'll still use English words. And it is all good. Use what's convenient or what people can relate to. So that may be a mix of different unit systems and different languages. I feel sorry for the person who goes ape shit when he or she hears a single word in another language.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: This has nothing to do with the language. It is not because the imperial system is in a foreign language, it is because it is just utter sh@t measurement system from an engineering point of view...
  • 1 1
 @Aksel31: Please clarify the "sh@t" part.
  • 1 2
 @vinay: finally an explanation for my crumbling infrastructure--imperial engineering. 'I don't give three shits'--that's about a meter, see? 'Utter' derives from the hyperbole system. Aksel likes to say shite and his avatar is a British actor who plays an American doctor. Aksel hates too much--he's the SI version of the American troglodyte who wears English units as a badge of exceptionalism
  • 2 0
 @ceecee: Wow wow wow you're digging too much man.
To answer Vinay: The SI units are defined on consistent standards, not abritrary contructs, they use base 10 so way easier to use, 1 SI unit derives from others without any kind of conversion factor ... we can go on all day long on this, but that is not the subject.
SI units are just LOGICAL and used by 95% of the population on earth... but hey, maybe I am wrong...
  • 1 0
 @Aksel31: Yes, but that was not the point. Your initial post was that you said you can't trust the results when they have used imperial units. But the unit system doesn't define the quality and accuracy of the calculations. One system may be easier to use than the other but then still, if you do it properly you'll still end up with equally valid results. I studied aerospace engineering in The Netherlands, so I grew up with SI units. But you need to be able to work with the different systems and several tests they slipped in a few questions in imperial units. You can't get away with a "I only do SI units" attitude. You need to be able to cooperate with people who work in imperial and you don't want to cut yourself short by not reading calculations in articles written in imperial units.

Even those who are super pro-SI units rarely stick to their guns. I actually use the unit bar for pressure because I find it easier to relate to and the conversion to Pascal is easy, yet most on here stick with psi. Good, I can live with that. It isn't easier but apparently something most readers find easier to relate to. Similarly to measure angles in degrees. For geometry calculations it is actually more convenient to give angles in radians (in order to derive numbers like trail, saddle position etc). Yet apparently people find degrees easier to relate to and that's a valid reason. If people find it easier to relate to measuring length in inches and weight in stone then that's equally valid.

So again, just because they used different unit systems doesn't mean you can't trust the results.
  • 52 18
 In the words of the great Doug Stanhope "you dont have the baby, you can drive an entire fleet of hummers to and from work every day hanging your ass out the window farting tyrofoam packing peanuts into the atmosphere & still not cause a fraction of the damage one stupid baby causes to this planet."
  • 6 3
 Love me some Stanhope!!
  • 7 0
 Reproductive rates really have cratered around (most of) the world tho.
If pregnancy were as difficult to ward of as, say, obesity, just think how hosed we'd collectively be.
  • 10 3
 +1 for the Stanhope reference. Truth in the form of comedy is some of the best. Burr is up there as well.
  • 18 1
 Good thing our parents didn’t think this way. Personally, I’m happy to be here.
  • 13 1
 "Whatever your problems are, keep in mind that you die at the end of all this. Lets get out there, brutalize ourselves and laugh at those certain pricks who take it seriously, like there is any way to win in all this."

The older I get, there more his brand of comedy resonates.

Time to buy another bike
  • 8 1
 The world population needs a big mirror to look into when we talk about these issues instead of pointing fingers at companies, countries or which side of a political party you side with. Humans are the problem and humans are the solution.
  • 5 1
 If no one has any kids there’d be no need to conserve at all. Just party until extinction and let the world recover on its own in a couple hundred years.
  • 3 5
 @iantmcg: To what end will it recover? What’s the point? So it can sustain other life not human? Or just simply exist as an empty rock hurdling through space?
  • 3 1
 @Sniff303: got to meet him a couple of times when my wife wrote for the local paper. The whole crew are out there but super cool people.
  • 5 2
 @Sniff303: I can agree with "humans are the problem" to some extent... but how can humans be the solution? The existence of life, plants animals, humans, our planet, our sun, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe is not infinite... It all consumes/converts energy until it is gone (as we understand it).

We (humans) have very little say in that process. This planet has evolved and changed since its inception. Multiple ice ages, regions changing from fertile to desert, and desert to fertile, land masses exposed when water levels are low, land masses covered when water levels are high, land masses moving across the surface, multiple forms of life adapting to its new conditions throughout. Humans are just along for the ride for a couple hundred thousand years... a very short ride relative to this planets history and future.
  • 1 1
 @Baller7756: Thanks for this. The point you make is strong. And I can’t say I disagree with anything. Well said. I will try and give you a worthy response but I’m not sure I can. Gonna think on this. Cheers for the POV.
  • 1 0
 @Baller7756: Ok so in the case for humans being the solution, I think that this will never happen and we are centuries down the road too far to turn back, but the consumerism of buying the stuff and needing the next incremental change for things that are still working and function just fine is a part where humans could help. If we could all cut back and look for "needs" instead of "wants" it would greatly reduce the waste and pollution of the world. Not that this will solve anything, maybe it just makes the rock we are hurling through space on a nicer place while we occupy it. #quitshittingwhereweeat.
  • 1 0
 @ATXZJ: In Bisbee? I would love to meet him someday. A great comic that doesn't get his due IMO.
  • 3 1
 @Sniff303: If a solution is needed, the only species on the planet that’s ever going to come up with one is going to be human. Nothing else has the capacity. Who knows whether this solution will come from a yet-to-be-born mind? Or some young mind developing right now?

Having kids also puts your skin in the game. You want a hopeless world for your kids? Your grandkids? Work to make it better, with your kids as motivation.

The world is only useful to any living being inasmuch as it supports life. We are not interested in “saving the Earth” for the sake of the earth itself. The earth itself will always exist, whether there’s life or not. The physical rock does not need saving. It’s its ability to sustain life that we need to worry about. It’s weird to me that extreme environmentalists separate humans from the Earth’s ecosystem, like we are some invasive species. No, we are a natural part of it.

I’m with you in the sense that yeah, consuming less would go a long way in helping make the environment better. But I’m not nearly as hopeless because in 300,000 years of human history, we have always found a way.
  • 2 0
 @TheR: yes! Yes.
  • 1 0
 @TheR: good point
  • 3 0
 @TheR: These are all feel good ideas... ultimately to shift societies from consumerism. After all, anything with an "ism" has got to be bad... right?

The intention to shift from consumerism/capitalism is not so save the planet or prevent its evolution (that's the guise... the bate and switch), its really to change societies from individual pursuits of happiness to collective centralized and controlled societies.

Really, when you think about it... how arrogant is it that humans think, or could be so easily influenced to believe that they can change the course of a planet that has existed and constantly evolved for 5 billion years? What's next... the Sun?
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: Maybe we can’t change the course of the planet, sun, solar system, galaxy or universe, but we are damn good at adapting. I prefaced the whole thing with “if there’s a problem” — and I’m not sure there is — the solution will come from humans, most likely through adaptation. Like I said, 300,000 years of history shows we have always found a way. It will likely end at some point, but it won’t be 15 years from now, for sure. Self extinction and not having kids is not the answer.

That said, nothing wrong with not wasting things, consuming less. Making things a little better bit by bit while we are here.
  • 24 2
 I'm so impressed at Trek for doing this - as a bike manufacturer it would be easy enough to argue you're on the right side of history anyways, but thorough analysis like this takes time and clearly they are making improvements.
  • 2 1
 And AWESOME for them to be concerned about plastic pollution. It is BEYOND out of control...
  • 22 1
 Great article - great research by trek - I think a note to add on the ebikes, most e MTBs are used by people who hae no intention of using them to commute to the trails, they always go on a traditional bike rack and are driven to the trail. The research here is def an eye opener - eMTBs are for the wealthy hobbyist - not the commuter or eco forward consumer.
  • 42 22
 So ebikes are bad for the planet, bad for trails, bad for annoying other trail users, bad for tyres, bad for your wallet and bad for your back when you try and lift one… remind me what they’re good for?
  • 35 17
 riding with my elderly dad, my wife, my friend who's just turned 70, doing self shuttle at bike parks, people that don't ride too often - and no I don't own one
  • 12 15
 good for nothing!!!!
  • 20 10
 Removing a car from a journey, if you choose an e-bike instead of a car journey or shuttle vehicle you are net zero once you have removed a few hundred miles of vehicle use from your life and after that its better. I have done thousands of miles of commuting and short trips on mine instead of taking the car. This is what they are good for, getting people out of cars for the commute and out of shuttle vehicles off-road.
  • 14 14
 @ddmonkey: wouldn't actually pedaling a bike be net zero!!!! manufacturing e-bike..with batteries that destroy the Earth and charging an e-bike... still uses coal nat gas or nuclear depends on the area you live in we all don't live in sunny California where you can pretend to charge off the sun!!!!are not net zero it's basic math and you fail that obviously
  • 10 3
 @kawin20: I was talking vs a car journey. And yes of course you can use a normal bike too. Just don't tell me e-bikes are only bad, because vs a car they are WAY better. And they get more people on bikes who would not choose a bike otherwise. I see it every day on my commute, people who are only using a bike to commute because its an e-bike. They could enable huge change to the way people get around in cities. Add in the health benefits and it could be massive.
  • 6 6
 I'm not an ebike advocate by any means, but I work at a shop and recently demo'ed a Rail a few times. They're super fun on uphills. other than helping differently abled people get out on trails, I think that's about it for benefits.
  • 2 1
 Good for getting in more laps, obviously.
  • 17 3
 So basically do what we knew right, make fames from metals (steel also), keep them a long time and then when you're ready to upgrade do something sustainable with your old frame, like sell it or recycle it etc. Oh and forgot to mention, ebikes are bad, but then so are tyres, and every other material on the bike (including the rider) and the means of transport either getting you to the trail head or shuttling you up the hill
  • 28 6
 I guess if the E-bike helps you avoid to use your car to get to places (i.e. trailhead) you'd quickly break even with a mtb.
  • 12 2
 @ESKato: while I agree with your statement, I wonder if Trek is measuring the production of the batteries and components for their report, not the electricity used. With the constant need to replace batteries in order to keep an ebike running long term, I don't think that break even will come as soon as many think. Lithium batteries are a toxic mess to produce and even worse to dispose of at their end of life. And as pointed out by RC in one of the podcasts, will people replace the batteries or take the consumerism option, pass it on and replace with new. Both options create a larger impact on the environment than the usage alone. I love the idea of ebikes replacing shuttles, but I wonder if it's just trading one evil for another.
  • 17 2
 If your E bike saves you 1000 car miles over its life it is carbon neutral or better (Average car according to a google search produces 411g of CO2 per mile), that is pretty likely given the number fewer trips in the car that an E mtb might allow such as riding to and from the trailhead rather than driving there, not getting the uplift but instead riding up, riding to the shops or other short journeys which would otherwise not be done on a bike.

I think the real takeaway here is that in only 1000 miles of driving a car makes as much CO2 as building an entire carbon framed E bike. The average person in the USA drives 14000 miles, making as much CO2 as 14 whole ass carbon E bikes, more than one every month.

Doing better and reducing emissions of bicycle production is important and I applaud Trek for doing this but it is not the first place to look for carbon emissions savings.
  • 6 0
 I own a steel hardtail as my main bike but am considering an e-bike sometime in the future, and would hope to substitute it for some car use.
The main thing that needs sorting (in the UK at least) is the road/cycle lane infrastructure and having adequate separation from vehicles. When that starts to happen, it will hopefully lead to the mass use and normalisation of bikes generally. Cyclists are widely hated on our roads at present, which is an attitude that must change.
  • 7 0
 @Patrick9-32: exactly, people getting in to their car to drive round the corner to the shop to buy milk would be a good place to start. People are always quick to highlight areas where cuts can be made that don't affect their day to day life. Fact is the biggest improvement they could make is changing their daily habits.
  • 3 1
 @Davec85: absolutely! Also one gets awefully fit when riding to work. Not so much without the hills here in Holland but still. Most other places where I lived though, the bike wasn’t such a no brainier as I had to carefully think about possible routes I wouldn’t get run over.
  • 14 1
 A human being exercising hard (like climbing on a mountain bike) will make about 4kg/hr of CO2.

So, you'll have made 2x the amount of CO2 used to build your frame by the time you do your first fork service.

I am not saying we should ignore these smaller sources of CO2, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 16 tons of CO2 the average person (who lives in North America and can afford a bike) can create. Let's prioritize the stuff that makes a difference first. This kind of meaningless distraction just prevents us from focusing on places where we actually _can_ make a difference that matters.
  • 4 1
 I do like the plastic reduction from trek though, we need less of that crap in our water
  • 1 0
 We can store CO2 in lava!
  • 3 2
 In other words, let's get rid of a bunch of humans right? Knowing that you are part of the problem, will you sacrifice yourself?
  • 10 0
 It's nice to see such a comprehensive report. The internal bike calculations are nice, but bike impacts to CO2 (and other resources) shouldn't be lost on the overall benefit of all varieties of cycling when compared to other transportation segments.

As browner points out, the average bike's CO2 is still less than 585 miles of (average) vehicle transportation. Put that in your 3-row SUV when you drive to your favorite lift-assisted riding area.
  • 11 0
 It's awesome that Trek did this and I hope other brands follow suit. If "transportation represents the largest percentage of Trek's carbon emissions", maybe people should put more focus on buying locally manufactured bikes?
  • 5 0
 Finally, someone said it.
  • 5 0
 100% agree. My next bike frame will come from the western US or Canada.

This reversion to locally-sourced bikes might be Trek's Waterloo unless they bring all mfg back onshore.
  • 3 0
 You would need to look back at the whole supply chain though not just the final manufacture. Transportation of raw materials can be worse than transportation of the final product.
  • 2 0
 @kevinturner12: We Are One apparently gets 99% of the raw materials for their Arrival frame from within an 800km radius.
  • 1 0
 @kevinturner12: raw materials have to be tranported to the asia manufacturing locations too.
  • 1 0
 Looks like Taiwan for us. Or Zerode. Or I have to buy some fixie brazed in Melbourne.
  • 1 0
 @iamamodel: Zerode frames aren't manufactured in New Zealand.
  • 1 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: NZ is getting hammered for their surprisingly poor treatment of Māori peoples with vax discrimination etc. Even beautiful, well-governed (or so it seemed) nations do evil.
  • 1 0
 @suspended-flesh: not sure where you got that info from. But if anything every Maori iwi is pushing hard to get the vaccination message out there to all whanau. The only real issue is some in the Maori community are still hesitant about getting vaccinated. Basically you can go to any Marae and get yourself vaccinated. They even have drive-thru vaccinations at some Marae.

Then there's this...
www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2021/09/fears-young-m-ori-being-targeted-by-white-supremacists-making-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation.html
  • 1 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: Phew. Happy to stick with Taiwan.
  • 10 0
 Trek should be offered credit for putting themselves out there in such detail while other companies offer very little other than greenwashing in their efforts. I also applaud them for not just focusing on Co2 but also other impacts.

While I appreciate that there are many people who dont care (because the impact hasnt yet hit their doorstep), there are some of us that want to make purchasing choices based on these factors. Just like Ive moved over to Endura because of their more ethical approach to running a bike business, this kind of report and the clear effort put in really does make me want to consider Trek as my next bike, whenever that is.

Sure Trek can try harder but you can only manage what you can measure and this shows effort and the correct direction of travel. I hope we see others following suit.
  • 2 0
 Yup. This is making the purchase of one of those new Top Fuels a bit more compelling for me.
  • 16 3
 More alloy options please!
  • 4 0
 Anyone else remember the 90’s, when companies were trying out all sorts of different alloy materials? Titanium, steel, Russian titanium, all sorts of aluminum alloys, magnesium, etc? Even Slingshot with their wonky cable downtube was radically innovative.

I have fond memories of my brother’s boron carbide Dean hardtail from that time. Same alloy mix as what was used in nuclear submarine ICBM tailfins and Apache helicopter armoured cockpits… that was the strongest 3 lb frame I’d ever ridden. Too bad it was so super stiff when compared to my steel hardtail, I felt like my fillings were coming loose when riding downhill. Might be good material for a full suspension bike though.
  • 3 0
 @MB3: I had a scandium alloy Azonic, weighed 23 lbs!
  • 7 0
 big ups to you Trek for doing this research and Pinkbike for publishing this article. Knowledge is power and with this i will take this into consideration with my future purchases. As someone who also works in the industry, this is inspiring and I hope other companies can follow in your footsteps. Thank you, Trek.
  • 9 0
 But aluminum frames have more aluminum emissions right?
  • 5 0
 Who would have known the bloody obvious, and to think we start all over again the next year for the new model range, not to mention the amount of folk that drive there carbon E bike to the riding spot. Cycle industry has long moved on from the days of clean fresh air and in sync with the environment, or at least having a lower impact by todays standards. Expanding ranges of products, more colours more shit, just buy buy buy, we dont need halve of it, humans, we need a severe shake up of our ways, we dont care enough until it actually effects us directly in some way. Off to buy some fake grass for my garden, sit in the SUV with the engine running whilst I check the phone before heading to and from, perhaps a few cheap solar lights to go with it, must get the gas changed for the garden heater, oh the life, we are doomed.
  • 5 0
 This week:
Thumbs up for TREK being public about their info gathered and what they are doing to improve things.
Thumbs down for Zuckerberg (FaceBook) on hiding their research of harm to the public/kids with FaceBook and Instagram.
  • 4 0
 I'm surprised the CO2 footprint of the battery is that low. I suspect they only calculated either material use or energy used for production. For a battery electric car, the CO2 value for making the battery is about the same as all other manufacturing combined. That's why they have to reach a certain break-even point in milage. theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf
  • 9 0
 In the chart above, a RockShox fork uses more energy than a ~500Wh battery. Seriously doubt that.
  • 4 0
 Seems a bit off to me. The lowest reference for battery manufacture is 56kg/kWh, but typically >100kg/kWh, maybe up to the 500s. Assuming 650Wh, they've taken the lowest reference there. Unless they have some eco manufacturing, the battery is likely to be at least double what they've quoted. I'd like to see their references - are they primary or secondary sources?
  • 5 0
 @SickEdit: double or triple that battery CO2 when you have to replace it due to failure.
  • 4 0
 @SickEdit: Especially because a 4 year old suspension fork likely still works. A 4 year old battery probably goes in a dumpster.
  • 4 0
 @husstler: I can understand it when people put AA batteries in the trash (wish they wouldn't, though), but am I being naiive in thinking people would either return a battery like that to the retailer or take it somewhere to be properly disposed of. Perhaps there should be some value put on them, like beer bottles in some countries
  • 1 2
 @mountainsofsussex: I don’t think the majority of e bike batteries are currently recyclable, are they? To me if the battery is bricked but sits in the corner of your garage because there isn’t a good recycling option, that’s what I was getting at rather than a literal dumpster.
  • 2 0
 @husstler: in america at least there has always been hazardous lithium disposal services

“Recycled” or “picked apart and resold for a profit” doesn’t matter, point is we’re not putting oxidized lithium back into the dirt
  • 1 0
 @husstler: batteries are recyclable, either manually, checking cells and reusing them, or feeding them into a mechanical separator and extracting the materials. Is there no producer responsibility rule on your side of the Atlantic? Over here, the producer is responsible for collecting and recycling all the batteries they place on the market. I can take used batteries to a shop for recycling, or to my local waste site - I normally build up a collection of dead chains, cassettes, random household stuff and do it a few times a year
  • 1 0
 @mountainsofsussex: I don’t know the ultimate fate of an ebike/power tool/laptop battery once it gets into the waste stream. I have recycled other batteries like from boats or cars many times - with those we have a core charge that’s refunded once the old battery is returned to place of purchase. There’s an eco centre nearby that accepts ewaste, metals recycling, and household/automotive fluids. Do the other batteries sit in a container until they can be economically processed? Does that tech exist now? Is it even economically viable to recycle that kind of thing? I know phones are a complete disaster to recycle as an example. If anyone can tell me I’d be happy to read.
  • 1 0
 @mountainsofsussex: also, Ha! Producer responsibility sounds like it would get in the way of profits! I don’t think we have that here yet.
  • 1 0
 @husstler: I was at a trade show a couple of weeks ago chatting to a company who recycle electric car batteries (eg Tesla). They had a little jar of shredded batteries. Not quite sure what the process is for e-bike and power tools though.
  • 5 1
 Industries will always choose profit over planet, so please make the feel good marketing BS stop. Worst part is I / We are the ones that create it with are wants vice needs, not them. That said, I enjoy the freedom my bike gives me to clear my mind from the world, so I'll just ride more, worry less and shut up.
  • 2 0
 Name checks out.
  • 2 0
 Trek is not telling the whole story: (13 kilowatt hours of electrical energy to produce one kilogram of aluminium).
  • 5 0
 Now look into the carbon emissions that go into manufacturing electric cars. People are way too excited about the electric revolution from a carbon standpoint.
  • 6 3
 Pretty much seals the deal for me. I sold my last carbon bike right as the pandemic hit and went all titanium. Never going back. This bike will be the last one I buy. And as for E-motor bikes having the biggest impact, well yeah. E-waste is a BIG problem. But so is the mining of rare earths (see the artificial lake in Mongolia made of toxic sludge if you want to know the truth of it here: abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911).

I used to be the carbon almost everything guy. Cranks, bar, frame, wheels....now my bike is almost entirely metal. "Full Metal Bike" is what I call it. And I love the damn thing. Like I said, never going back.
  • 7 2
 You would’ve been more eco if you kept the old bike running. Just stop it with the damn virtue signaling.
  • 5 2
 @DHhack: F-off

The carbon bike wouldn't last more than 7-10 years. This bike will last a lifetime, and the carbon bike is being used by someone else who didn't buy a new bike, so go bugger yourself with your "virtue signaling" BS. Just because this issue is too complicated for you to understand doesn't mean you should attack someone else for trying to do the right thing. Jerk.
  • 1 0
 Not to mention the fact that the developed world can't even reliably recycle cardboard, much less massive batteries full of some of the most toxic stuff known to humans. Also, think about where the vast majority of world carbon emissions comes from...the electric grid. Now everyone will be charging their huge batteries every night dramatically increasing the load on the grid, which is the biggest source of carbon emissions.
  • 3 0
 Well, I have a very carbony bike, frame, handlebars, cranks, rims……. I also use it to commute everyday so the offset is there but truth be told I really could do everything on all aluminum and have just as much fun.

I’m all for ebikes as long as they are replacing combustion. If your emtb replaces the shuttle vehicle to the top it doesn’t take long to offset the CO2 and soon have a negative impact. I don’t own an ebike but they absolutely don’t bother me at all. I am also seeing more and more people commuting and stacking kids and groceries on ecargo bikes around my area and it’s great since every gallon of gas is 19 lbs of CO2 and 21 for diesel. A 700 lbs CO2 ebike offsets even an efficient car in a short time. At 40 MPG the ebike will offset the car in 1400 miles. Really in the US most cars and trucks get shit mileage so the offset is much earlier. Of course non of this considers the manufacturing of the auto…..
  • 3 0
 I would love to know for comparison how much Co2 a British framebuilder using British steel would produce. It's clear from the last 18 months the shipping everything from China model has cost the bike industry a lot of money. It's also clear it's not good for the environment. What's not clear is the answer to those problems.
  • 1 0
 I've started doing this work, and have some data I can't quite publish yet. But, the impact of steel is tiny compared to carbon fibre. Most of the energy for carbon fibre goes into the manufacture of the raw material, and that fact this happens in the Far East, using mostly coal powered energy. Add in the fact that we already have great means for recycling steel, and that it's real recycling that doesn't downgrade the material. Unlike carbon downcycling, which essentially makes it into a low grade filler material. Add in the reparability and durability of steel and the battle against carbon is even greater. However, the best answer to all of this is to have lessons, rather than buy a shiny new bike to make you faster. Much more effective!
  • 1 0
 The solution may be indicated by what caused so much manufacturing to go to cheap labor countries in the first place. Then asking how that condition was created. Those that can move manufacturing facilities from one place to another tend to understand the nature of currency and how it creates conditions that make these moves attractive.
  • 2 0
 For everyone asking for other brands to do the same, remember it will only be of any real value if they use the exact same methodology. Would be interesting to know if Trek bikes would be up for sharing their method, @edspratt
  • 4 2
 It's good that Trek is doing a sustainability report, but remember that we need to get to zero emissions. It's governments, energy companies, and, to a lesser extent, big investors whose actions are needed to get us to zero, not end users of energy like you, me, or Trek.
  • 1 0
 The method itself is probably pretty standard using SimaPro or something. The bigger question is what data they're using for all the items. With things like batteries, you can pretty much choose any number you like, unless you take the primary data from your own process or supply chain
  • 5 0
 Good research and data, no matter where it comes from, can only help.

Also, additional props to Trek for doing what else they can, in terms of reducing packaging and switching to more environmentally sustainable shipping methods. I agree with you that governments, energy companies, and big investors can do even more, but each of us needs to look at what WE can do, instead of always just expecting others to do things for us. Accountability begins with oneself… start there, and THEN you might have enough moral high ground to ask others to do so as well.
  • 3 0
 I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS DATA! Thank you Trek. I don't think there was a serious concern on the consumers' part of sustainability in their bikes but it's great to have sitting on your mind for the water cooler today.
  • 2 0
 How much carbon saved when you commute by bike instead of a car. It's our planet. I like air I can breath . So no car . Tonnes of Co2 from each car every year. So no I don't give a flying fuck how much carbon is produced per bicycle.
  • 1 0
 Need to harass Mike Levy to abandon his filthy Mini Cooper exhaust
  • 2 0
 Late to the party but I appreciated the detail Trek put into this as well. I got a good laugh at this off-handed comment in the middle of the report
"To achieve this lofty goal it (Trek) has come up with the idea of reducing the number of trips needed by predicting which products will be in highest demand throughout the year."

LOL, supply chain management has been around for decades, but this is a good idea they have!
  • 2 0
 Cool report, though there's still a lot of research left to determine what's actually more sustainable. I'd like to see an internal life cycle analysis report for some of these models. Production is only half the picture.
  • 3 0
 My aluminum bike from ‘95 still gets plenty of use, so you can plug that into your research. Smile
  • 2 0
 @MB3: This makes me very happy
  • 4 0
 I’m Glad they are getting rid of plastic. I hate dealing with plastic. Environmental issues aside
  • 1 0
 It’d be interesting to know how much the shipment of bikes costs in terms of Co2. For example, my bike travelled a relatively small 500 miles from its manufacturer CO>AZ from GG. Did that offset its slightly higher Co2 production in manufacturing?
  • 1 0
 I guess it might be good to reduce the plastic content of the packaging but based on what I read, a plastic grocery bag has about 1/2 the carbon footprint of a paper bag. I'm wondering if maybe adding back some plastic packaging would improve the Co2 emissions. news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/04/30/plastic-paper-cotton-bags/#:~:text=The%20plastic%20bags%20used%2014.9,compared%20to%20paper's%200.08%20tons.
  • 2 0
 When they switched to plastic bags in the first place, they touted how great they were because it'd save trees and the like, and be better for the environment. Time is a flat circle, man!
  • 3 0
 The benefit of paper products is the biodegradability. They also don't contribute to micro plastic pollution

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
  • 1 1
 @wburnes: also the sky is blue, lol.
  • 1 0
 The ultimate goal is that we eliminate all petroleum based plastics, and then develop and use plant based packaging. Said packaging would be made in a carbon-neutral factory. Then, the packaging is not recycled, but buried by design, so that we are actually sequestering carbon in the process. Plastic pollution is an epidemic that is going to get way worse before it gets better...
  • 1 0
 I went alu over carbon more because of waste and recycling, which isn't mentioned in this report. Still, cool to see Trek actually publishes a report which puts their larger profit margin products in a bad light compared to buying marlins and roscoes Smile restecp
  • 1 0
 yeah but the big manufacturers are the ones making last year's model obsolete to keep selling thousands of new bikes every year. I mean they already know how bikes will be in the next 5 years or so but they only take one small step at the time. If you want bikes to be more eco friendly try the grim doughnut approach.
  • 1 0
 First off, hats off to Trek for doing this report. I have been interested in this subject for some time, but it is a massive piece of work going back up the supply chain from what you influence directly and locally. It's also worth digging into the numbers a little. That 430 miles of car replacement journies by bike neutralises it's carbon footprint is based on 22mpg in a car. In the UK yhe fleet average consumption is nearer 50mpg, which means nearer 1000 miles of car replacement journies to neutralise a bike vs an average uk car. Also quietly pleased that it's quantified what i couldn't- that making nice low impact metal frames is a good way to go.
  • 1 0
 That 2018 piece referenced in this article wasn't great- I thought of it the second I saw this headline; and I still see the "carbon really isn't all that bad, guys-!" narrative quietly inserted into this article. The amount of "nuance" on the subject isn't all that deep... Carbon bicycles are more impact to the environment than aluminum, and that's the fact of it.

This sustainability report isn't even slightly surprising (in any of the findings). I'm glad it's out there, though, genuinely. Now I wonder what the industry, including Pinkbike, will do about it. I'm pessimistic there'll be any real action- but you can start the grass roots movement, Pinkbike, if you're up to it.
  • 2 0
 I would really like to know how the production of a Suspension fork was the largest contributor to the carbon footprint of the bike. Like really, can we get an in depth explanation for this? @mikekazimer @mikelevy @brianpark
  • 1 0
 This is interesting. I wonder what the bounds on their environmental analysis were. Aluminum is incredible energy intensive to smelter, and then there's all the welding, pressing, forming and cutting. Carbon on the other hand has fiber manufacture, fabric weaving and then cut, vacuum pack and cure. I suspect a major contributing factor is that most alloy frames are made in the united states and most composite frames are made in asia. I suspect the shipment, not the manufacture, is a major contributor to composite looking worse than alloy. Aviation is a known major emitter.
  • 1 0
 1 ebike/bike comparer to to average track that carries it around and owner to work and wallmart neglects;

I really appreciate trek for efforts to reduce carbon footprint, however we consume much more then mtb once in few years, so be mindful about your day to day choices make a difference, and then big manufacting country that do not give a S about kiot protocol will neglect your effort
  • 1 0
 To be honest, those carbon footprint numbers are surprisingly small, especially for an E-bike. If you compare for example a laptop PC, it's footprint can be double or more vs a bike. For E-bikes, they should count in expected electricity usage for first assumed lifecycle minimum
  • 1 0
 Yeah but i breath out more carbon huffing and puffing a heavy alloy bike around. Gimme carbon e bike and i wont even so much as pant. Plus thrownin some straining farts of methane in to the equation (which is a much worse green house gas) and carbon e bikes mught be the better option
  • 1 0
 If the bike industry wants to reduce its 'Carbon Footprint' then stop coming out with new non-sense fads every few months. Cut the carp and build the bike right the first time.
We knew decades ago that larger wheels work better, we know we need wider hubs etc etc etc It's nothing new. Its basic 200/300 level engineering classes.
  • 1 0
 Here’s some other insight: whatever costs more produces more emissions.
Cost comes from scarcity of materials and the energy needed to process them. Neither aluminum nor carbon are rare.
Energy is directly proportional to emissions.
  • 5 3
 Who cares. I would be more interested in the carbon footprint of the marketing department including all sponsored events and racing
  • 1 0
 I am really interested to see the nitty gritty about the impact and environmental outputs of transportation(air or sea), starting at the very base at the raw material level to the shop before it goes home.
  • 5 1
 Save the planet stop E Bike
  • 1 0
 One study estimated that 10 years ago, the average Australian internet user was responsible for the equivalent of 81kg (179lbs) of carbon dioxide (CO2e) being emitted into the atmosphere. BBC
  • 1 1
 Wake up sisters and brothers the rich are vampires leaching our blood. Every single $ they make above the average income comes at our expense. Every single purchase, service and product they buy has a tenfold co2 from food to cars to (private) flights to fancy bikes!!!
F'em! Stop drinking the neo-capitlist coolaid
  • 2 0
 What's the difference between a socialist and a capitalist?

Financial success.
  • 1 0
 Oh there you go. Yay! Commenting on the manipulated extremes of the pen you are allowed to understand. You go you!
  • 1 1
 So what their point? Is their guilt and witless pie chart asking for forgiveness…Are they shutting their doors in disgust…Run for your lives!! Stop biking, take up hiking…carbon fibre walking poles should be on sale during Boxing Day…
  • 1 0
 They are presenting the data, so they can make better informed manufacturing decisions, and we can make better informed purchases...
  • 2 0
 At least this means I've moved from the "I'm too poor to afford carbon" group to the "I'm saving the planet on my aluminium frame" group!
  • 1 0
 Kudos to Trek for investing in this report and for sharing the results. Buy high quality stuff that lasts, maintain it, and pass it on to friends or kids, or sell it. Buy used high quality stuff.
  • 4 4
 If Trek goes full Eco…..they won’t be making bikes, but turning all their factories into permaculture blocks.

“Taste this session Apple, homegrown right where our poster of Brandon Semenuk used to be”
  • 2 0
 Not sure about trek claiming to be one of the first... Commencal ditched carbon years ago.
  • 13 5
 But Commencal didn’t commission a slick report to pat themselves on the back about it. It’s 2021 and seeming is more important than being.
  • 6 0
 Words coming from someone who worked with Commençal (not me) : "they stopped carbon because they failed at manufacturing it". Then they chose to focus on metal frames (partly for good reasons!) and chose to promote the (true) benefits of aluminium.

Now they selling alloy bikes direct to consumer, 20-60% more expensive than most online brands, and still riding that same marketing horse. For example for the new Meta SX, they claim that "once again, the choice to use Al allowed to update geometry", which just cannot sound honest to my ears : if alloy allows easy changes, why insist on manufacturing ill balanced bikes by having a common CS length for all sizes until now?

Bottom line : Commencal ditching carbon is far from being a decision solely made with environment friendliness in mind.
  • 2 0
 6: Trek as only brand to do a sustainability report (paid for by the Wisconsin Dairy Farmer’s Association)
  • 2 0
 show this to regulators in EU. inb4 you pay CO2 tax when purchasing bike / components. Feel the guilt.
  • 2 0
 So Trek will be the first big player to switch back to all alloy frames then? Commencal never stopped, which is brilliant.
  • 1 0
 The report needs to state the footprint of a new Corolla. For scale. And to allow cycling activists to get up on a soap box.
  • 3 0
 Awesome to see this from trek. Hopefully more companies will do the same!
  • 1 0
 Very nice from Trek to publish it, and to list their futur action. Hope to see it years by years and see the progress. Hope other brands will follow !
  • 1 0
 I mean, duh. It’s “Carbon fiber”, right???

In seriousness— impressed with trek for commissioning and publishing this.
  • 2 3
 Clearly an emotive subject.

Let's not forget the most important things of all. It costs 3 times more than metal bikes and components and is 3 times more likely to break. It's also 3 times more likely to have bad wagon jumpers defending it. All in all its 3 times sh*tter than anything on a bike made out of the ultimate meterial called metal!!
Keep it real and stay metal...always!
  • 2 2
 I planted two trees in 2019...and was cleared by the green new deal overlord's to ride full carbon... Till I scrubbed one too many trailside ferns. So now I'm back on aluminum wheels.
  • 2 0
 Lower carbon emission? Make your current ride last as long as possible, period.
  • 1 0
 This is super interesting and something every brand needs to be looking at. Manufacture is one thing, but carbon still cannot be recycled, so we need to address this ASAP.
  • 1 0
 It’sa good thing we’re making all that CO2, The rain forests, well, all plants for that r thrive on CO2. E learned that in elementary school!
  • 1 0
 “Alloy” isn’t a thing. It means “mixture,” and every metal we use is an alloy.

Why is it so hard to say “aluminum”?
  • 13 11
 CO2 is plant food. I like plants.
  • 3 1
 Mercury, closest to the sun, is cooler than Venus, farther from the sun. The reason is CO2.
  • 5 3
 Yeah. CO2 is what plants breathe to make oxygen, so you are actually making the planet greener.
  • 1 0
 @richulr: And when you take away said plants…
  • 4 6
 @sngltrkmnd: we are at around 400ppm now, pretty much ALL life on earth ends at 200ppm yet greenslamic fundamentalists want reduce Co2. its 90% lower now than 150 million years ago.
There is a reason "climate scientists" and i use that term very loosely only ever go back 20,000 years or so.
that was the end of the last Ice age (of which there have been many). very low Co2 meant that the earth reflected more solar energy than it absorbed due to not trapping heat in the atmosphere. temps drop ice sheets grow and reflect more heat away and hey presto ice age.
"climate scientists" have conveniently short memories when writing their new bang on trend papers (that say exactly what they need to say to keep that funding rolling in) and always leave out the part where average interglacial temperatures are around 14degrees higher than now.

TL;DR the planet isnt warming, its coming out of an ice age and returning to normal interglacial temperatures.
  • 2 2
 mfw the greenslamic cultamentalists think humans are important enough to affect CO2 levels on the planet :0
  • 2 1
 @b45her: Currently atmospheric CO2 is at approx 412ppm, and the concentration of the gas is increasing at a rapid rate. Yes, there is a goal to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere but not to 200ppm. Indeed 200ppm has not been observed in tens of thousands of years. And the last time CO2 was measured at this high concentration was over 3,000,000 years ago. At that time, sea levels were more than 50 feet higher than today.

The planet may be coming out of an ice age, as you say, but geologic time and human scale time are starkly different phenomena. If I had real estate along the Bristol Channel, I’d put my house on stilts.
  • 4 2
 @sngltrkmnd: and i wonder how they got that high without us naughty taxable humans causing it 3 million years ago, climate change is a natural phenomena that we can do extremely little to influence, it is however a very convenient tool to scare the gullible into giving governments lots of extras taxes.
the whole concept of human driven climate change is pure arrogance, we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
  • 1 0
 @b45her: Good luck to you in the years ahead.
  • 1 1
 @sngltrkmnd: Good luck to all! While CO2 isn't the problem, there are still changes afoot that will be dramatic. Much of science has allowed itself to be politically driven and therefore found it OK to ignore the evidence of drivers OTHER THAN human activity with regards to what's seen as climate change. It is indeed cyclical. There are a myriad of cycles that we all see every day, yet we refuse to fathom those of greater duration? Most won't acknowledge the effects of the 11 year solar cycle so there is no way in hell they'll acknowledge the evidence of 10k to 13k year cycle that likely has more with the sea levels being 50 ft higher at various times than chemical (C02) or gravitic anomaly. In the near term, we are now in a solar minima. The effects of which will cause increased seismic activity, volcanism, weather change, and host of over nasty side effects of increased penetration of cosmic rays due to Earths (wandering) magnetic field losing strength. Good luck indeed!
  • 2 0
 @b45her:

I take it you don't like taxes...
  • 1 0
 Ok so what is the emission hit from freight? Those figures seem to be (conveniently?) left out.
  • 4 0
 Errr...no it wasn't? Point 4.
  • 1 0
 @Will762: it just says 84x, but what are the actual figures? they provide the kg for points 1-3
  • 1 0
 Which lasts longer? I'm guessing aluminum does, but it wouldn't be the first (or last) time I was wrong.
  • 1 0
 Products should have environmental facts in the same way that food products have nutritional facts.
  • 1 0
 Maybe they need to look at alternative fuel options as a remedy so they can slash emissions.
  • 1 0
 But remember carbon bikes weigh so much else than alloy so will offset carbon emitted to transport them around the word...
  • 1 0
 Trek's only doing this so they can sell you the 'solution' that relies on mass produced consumerism.
  • 1 0
 Just like drinking lots of ‘diet’ soda
  • 2 0
 Trek should add 1 more goal which is 1 bike sold = planting 1 tree.
  • 1 0
 Make it 10 trees! Carbon neutrality is what we needed all along. We need to be carbon negative, and fast...
  • 1 0
 @audeo03: 5 mango trees and 5 avocado trees are enough to boost our immune system and a lot of antioxidant.
  • 1 0
 Yep lets make a day for No Carbon Footprint, while we're at it, lets do a Fuck Bikes Day.
  • 1 0
 you f*ck your bike?
  • 3 2
 CO2 is healthy for the plants. It helps forests regrow. Worrying about bike frames is asinine.
  • 2 0
 Bravo to Trek for transparency. Your move, everyone else.
  • 2 0
 Just keep the dork discs off
  • 2 0
 do you file this one under "Duh" or "No Shit Sherlock"?
  • 1 0
 If I sold my Tacoma and bought a Tesla does that mean I can buy a carbon bike and fart all i want?
  • 2 2
 Less CO2 = less trees ….
More bike trails and bike parks = less trees

So less bike trails ?

Virtue signalling is the new black .
  • 1 0
 I just paid almost double the amount for propane!!1 So no new bikes for me... Thanks Brandon
  • 1 0
 More fodder for my cheap a$$ to tell my friends about how awesome my 32 lb bike is
  • 1 0
 Can't wait for Trek's first Bamboo bike!
  • 4 3
 How is this news to anyone?
  • 2 0
 never go carbon alu
  • 2 2
 You are right, human is the biggest emitter of CO2. Much more than doing a mountain bike or even e-mtb.
  • 2 0
 That's right. I have two carbon bikes and no children. I maintain my 15 year old car and use it very little. Guilt-free carbon wheels on order.
  • 1 0
 So carbon produces.... carbon???!!! NO WAY!!!!!
  • 1 0
 And we are carbon-based lifeforms!?!
  • 1 0
 Can you please add a car to the charts?
  • 3 6
 As Trek & PinkBike continue to contribute to mass consumption and climate change...

LoL Nice virtue signaling boys! This'll be sure to garner you some likes, clicks & sales.

ProTip: Stop pretending to give a shit and actually give a shit.
  • 1 1
 Yup.
  • 1 1
 Easy solution to all this, Finger snap that infinity gauntlet!!
#thanoswasright
  • 1 0
 How would a steel hardtail score?
  • 1 0
 It take high degree to find it! Wooooww
  • 2 1
 This is why I chose an all alloy bike.
  • 1 1
 No shit dumbshits.. just like electric cars the manufacturering pollutes more then gas cars.
  • 2 0
 steel is real
  • 7 6
 Dumb virtue signaling at its worst.
  • 3 3
 Companies have known this for years. Just like the Joe Biden knows ivermectin works for COVID!!
  • 1 0
 aluminum fks up the water supply, does it not?
  • 1 0
 And, the next Ice Age starts when??
  • 2 7
flag b45her (Oct 11, 2021 at 17:27) (Below Threshold)
 that was the climate fairytale 2 panics ago, don't worry the green hippies will pull an ice age out their ass in 20 years or so when the climate is still exactly the same as now.
  • 1 0
 Duh that's why they are called Carbon frames ... obviously.
  • 1 0
 Dang, it hurts to say it but.... Leo was right
  • 1 0
 TL;DR- alloy bikes>carbon bikes>e-bikes
  • 1 0
 That's assuming you believe Treks calculations.
  • 1 0
 congrats to Trek for making these numbers public.
  • 1 1
 so this is why a trek slash 8 is now $6500
  • 2 1
 You dont say?
  • 1 1
 Not a surprise. Now do the same study for ebikes production and use.
  • 2 0
 Doh! Maybe I should have read the article first.
  • 1 1
 Major props to Trek for leading this. They just went up in my books.
  • 1 0
 matter
  • 2 5
 Safe to say at this point that my carbon hoops have caused less CO2 emissions over the past 18 months vs if I were to be running alloy and buying a new rim 4-5 times a year
  • 1 1
 This is old news.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.213267
Mobile Version of Website