Sciu Launches a Carbon Enduro Bike With Ambitious Sustainability Goals
The small German brand SCIU has launched its new Aspen Enduro bike alongside some pretty lofty sustainability goals.
Announced at the end of January, the fresh brand from Germany has released two new bikes with carbon enduro and gravel bikes. The Aspen Enduro bike features 170mm of travel up front and 158mm at the rear. SCIU does say that the front suspension can be run as low as 160mm or up to 180mm. The bike can take two 29" wheels or be run with mixed wheel sizes.
In terms of geometry, reach starts at 449 mm on the smallest medium-sized frame with a 170mm fork and stretches to 501mm on the largest XL frame. The head tube angle and seat tube angle stays consistent across all sizes with measurements of 64.4 and 76.4-degrees respectively. Every bike from SCIU comes with a six-year warranty on the frame that includes all owners of the bike even if it has been sold by the original owner.
An Aspen frame starts at €3,399 with a RockShox Super Deluxe shock and headset. There is the full build option with a RockShox Zeb fork, Super Deluxe shock and SRAM GX drivetrain for €5,999. Currently, SCIU is only selling in Germany, but they do have plans to open orders to the whole of Europe soon.
While it is always interesting to see a new brand release a bike, what caught our attention with SCIU is its sustainability goals and plans to fully recycle all of its carbon frames. As part of its launch program SCIU has committed to;
- Offsetting the carbon footprint of its entire value chain with a reforestation program.
- Supporting a research program on upcycling carbon frames.
- Donating a fixed share of profits to a non-profit aid organization that uses bicycles to provide access to education in remote areas of Africa.
We reached out to SCIU following the launch of its new bike to ask a few questions about the sustainability initiatives it is looking to implement.
Can you tell us a bit about why you have set your sustainability goals?
I'm not 100% environmentalist myself, but I've personally been engaged with the topic of sustainability for many years and I'm also trying to successively minimize my own footprint. In terms of mobility, this starts with the guideline "I'd rather take public transportation than drive a car" as well as the reduction of air travel and doesn't end with the topic of cycling.
When the idea of our own bicycle brand came up, it was clear from the beginning that the topic of sustainability had to be anchored in our DNA.
However, our understanding of sustainability is not reduced purely to ecological factors, but also includes social commitment and the responsibility as an entrepreneur not to look at pure profit maximization. Thus, at the start of our brand, we began with a three-stage sustainability program:
- Full CO2 offsetting.
- Finding solutions for carbon recycling & upcycling
- Supporting a non-profit organization to alleviate poverty in rural developing regions in the long term through sustainable change. We donate a fixed contribution of our profits to this purpose.
In addition, we also look at where we can act sustainably in our daily business at SCIU BIKES: Reducing waste emissions, energy consumption and using natural materials for packaging, etc.
How do you ensure that you remain carbon neutral?
It is very important to us that the entire value chain, from the manufacture of our products, to their shipping route, as well as our own office and sales activities are completely CO2 compensated. It is of course very difficult to determine the exact footprint, but we have taken a close look at SCIU's CO2 emissions.
Based on various studies and CO2 calculations, we currently assume the following amounts of CO2 emissions that we want to compensate:
- per carbon bike frame: 70kg CO2e
- per complete bike: 250kg CO2e
- transport frame: 30kg CO2e
- plus 30t CO2e for our office & sales activities
To ensure that we are really CO2 neutral, we have rounded up these figures generously to 350kg CO2e per bike and also check them at the end of the year by comparing them with the real sales figures and our company size. Our CO2 footprint is certified by an external partner at the end of each year.
In addition, we also made sure that our partners and suppliers are committed to climate protection. However, we do not count their programs or activities against our compensation, but are ideally pleased about an additional commitment.
We have decided to compensate our CO2 footprint with a reforestation program at Prima Klima e.V. We know this organization for over 20 years and admire their continuous commitment to climate protection. For more information, visit www.primaklima.org
Why do we invest in forests?
- Forests provide habitats and sustainable resources: they supply us with valuable renewable raw materials. Intact ecosystems also provide habitats for many organisms and animals (such as squirrels ;-) )
- Forests have a regulating effect: they provide a cooler microclimate, protect against droughts and floods, filter air and water.
- Forests are culturally significant: they have a recreational and health function and contribute to sustainable tourism value creation.
So what could be more natural for us mountain bikers and gravel riders than to protect our forests worldwide and invest in reforestation?
Why did you choose carbon? The Trek sustainability report suggested that aluminum is potentially better for the environment?
That's an interesting question. Of course, the most environmentally friendly thing would be not to produce any new bikes at all. There are a lot of different studies to answer this question, albeit each with a slightly different focus and result.
I think everyone knows the design advantages of carbon: carbon is the first choice wherever maximum load capacity with low weight is required. Another advantage is the long life of carbon: carbon frames are extremely resistant to material fatigue and weathering. A carbon frame can be used almost indefinitely - unless the load is too high. These are the main reasons why we chose this frame material.
From an ecological point of view, the high energy consumption in production and not yet optimal disposal issues are the problem areas. If you compare carbon with the use of aluminum, the energy balance is interestingly slightly positive according to various studies (e.g. Karlsruhe Research Center at Helmholtz Fellowship, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (2003); Branowski, Zablocki & Sydor, The Material Indices Method in the Sustainable Engineering Design Process, MDPI (2019)): carbon requires slightly less energy in production. And compared to aluminum, it also produces fewer harmful emissions and waste products. However, one aspect must also be considered: Compared to an aluminum frame weighing 1kg, a carbon frame can be manufactured with 30% less material input.
We cannot and do not want to prettify the energy consumption during manufacturing. But we try to cure this with the full compensation of CO2 emissions.
Have you considered using carbon manufacturing closer to home or have your own manufacturing?
We are looking with great interest at the development and expansion of carbon production facilities in Europe. However, at the beginning of our business activity we did not find any possibility to produce in Europe. We currently have a too small volume for the large production facilities and our calculations do not work out for our own production or for production in a small series factory. However, depending on how our own business develops, manufacturing in Europe could become very attractive. Maybe there are readers at Pinkbike who have an idea for us.
Can you tell us how you ensure that your frame supplier meets environmental standards?
During the planning phase, we conducted intensive research and talked to potential production partners. We have looked at their labor, manufacturing, and quality standards and on this basis made a decision for a supplier.
Our partner is very committed to environmentally friendly production, to saving resources and emissions, and to good working conditions. A few quick examples: Our factory supplier has optimized its lay-up design for material cutting, which minimize the waste of pre-preg. The company has installed water and air purification systems to reduce the emission of hazardous pollutants. Defective carbon products and tested products are cut into small pieces and stored in special rooms. They are then recycled (instead of being thrown away) by a special company.
In addition, our partner is also running a local reforestation program.
However, due to the pandemic, we have not yet been able to visit the production on-site - this is yet to happen.
Can you tell us a bit more about the carbon upcycling University research program? When do you expect this to be fully ready for you to use?
This is the only topic where we are currently unable to provide any further information. We have had initial discussions about this future project, but we cannot yet provide any details. As soon as we have concrete facts or can publish them, we will be happy to do so.
While you wait for this what is your current procedure when recycling carbon?
Currently there is no frame that we had to recycle yet. It would also not be good if this were already the case.
Part of our concept is that we take back all frames free of charge at the end of their service life and recycle them properly. Currently, this is done via an existing, innovative recycling process.
In simplified terms, after being shredded, the pure frame enters a pyrolysis process. The pure carbon fiber is recovered by means of thermal treatment in the absence of oxygen. This carbon fiber is then refined or conditioned and can then be used for new products. The possibilities here are already very diverse: from recovered chopped carbon fiber for injection molding, through textile carbon fiber fleeces, to carbon fiber reinforced molding compound. So the frames are anything but waste.
You can find out more about SCIU's new bike and its sustainability goals here.
Author Info:
Member since Mar 16, 2017
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
mtb-news.de had to turn off comments on 2 threads.
key words: open mould frame, green washing
Commenters found out that the frame has striking resemblance to LightCarbon's LCFS947, which is an open mould frame that anyone can buy directly off LightCarbon or from importers for super cheap.
Commenters then, amongst other things, started to call SCIU out for trying to sell an open mould frame for a ridiculous price. Once the marketing people realized that they had been found out, they started to make dubious claims about how the frame isn't actually open mould and that they vastly improved it by utilizing "superior raw materials" and having the carbon lay-up changed - but never followed up with anything to lend any credibility to their story.
On top of that, they failed to provide any credible details about their plans to "offset" their carbon footprint and the other apparent steps towards ecological sustainability mentioned in their ad. So people naturally assumed that it was all just talk to white- or respectively green-wash their operation and to gain a favourable public opinion with no intentions to ever follow up on their claims.
Another thing was that people researched the two founders of the company and as it turns out, neither has any sort of professional background in mechanical engineering, material science or similar. What they do have instead is a professional background in marketing. Most people assumed, that the latter tells you all you need to know about the company.
SCIU was even given a chance by the MTB-News editorial to clarify things and calm the situation and repair some of the damage they had done to their own reputation. But instead of taking their chance, SCIU just published a nebulous statement comprised of blank, meaningless marketing jargon, insulted and ridiculed commenters and even ended up accusing the editorial team at MTB-News of lying.
It's downright astonishing how much some people can talk without actually saying anything. Anyways, the whole thing was a right toss up and at this point, they don't deserve any better IMO.
But rather than not deliver frames (like Sick), they just spout endless BS?!
Were the guys who did this from the Rome area perchance?
Seems harsh, but they have form for this sort of thing apparently.
Compensation is at the very best (and that's still naive) a short-term solution and claims without any actual reduction plans and goals like science based targets should be discredited.
Talking about choosing carbon fibre because of longevity is also incredibly stupid, because bicycle frames don't fail because of repeated load cycles, but because of crashes and other impacts to the material. The claim of better energy consumption of carbon fibre is also useless without specifying the materials in question...primary aluminium is known for having a bad cumulative energy demand but secondary aluminium is far far better in terms of energy usage, so you can bend the results easily to favour your process.
Furthermore, reforestation programs are questionable because human-made forests often can't develop long-term and limit biodiversity, while doing nothing to open areas can yield much better results. Protecting or restoring wetlands has more potential to limit emissions.
Sick were making interesting frames (some of their designs were wild AF) but they were definitely their own designs. They were then selling bikes based on CAD renderings that they actually didn't actually have the capacity, or the funds, to deliver. So Sick had their own designs, but your frame might now turn up - and if it does it doesn't seem like it was thoroughly prototyped and developed.
This company will certainly be able to deliver because it's an open mould factory frame - there's probably hundreds of frames already made that just need a lick of paint and some decals putting on them and they're likely good to go. The bikes are probably decent enough and work well, but whether or not the prices they're charging for them are fair or good value is a completely different discussion
After @Muscovir 's summary, it all makes sense. These guys have no idea what they are talking about. I don't have a problem with companies starting with open mould frames to build their brand, but don't lie about it and try to pretend you're engineering this product or have any real say in the environmental impacts of it.
www.lightcarbon.com/all-new-enduro-carbon-frame-lcfs947_p172.html
However, after the marketing disaster Sciu delivered on MTB-news I’m struggling a little to see them fulfill that role.
One clue: the answer is in the question
www.lightcarbon.com/new-carbon-gravel-frameset-with-integrated-stem-system_p171.html
It wouldn't be a bad idea if the Brazilian government auctioned off the rainforest to these companies for green/CO2 credits. Instead of them cutting/burning down the forest, and corporates greenwashing with the half-arsed initiatives, we end up preserving our most valued ecosystems.
Democratic Republic of Congo initially valued their forest as $12 per ton of c02. The trouble is to conserve forest we must intensify agriculture, once intensified profits go up and there is more money to be made by deforesting and converting to agriculture than being paid to maintain c02. So in the end the price went up to $46 per ton of c02, and people won't pay that.
Also just owning tropical forest is not the same as sequestering the carbon produced by companies, it's merely not deforesting what you already have!
That being said, having mixed native woodland and harvesting some trees may be a way to genuinely improve biodiversity and maintain the majority of carbon store whilst it still being utilised for the economy. In tropical forests selective logging maintains much forest structure, functional diversity and carbon storage - and regrowth sequesters up to 97% of lost carbon. In temperate biomes I'm almost certain this would be a different story due to much slower growth rates and species diversity.
buy open mold Chinese frame. (www.lightcarbon.com/all-new-enduro-carbon-frame-lcfs947_p172.html)
Pollute just as much but plant more trees.
Bro down.
Got it.
Also many species of tree lives for hundreds of years - locking that carbon out of the atmosphere for that duration.
I do agree though we seriously need to see some of the 'future technologies' that we are heavily reliant upon for C sequestration coming out soon. We have small scale carbon capture but is isn't ready to be deployed at scale I think (I don't know much about this so if anyone can enlighten me it would be cool).
It's millions of trees a year if you believe claims made by various companies - which quickly adds up to a lot of C sequestered.
I think the ethics behind "let's pay poor countries to not cut down their forest like we did hundreds of years ago so we can still fly around the world and feel good about it" is obviously questionable at best.
EVERY company should be default ising good practice and it be a given.
Tell us what is not green.
This is the 3-4th article in the last month or so where companies make themselves look like dicks for proudly telling us about their recycled labels, or box or whatever. Its anti-marketing at its finest.
….
Also, who does not get involved in QC at the factory!!??
But the article should be Investigative Journalism tearing them apart.
Not a soft interview letting them air their BS whilst leaving it to the comment base to do the hard work.
What about people who read the articles and don't read our (usually senseless bs) comments?
I'm sure it can be done well, but in a lot of cases it isnt.
But many people will know/think only about the c02 numbers associated with forestation and not understand that we need a holistic ecosystem approach in biodiversity maintenance, co2 sequestration, ecosystem service incorporation (as this is where the money is now heading towards) and cultural/intrinsic value of such places.
As to "reforestation". Of course you can replant with anything from native trees to fricking palm trees nd results will vary. Pine is a good building material. It doesn't make a FOREST though, It takes 100 years to create what is a notion of a forest and it takes lots of maintenance. 10 000 pines that are 40 years old are NOT a forest. So we cannot call it reforestation. Calling replanting monoculture a reforestaton is greenwash BS. It will be a tree plantation that will be cut down for building material, paper and so on. it is not meant to stay there for more than 40 years. It will be cut down and replanted.
Finally Carbon neutral, green bullshit is another story...
We in Russia have a lot of problems with the environment, and I care about this topic. But when reading news about a bike or a new brand, I would firstly like to understand why this bike is so good for a rider, how cool its geometry and suspension work are. Why should I buy it and not a great Transition or Specialized. But instead I get an advertising poster from a second-rate "eco" organization that just wants my money.
It sounds like a lot of negatives so they can f*ck right off with their horseshit money-grab scheme.
But honest question, there is some interesting tech in the snow industry surrounding resins. The Kiel factory in Austria has used Connora's ReRez in the past that can be fully broken down in a bath solution and all the parts are able to be separated and recycled/upcycled. And there are claims of certain bioresins having higher adhession properties than standard epoxy resins and higher elasticity. Be curious to see if these have been tried with plastic bikes and what the results were.
"Of course, the most environmentally friendly thing would be not to produce any new bikes at all."
30t CO2e for office & sales activities is about as much as... 4 Germans emit every year...
I understand they are a very, very small company, hehe
However, offsetting is kind of lame, be it better than nothing. We call it "the Krombacher solution"
How about setting a science based target and reduce your emissions gradually, instead of compensating?
I'm sitting looking at mine, right now!
Mine's built up with Fox factory 38's, factory rear shock, transfer dropper, Race face wheels, cranks, bars and stem, with full GX drivetrain, and G2RSC brakes. Honestly, it f***** rips man. And really, most manufacturer's frames come from Taiwan these days anyway. Not sure why people sh*t on them tbh.
To me this one looked actually nice when I looked at the numbers, though the standover looks high,but the seatpost insertion depth literally kills it.
Just two random marketing dudes trying to hop on the bandwagon of the bike industry boom.
I do appreciate the manufacturer lists the value, I think it's a important as ST length or reach to anyone running a dropper and it blows my mind how it is just ignored in some designs even by established brands.
(dropper seat post max insert length M:135mm/L:170mm/XL:200mm)
www.lightcarbon.com/new-lightcarbon-enduro-full-suspension-ebike-frameset-designing-for-bafang-motor_p150.html
What do you think the unit might be?
*irony on*
449,1 "americas", sorry... "inches" reach? That would be 1012mm.
But probably it's mice, squirrels and dogs, instead of mm (millimetre), cm (centimetre) and m (meter).
*Irony off*
Not meant to be offensive!
Haven’t seen you in a while...
However, carbon emissions offsetting through planting trees is not a scientific strategy. There are too many complicating factors to understand if a tree planted will store the carbon you emit. This strategy is often seen as greenwashing because it hides an organization doing business as usual. Emit more? Plant more. Neutrality, right? SCIU's strategy is not an emissions REDUCTION, which is what's needed to achieve carbon neutrality and address climate change (re: SBTi).
Reforestation should be a corporate social responsibility strategy if it's material to your organization, not an emissions strategy. I think offsetting shows just how far behind bike industry brands are when setting an emissions reduction and overall corporate sustainability strategy. Just my $0.02
+1 for Pinkbike's increased focus on sustainability and mountain biking
When asked for more detail they said "This is the only topic where we are currently unable to provide any further information. We have had initial discussions about this future project, but we cannot yet provide any details. As soon as we have concrete facts or can publish them, we will be happy to do so."
Marketing bullshit.