Check Out: 9 Environmentally-Minded MTB Products

Oct 20, 2022 at 15:05
by Samuel McMain  

Words: Samuel McMain

A love for riding and our relationship to the places where we do it is somewhat of a rolling dichotomy (pun intended). Mountain biking, as a consumer-centric industry, has very real impacts on the environment; we love our gear, our upgrades, our tech, and not to be forgotten, our travel (pun also intended). Bikes these days are somehow considered outdated if they’re more than a few years old, and that’s not to mention consumables, gear upgrades and romanticized road trips. Needless to say, our sport affects our environment, the most obvious sources being industrial and consumer waste.

But it’s not all bad, and we’re not here to tell you not to go buy a new bike, not to lube your chain or not to get out for a two-wheel vacation this summer. But, there are ways to do it while attempting to limit its environmental impacts. I'm highlighting a few brands for their efforts around impact reduction here—but it’s by no means an exhaustive list. Rather, think of it as a stepping-off point.






PNW Components | Refurbished Dropper Posts

PNW Components makes excellent dropper posts (among quite a few other mountain bike goodies), that you can also buy refurbished. Getting the correct dropper post for your bike can be tricky as sizing isn’t as straightforward as ‘choose the drop you want.’ When a dropper gets returned, PNW refurbishes it and resells it for a hefty discount under its “PNW Cycled” sub-brand. There’s usually pretty limited stock, but you never know if you’re going find just the post you need. PNW also refurbishes its Loam Lever, which seems to usually be in stock and costs $20 less than buying it new.

PNW has also moved to make all customer purchases carbon neutral through Cooler, and puts a portion of the profits toward clean energy. You can read more about that here.

Visit PNW Cycled here.


Used Gear

There's a reason that Reduce and Reuse are the first two of the three Rs we all learned in elementary school. It's great that some brands are trying to minimize their impacts, but the most environmentally friendly bike gear is the stuff you already have—or that you can buy used. We love the latest and greatest, but it takes more resources and produces more waste to build a new bike than to maintain a used one.

Allow us to promote our own BuySell classified pages here, where there are nearly 100K listings for bikes and parts right now. The model year cycle of new bikes keeps churning, but that doesn't mean you need to take part in it directly.

Alternatively, if you want more support and less risk, a certified pre-owned service like The Pro's Closet is worth a look. They buy and resell used bikes, with each bike getting inspected, cleaned, and tuned before going back out the door.

Visit The Pro’s Closet here, and Pinkbike's BuySell here.


Patagonia | All Things Sustainable Softgoods

The brand has long been a leader for an environmentally conscious business model, incorporating their ethos into every part of the company. Over the last few years, Patagonia has developed a line of mountain-bike-specific clothing and softgoods, complete with hard shells, hip packs, shorts, jerseys and even bib-liners.

To explain everything that Patagonia does to justify its environmentally conscious branding would take more than the 200-ish words allotted to each section of this listicle. So instead, we’ll hit you with some numbers that Patagonia publishes on its website: 100 percent of its electricity needs in the U.S. were met by renewable sources, 64 percent of fabrics used this season were made with recycled fabrics and 56,000 garments were repaired. That last one is pretty neat. Patagonia will repair your gear, saving you from tossing what you have and buying a whole new piece. There’s also a section of their online store for used gear, Worn Wear—according to recent research, buying second-hand does have a positive impact on sustainability and the environment.

Visit Patagonia here.


Guerrilla Gravity | Revved Carbon

No doubt most of you have heard about the new-fangled carbon bikes being produced by Guerrilla Gravity (GG). The brand once synonymous with brawler-worthy alloy shred sleds made waves a few years back with its introduction of Revved carbon, a new kind of carbon fiber (to the bike industry) that isn’t made by traditional methods, or using traditional materials. There’s a lot to unpack about Revved, but here are some main takeaways. First, it’s claimed to be stronger (in some ways) than ‘regular’ carbon fiber, so in theory, you’re less likely to damage your frame and need to replace it. But more importantly, Revved is cost-effective to recycle, as is the excess material left over during the frame’s manufacturing process.

GG touts quite a few other ecological benefits, including reduced air pollution (minimal sanding required for finish work) and a shortened supply chain (frames are made and raw materials sourced in the U.S.). Across its lineup of bikes, GG reuses the same front triangles across the line, swapping shocks, links and rear triangles to differentiate between models. This reduces upfront manufacturing costs while also allowing customers to swap bikes, or effectively have two bikes, with less effort and waste than buying a whole new or second bike.

Visit Guerilla Gravity and Revved carbon here.


Bjorn | Recycled Grips

It might seem like a small fry when compared to some of the big-ticket items in this list, but Bjorn’s pair of ODI-collab grips are made from 100-percent recycled rubber. We’re not even talking percentages, really, the grips have no virgin rubber in them. Even better is where that rubber comes from—the waste from ODI’s grip factory. The post-industrial TPE rubber waste from ODI is collected and re-molded into Bjorn’s grips.

Bjorn’s grips are made in the U.S., at ODI’s headquarters, as a bonus for the North American folks here, and Bjorn goes the extra mile of purchasing carbon offsets for unavoidable waste or emissions produced in the process of making the grips.

Visit Bjorn here.


Chris King | Hubs and Hardgoods

We’ve all heard the buzz, that swarm of angry bees coming down the trail. But the hub isn’t really what’s important about Chris King, rather it’s how that hub was made and what that process proved.

In manufacturing and milling, there needs to be a coolant for the machine bits. Usually, it’s water, not oil, due to water’s higher specific heat and better cooling ability. But there’s a big environmental concern with using water in machining. Water gets foul with bacteria and eventually becomes hazardous waste. Oil, on the other hand, has a lesser capacity for heat but can be reused and recycled—if you can get it separated from the alloy chips that are also a waste product of milling and machining. Chris King not only has managed to efficiently make that separation, but they also managed to make it profitable and more sustainable. They crush the oil-covered chips in what’s essentially an industrial trash compactor, forcing out remaining oil for collection. At the same time, the now crushed-chip block of metal is superior to loose chips in that more of it is retained during smelting for recycling, which means Chris King can sell it for a higher price. The reclaimed oil can be filtered and reused in the machines over and over. The whole process is a win/win, not a zero sum game that most associate with ‘green practices’ in industrial applications.

It took Chris King decades to land on this method, but it is a method that not only makes its business more profitable but also helps the environment. It’s an example of a positive melding of smart business and environmentalism in a forum where the two are usually mutually exclusive. Chris King proved that’s not always the case, and last year the company was recognized for their efforts with a B-corp certification. You can read more about what that means here.

To see their product range visit Chis King here.


Recyclable Carbon Wheels

While Guerrilla Gravity holds status for making recyclable carbon frames, several companies are now offering carbon rims that are more easily recycled, including Revel, Evil, and Chris King. All three of those companies are getting their rims from CSS Composites, based in Ogden, Utah.

The 'FusionFiber' rims use thermoplastics instead of a traditional resin in curing the carbon strands together. To be clear, that explanation is grossly oversimplified, used to highlight the major differences in the processes when compared to traditional carbon layup. The manufacturing requires less labor and time, and they’re reportedly more durable and compliant than if they were made from regular carbon fiber. Each company uses their own rim molds to achieve their desired attributes, but the basic manufacturing process is the same.

More importantly, though, when the rim does reach the end of its life, it won’t break down into tiny little eco-harmful pieces. Rather, the “thermoplastics” can be reheated and the rim broken down into a material that can be forged into a new carbon fiber creation. It won't be a wheel, but it won’t be modern art in a landfill either. Technically, it's downcycling, which is a form of recycling.

Want to see more? Visit Revel Bikes, Evil, or Chris King.


Pembree | Recyclable Pedals

A small U.K.-based company that only makes two products, both pedals, Pembree sets itself apart as an example in putting as much emphasis on their environmental impact as they do their products. Pembree warranties their pedals for five years (two years on bearings) and, after that, offers store credit for your beat-to-sh*t pedals when they eventually do reach the end of their lives. Pembree wants the pedals back for recycling purposes, since they have the ability to recycle parts of the pedals, like seals, that normally would just get tossed in the bin. What other company offers that sort of service?

Pembree is 100-percent carbon-balanced, through TEMWA, as well as 100-percent run on renewable energy sources. It has also taken steps to render all shipping carbon-neutral and packaging 100-percent made from recycled materials—also plastic-free. The downside? Supporting all that will cost you around $200 pair.

Head over here to check Pembree out.


Redwood Material | Battery Recycling

Redwood Materials is a Nevada-based company that specializes in the disposal and recycling of lithium-based batteries—think e-bike batteries. It has worked with some pretty big names in the past, like Tesla, Amazon and Nissan, in developing methods for recycling lithium batteries, which we know is a growing concern for the cycling industry’s e-bike sector. What happens to an e-bike battery when it doesn’t hold a charge anymore? Usually, it’s sent overseas for smelting, not specifically recycling. Redwood seeks to process used batteries with recycling first and foremost—see the difference? One major brand that sees the benefits of recycling is Specialized, which is looking to process all its reclaimed batteries from e-bike customers through Redwood. Looking into the future of our sport, which will include e-bikes, having such a prominent company commit to a U.S.-based recycling program is promising.

Want to learn more about Redwood Materials? Maybe you have a dead battery that needs disposal? Check them out here.





269 Comments

  • 578 3
 Not buying the latest new fangled sh*t just because it's new - is probably the greatest impact a consumer can have.

Just buy less.
  • 69 5
 100%. Right up there with ditching the all-too common "Spend more and save" sales pitch. No thanks.
  • 53 6
 Agreed. The sustainability idea in the biking industry is more wanketeering than anything... The scale is way too small... Want to make a difference send a few bucks to some environmental causes.
  • 39 9
 but that doesn't fit Outsides narrative of keep buying the same shit, so long as it's been verified by some bullshit evaluator so consumers feel ethical about their continuation of Capitalism. Outside- the company that promotes everything for the environment, apart from just buying less shit Edit- forgot about them mentioning buying used gear and repairing gear, definitely the only worthwhile part of the article
  • 9 1
 @vtracer: Agreed - the buying used piece was the only solid portion IMHO
  • 105 66
 The greatest environmental impact a person can have is not having kids.
  • 47 19
 Not breeding also saves the earth, but good luck with that one..
  • 5 0
 As I read the article I thought exactly this. Progress in technology and reusing just don´t seem to go hand in hand, for now at least. On the other hand my latest bike in reality rides way better than my previous one (which was 7 years old, but still in good working order). That was down to improvements in bike design which cannot be overlooked. Brands like Nicolai have a huge appeal in the quality and finish, giving an appeal that lasts years. I think brands like Nicolai and Patagonia set a standards other companies should follow to influence the customer. A hit in new sales could be balanced with a service to refurbish an older bike. Somehow a balance needs to be struck, although buyers are fickle and the money typically will be with the new and shiny.
  • 39 0
 There's a reason we say reduce, reuse and recycle in that order.
  • 29 50
flag TheR (Nov 14, 2022 at 13:04) (Below Threshold)
 @Dogl0rd: Saves the earth — to what end? So there’s this big empty rock hurtling through space?
  • 16 5
 @TheR: When that empty rock flies by, you hear: whooosh!
  • 5 2
 @toast2266: We had one, does that count?
  • 9 0
 @Dogl0rd: Maybe bike saddle designers can help with that?
  • 10 5
 @TheR: TIL without humans all other living creatures suddenly perish
  • 17 10
 Not buying new shit, driving a smaller vehicle less distance to the trails and eating less higher quality meat.. are the next best thing to having fewer kids!
  • 8 0
 @MuddyBrit: Friday Fails, saving the planet one balls busted video at a time since 2016!
  • 10 0
 I'm still in love with my 2018 Intense Primer...and that's a good thing, because I also currently can't afford a new bike anyways.
  • 19 23
flag HardtailHerold (Nov 14, 2022 at 13:57) (Below Threshold)
 @toast2266: humans can't ruin the planet if there are no humans! That's some smart ass out of the box thinking right there. Tell me, when you old who in society will support you? Bring you food? Etc. Because people's kids do that. They also pay more taxes so you can continue to get public services as you get older.
  • 52 15
 1/3 of green house gases are the result of of livestock production.

The average American eats 220# of meat annually, up 10% from 2018.

Perhaps, we need to look more closely at all forms of consumption?

We don't all bike, but we all eat food ...
  • 38 14
 @HardtailHerold: Yes, exactly. You know what has a smaller environmental impact than buying a Guerilla Gravity frame or some Bjorn recycled grips? Not existing in the first place. Even the most environmentally conscious person is still going to generate massive amounts of waste over the course of their lifetime.

Humans are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet. We can act like we're going to think our way out of this problem by inventing fancy things, but realistically we all know those efforts will only slightly delay the inevitable. We can all jerk ourselves off and pat ourselves on the back because we bought a Patagonia jacket and "did our part," but the only realistic solution to global environmental issues is to reduce the number of people on the planet.

And I'm not saying this as some sort of "holier than thou" lecture. I have two kids. I drive a gas car. I have a bunch of bikes. I am very clearly part of the problem. I'm just stating the realistic truth.
  • 29 2
 @HardtailHerold: The earth will be just fine without us on it. So you are not saving the earth you are saving humanity. The dolphin paleontologists in 200 million years will be studying our fossils.
  • 14 1
 @Elikk: and don’t buy a new car every 3 years, stop trying to keep up with the Jones’s. Cars last for decades, consumerism is what’s f*cking it all.
  • 2 0
 Yeah…how about maintain your bike and fix it when it breaks. Upgrade parts instead of your whole bike when it’s time. The we are one arrival hits the mark, being that it can be 3 different bikes in one with linkage changes etc.
  • 9 3
 @toast2266: I agree with your greater message, and to add a bit more it is important to point out that we are currently only over the carrying capacity of the earth if everyone is to live this current western "ideal" lifestyle.

In many parts of the world people still live less consumptively and closer to the nature and if we all moved back toward that the earth could meet all our needs.

Is that possible anytime in the near future (almost certainly not) if at all (I don't know), but it is still worth noting.
  • 4 12
flag TheR (Nov 14, 2022 at 14:42) (Below Threshold)
 @mi-bike: If an empty rock flies by and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
  • 41 10
 @toast2266: Children aren’t just emitters of carbon. They’re also extraordinarily efficient emitters of joy and meaning and hope. Those sentiments are what will hopefully motivate us to keep pushing for the changes our world desperately needs.
  • 7 8
 @toast2266: Actually, you can also spend your life killing as many people as possible (not with guns, lead is very environmentally unfriendly) It is a more efficient way of reducing the world population than not having kids. Killing children and people in reproductive age groups is preferred.
  • 5 14
flag TheR (Nov 14, 2022 at 14:53) (Below Threshold)
 @gnarnaimo: If we are all gone, WTF do we care about other living creatures?
  • 15 2
 @dungeonbeast: I'm not sure I agree. I'll put aside the point that, as you point out, it's unrealistic to expect any developed society to backslide to a substantially less consumptive condition. More importantly, I don't think it's possible to support a massive human population in any kind of minimally consumptive way. There's 8 billion people on the planet now, and just the simple effort of feeding and housing those 8 billion people takes massive, massive amounts of resources. It's simply not possible for than many people to exist with a more traditional, less impactful agrarian lifestyle. A large part of the reason the global population continues to skyrocket is precisely *because* we've built massive infrastructure that makes it possible to feed and house all of those people. For better or worse, to sustain that number of people, we need the massive globalized infrastructure that we've built. The downside being that the massive globalized infrastructure is also destroying the planet. So it's quite a pickle.
  • 10 2
 @toast2266: eventually human population will be controlled and reduced. Whether that is by human decision, or natural processes is our choice to make.
  • 1 1
 @HardtailHerold: you go back to the old days dont ya where basically you perish
  • 2 0
 @powderhoundbrr: or they will just dip out and go back to space. so long, and thanks for all the fish.
  • 7 0
 @TheR: You know...the population can be reduced without the number going to zero....right?
  • 4 2
 @ak-77: so you’re saying that serial killers have the lowest carbon footprints.

Part of the issue is that we’re living so much longer. If it weren’t for modern medicine, people would still be dying of “natural causes” at age 35 and the population would be well under control.
  • 7 1
 @jwdenver: never quite understood why we don’t add ‘repair’ to that, directly before recycle.
  • 2 7
flag TheR (Nov 14, 2022 at 15:55) (Below Threshold)
 @gnarnaimo: You are catching that people are advocating for no kids here … right?
  • 8 1
 @froddd: I think the lack of “repair” is because it would be asking too much from our lazy society. Personally I’ll gladly spend the time repairing even a cheap item. I find it therapeutic and rewarding. Just this morning, the handle on my wife’s $5 hairbrush snapped off and I repaired it by drilling a hole in the head and handle and epoxying in a piece of copper fuel line as reinforcement. The fuel line was left over from a carburetor that I also repaired.
  • 2 0
 Buy less? What are those early adopters/influencers who beg for patreon money going to do now?
  • 3 0
 @oddrob: this is an educational step change sadly the world has been brought up on material x = performance , wow sports cars premium stuff jet planes all those fast things that spell cool performance , now change the parameters to how material x provides all the green things and the current gen still don’t seem to get excited especially with things like bicycles or toys you pay a premium for that ultra recyclable bike that weighs 40lbs , that will be 15 k sir , if the world had been brought up on recyclability we would have loads of little Swedish doom trolls running round happy to pay a proper premium for proper reusability
  • 1 1
 @TheR: and weirdly several things I read recently from the science community are indicating massive population is either happening or is continuing go figure
  • 3 0
 @gnarnaimo: as long as we don’t let politicians decide how this occurs
  • 3 1
 @boopiejones: Serial killers with knives who go on foot or bike, yes. No wait: nuclear bombs. They don't emit carbon either. Just nuke a few hundred of the world's largest cities and we'll be a lot closer to carbon neutrality.
  • 4 0
 @froddd: To me, 'repair' is part of 're-use' and/or 'reduce'.
  • 2 0
 @ak-77: a large proportion of the casing is actually composite these days , f*cking pesky defence folks realised its good for a few things , luckily it just vapourizes on detonation , theres the other ghastly product carbon 14 being created literally from thin air when that detonation occurs , which tells us a good deal about our nuclear history but from memory I think it was mentioned even a small exchange would probably bosh out enough fire and indiscriminately burned shit to effectively do the co2 numbers a good upward trend on reflection probably go back to your serial killer option or maybe eat the odd unusual animal , and create a pandemic to clean up the streets
  • 2 2
 Or buy used
  • 5 2
 @sanchofula: That's not actually true. Easily less than 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector at all. Yes, livestock do consume a lot of energy compared to other sources and also produce GHG emissions themselves, but compared to anything else it's not a lot. I don't want to understate how much of an impact cutting down on meat can help our situation, but transportation and the general use of fuels that come from underground are the main issue. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle are in that order for a reason!

www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-from.php
www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer
  • 5 0
 @sanchofula: The EPA hasn't been completely defunded yet, so their data is pretty good. Meant to include this one as the first link.

www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
  • 2 0
 @dungeonbeast: Well said. I was just about to say something similar. It's not the population that's the problem, its "progress".

Not only would simpler living eliminate human harm to the planet but would also help with our spiraling out of control societies. When humans elevate themselves above nature and no longer respect its design and laws, we feel God like and start to remake the rules the way we think they should be. Eventually nature will win.
  • 7 11
flag TheR (Nov 14, 2022 at 17:57) (Below Threshold)
 @Compositepro: Yes. Just another obvious reason why “JUsT DoN’t hAVe kIDz” is an absurd statement.
  • 4 2
 @TheR: Right ok, so if every member of pinkbike took this advice we would be extinct? Because that's the audience.
I'm pretty sure people here are advocating for less humans. If a billion people decided to not have kids, that would probably be OK.
  • 1 0
 Props. Nuff said!
  • 5 8
 @gnarnaimo: Yeah, because that thinking is limited to just Pinkbike… Look, these scholars didn’t come up with that idea on their own. They’re parroting something else they heard from nutjobs in the “self extinction” movement or whatever they’re calling it now.

And as for a billion people just deciding not to have kids… I think that has ramifications you don’t realize. Who do you think takes care of the older generations when they become too old to produce? You’re going start to seeing some of the consequences in a few years as these boomers start to age. There are way more of them than there are of us. It’s going to get tight, and that’s just a fraction of the population debt you’re suggesting.

And anyway, after all that, my point is simply that there is no reason — no incentive for human beings at all — in “saving the earth unless it’s to ensure the survival of our species. Otherwise, why bother?
  • 2 0
 @powderhoundbrr: must.eleminate.the.dolphins.before.too.late (gasping last words)
  • 1 0
 @mkul7r4: Me too. I'm on the 2017 Primer and it is such a rad bike. Great bike for most of the trails I ride now. Everything works perfectly, no rattles, and just solid. If I bought a new one, it would be basically the same. Lol.
  • 7 0
 @powderhoundbrr: how did the dolphins get so smart? Because they live in SCHOOLS
  • 5 3
 @Dogl0rd: we're f*cked but the earth's gonna be fine. this save the planet shit is dumb as rocks as it's not it that needs saving.
  • 5 0
 This isn't about what the consumers SHOULD do. It is about what the producers CAN do.
  • 1 0
 Agreed…use what you have.(just built up new bike) Wink

I try to wear my components out before upgrades. I’m a sucker for frames every 3-4 years though.
  • 1 0
 @ak-77: user name checks out
  • 4 1
 @TheR: So a billion people decide not to have kids, that only leaves 8 billion that are still having kids. Watch out Chicken Little, you might get crushed by that falling sky!
  • 1 0
 Oh hey, congrats on your last bike purchase, which is totally the last bike purchase you will ever make for the rest of your life. I'm sorry this content doesn't apply to your very specific set of circumstances, but maybe the people who buy bikes in the future can make better choices than you did.
  • 1 0
 @Dogl0rd: that's a big one, but impossible to talk about and promote unfortunately
  • 1 0
 @oddrob: Such balance is extremely hard to find, since economy is generally driven by greed. This means that you either have good quality repairable products which will be very expensive, or cheap disposable sh*t which you will always be able to sell to a huge group of consumers, they will in general never resist it. This cheap sh*t is really masking their poverty, which is also very good for politicians. If we just started making only good quality, repairable and recyclable things from tomorrow, people would just realize they have like 1/2 of their money at best. So instead what we really do is taking environmental loan which will be hard to pay, but hey, it's not our problem, we will die much sooner.
  • 4 0
 I would love to see a pinkbike reveiw on hard wearing shit that people have ridden/worn for a long time.
  • 2 0
 @TheR: So we keep having more kids to look after our ageing population, then more kids are needed to look after the next ageing generation, which is larger than the last due to population growth, then the next batch of carers needs to be larger than the last.
And all the time resources are dwindling and regions where life is becoming untenable are on the increase, leading to higher population densities in some areas, then there's the affluent countries where the displaced understandably migrate towards. Most of the people currently living in these countries don't seem too happy about that, so more conflict, but the migration will continue regardless. Until life in those areas also becomes untenable.
No one needs to die in curbing population growth. If we carry on the way we're going people will die in their millions.
  • 4 3
 @L0rdTom: The best thing for the environment is if I help fund women’s education, abortion clinics and contraception in India, sub saharan Africa and Latina America and other areas where birth rates are high. Europeans having few children will make the world a worse place. We are basically the only ones who care enough about the environment to do something.
  • 6 0
 @TheR: Most western countries have below replacement fertility rates so if the “just have less kids people” are serious they need to get the message across in India, Africa and Latina America. For some reason very few people are willing to do that.
  • 3 0
 @commental: when you say "we" you dont actually mean us in the west, you actually mean the developing world. The west already has below repalcement ferility.
  • 1 2
 @haighd2: When I say we I mean humanity. Sorry, I can't comment on the rest of your statement as I don't know what repalcement ferility means.
  • 4 1
 @commental:Most western countries have below replacement fertility rates so if the “just have less kids people” are serious they need to get the message across in India, Africa and Latina America. For some reason very few people are willing to do that.

Parts of site 1 could be developed without the co-operation of the subject property. The land

it means a fertility rate of 2.1 or above children per fertile woman. So basically two people are having 2 kids , and the extra .1 accounts for childhood deaths. The UK for example has a fertility rate of 1.7 which means that it has a naturally shrinking population. The reason that the populations growing is in small part due to people living longer but mainly due to immigration. As others have pointed out a shrinking population is good for the environment due to less consumption. Here is a map of countries that have above and below replacement fertility. i.redd.it/weyt3ssn4yp81.png

So I agree with most of what you’ve said but I’m just looking for you to recognise that the “problem” of above replacement fertility isn’t really something that we in the west need to solve by having less kids its something for the areas marked red on the map to change. Unfortunately, investment in those areas marked red is where much of our economic growth comes from and where your pension is probably invested.
  • 2 0
 @inside-plus: We can indeed wear more clothing made from poop:
jalilaessaidi.com/cowmanure
  • 1 1
 @commental: it means a fertility rate of 2.1 or above children per fertile woman. So basically two people are having 2 kids , and the extra .1 accounts for childhood deaths. The UK for example has a fertility rate of 1.7 which means that it has a naturally shrinking population. The reason that the populations growing is in small part due to people living longer but mainly due to immigration. As others have pointed out a shrinking population is good for the environment due to less consumption. Here is a map of countries that have above and below replacement fertility. i.redd.it/weyt3ssn4yp81.png

So I agree with most of what you’ve said but I’m just looking for you to recognise that the “problem” of above replacement fertility isn’t really something that we in the west need to solve by having less kids its something for the areas marked red on the map to change. Unfortunately, investment in those areas marked red is where much of our economic growth comes from and where your pension is probably invested.
  • 1 0
 @haighd2:As I've stated I'm talking about humanity, not solely the west. As far as doing something about population growth in poorer countries, what do you suggest people who feel like me should do? Dispatch ourselves far and wide with some missionary zeal? It's up to the governments of those countries to educate their people, but that probably won't happen, at least not for some time yet..
Also, for what it's worth, I don't have a pension as such.
  • 10 1
 @froddd: there are actually 7 Rs these days, in order:
Refuse
Reduce
Reuse
Regift
Repair
Recycle
Recover
  • 3 2
 @haighd2: Latina America? I barely knew her.
  • 2 1
 @mi-bike: my mistake, I meant Latin but perhaps it should be Latinx America?
  • 2 0
 @mountainsofsussex: Refusing is getting so hard at times, because of technological progress. For so many years I didn't want a touchscreen phone, so I just used the ones with buttons. Then my service provider stopped supporting the 2G network so I needed to move on. As for bikes I think I'm still on older technology (10sp drivetrain, 26" wheels, no boost etc) and I have no issues finding spares and replacement parts. But I can imagine that if people do have to replace something major about their bike (like a frame or frame-part) they end up with loads of incompatible parts. It hurts companies who do produce super durable components like Chris King as it is a bit more risky to invest in their parts if you're not sure whether you can move them on to your next bike. I do trust I'll be fine with my bike as the frame manufacturer told me they'll try to repair the frame whenever they can, should they ever have to. Bikes are repairable by default, also because of their modular nature. Changing standard does mess with this though. Getting the latest and greatest is no reason for a longer service life though. Rapid rise, oversized centerlock (for the original Saint) disappeared sooner than what preceded it and I doubt the current Di2 (and the spares for it) will last.

Best is always to hang on to the tail end of technological progress. For stuff that has been around for a while you'll always see more spares and more second hand stuff available.
  • 4 3
 @commental: Donate to or promote organisations that provide abortion, contraception and higher education for women specifically in those countries marked red. Humane eugenics.
  • 1 0
 Well yes but also no. When consumer demand slumps, bad things tend to happen to the economy. The world is a complicated place.
  • 2 0
 @Dogl0rd: farting too but it is even harder
  • 3 3
 @haighd2: In Latin America you also have the influence of the Catholic Church to overcome. It’s doctrine is still breed like rabbits so there are more catholics to generate more money for the Vatican
  • 1 0
 @HughBonero: they live in pods
  • 2 1
 @ak-77: @froddd: There is a 4th R. It is recover. As in, energy recovery. Maintain is a thing but with planned obsolescence and the need for companies to exist, marketing pushes us into "wanting" to get more.
  • 1 1
 @froddd: There is a 4th R. It is recover. As in, energy recovery. Maintain is a thing but with planned obsolescence and the need for companies to exist, marketing pushes us into "wanting" to get more.
  • 2 1
 @jmhills:
5th R: repeat
6th R: repeat
  • 1 2
 @CM999: Atheism Is Unstoppable
  • 2 1
 Snuck eeb recycling into a bike article. Stupid mopeds
  • 8 3
 @haighd2: I suspect most people who spout this “don’t have kids” nonsense do so only to justify their own selfish consumption of the earth’s resources.

“It’s ok for me to buy a new bike, car, phone, etc., because the worst thing for the planet is having kids, and I don’t have kids.”
  • 8 3
 @TheR: Its true though, you could buy 50 bikes and dump them in the ocean and it would be better for the earth than having 4 kids that are going to multiply like bacteria
  • 3 5
 @TheR: I have a daughter and would not change it for anything but I will also say that having a kid is not something everyone should do. Most people who say things like kids being bad for the environment would make terrible parents.
  • 6 1
 @haighd2: The most impoverished countries that cannot support their populations are having the most children and their populations are exploding. That is a big problem.
  • 2 0
 @Dogl0rd: 50 e-bikes*
  • 4 2
 @TheR: I can't speak for others, but I'm in my 50's, I'm childless and live pretty frugally. I buy used phones, cars and bikes. No skin off my nose if people carry on regardless. It's their children and grandchildren who'll suffer the consequences. It probably won't affect me too much, crack on.
  • 2 0
 @tacklingdummy:I agree it’s a big problem, particularly when you consider the very uneven distribution of human innovation and progress. If you map innovation there’s not a lot of overlap between areas of high innovation and areas of high population growth.
  • 2 0
 @TheR: Are we talking about the survival of our species or the comfort of our species? I'm getting confused here.
  • 2 3
 @commental: My wife and I are in our mid 30's and have no plans to have children. I try to live as sustainably as possible and aim to consume as little as possible. I don't own a car and commute daily to work via bike. Eat very little meat products and that which I do consume is locally sourced (as is as much other foods as I can source locally). I have purchased a handful of new bicycles in the last decade and bicycle gear/trail building tools, but it is essentially all that I do outside of work. Does that make me selfish? Perhaps. But worrying about being cared for when I'm old instead of the longevity of our species sounds more selfish to me.
  • 4 0
 @gnarnaimo: Yes, but it makes people like @TheR feel better to think of you as someone who's happy to justify over consumption as you haven't procreated.
  • 8 4
 @Dogl0rd: 50 bikes dumped in the ocean is just blatant waste. Four kids are potentially hope for humankind.

I just don’t get you types who equate children and the human race to bacteria. Seems like a clear cut case of brainwashing and frankly kind of twisted.
  • 2 1
 @sanchofula: Not correct. 24% of emissions are generated by agriculture, so an even smaller proportion of that will related to livestock. You have a correct sentiment, as we do consume too much meat, but you will not win people over with misinformation. www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
  • 2 0
 @toast2266: "The greatest environmental impact a person can have is not having kids."

Or remove oneself from the picture : )
  • 4 0
 @TheR: you're missing the point. When I say bacteria I don't mean that kids are gross. They multiply into more people. It can't continue forever. There will eventually be a reckoning if humanity doesn't scale back. So it will happen anyway.

It can be planned and ugly, or planned and good, or unplanned and ugly. Pick one
  • 2 0
 @Compositepro: yeah the good old days when people thought there would be a second ice age in ten years.
  • 2 0
 @powderhoundbrr: There is a reason the super rich buy bunkers in New Zealand. 1) data models show won't be flooded 2) they will hide in them in a climate event and emerge years later.

Then 10'000 years later there will be 8 billion humans on the planet.
  • 4 1
 @TheR: also having fewer kids doesn't hurt kids, those future kids you're imagining are just that, only in your imagination.

There's no point in being offended by how someone describes the human race as a whole. People only exist and have feelings as individuals.
  • 8 1
 @toast2266: Right, expect the science hasn't been correct on global warming. In my teens "we only had ten years" in my twenties "we only had ten years" in my thirties "we only had ten years". In fact as of today we still only have ten years.

However, what really bothers me is that fixing climate change always involves taking my tax money putting it in a country outside of oversight and regulation and then taxing me more to pay for it.
  • 7 0
 Worth mentioning that THE ROBOTS have been in favor of ending humanity since day one
  • 4 2
 Had no idea so many mountain bikers were hard into eugenics???
  • 1 0
 @jwdenver: children are our future.

youtu.be/4mvyVUgy99A
  • 2 0
 @toast2266: Doug just wanted to make babies
  • 1 0
 @sonuvagun: mate I was hoping someone would correct me "fish live in schools" whereas I would have said "duh dolphins are fish"
Maybe next time
  • 2 1
 @jwdenver: Its the same impluse as going to build a trail: you want things to be better tomorrow than they are today.
  • 2 3
 @vtracer: continuation of Capitalism = health and prosperity
  • 4 0
 @NelsonSunshine
Yeah, this.

Still riding my 2017 Last Coal, and I'll probably ride it until I can't get parts for it.
Tried some newer bikes, can't say any of them felt any better, so why get a new one?

Consume less, re-use your old shit, screw trends.
  • 5 0
 @sanchofula: "1/3 of green house gases are the result of of livestock production."
This is a fase claim.
Why do you go on the internet and spread lies?
Livestock is about 2-3% of all human greenhouse gas emissions, which is roughly 5% of the total emissions.
95% of CO2 is natural, 5% from human activities and 2-3% of that from livestock.

Fun fact, the narrow focus on CO2 and not plastics, is political and economical, not about the environment.
We are much closer to killing all higher life through plastics and poisoning of all water than global warming.

You are not immune to propaganda.
  • 1 0
 @Dogl0rd: and who plans that, the governments?
  • 1 1
 @Losvar: I've already pointed out that claim is incorrect.

Your claim that "We are much closer to killing all higher life through plastics and poisoning of all water than global warming." is also incorrect, unless you can provide any reliable source for that claim?
  • 1 1
 @redfoxrun: You the sheeple need to wake up. The true prosperity of mankind was 50,000 BCE Europe back when Neanderthals still existed. And guess what, there was no capitalism back then.
  • 3 0
 @sonuvagun: yeah we're hosed, not saying I have a solution
  • 2 0
 @HardtailHerold: Funny... that money is the solution to climate change. Seems to me, money is the source of climate change.
  • 1 0
 @froddd: that comes under ‘reuse’ I’d say
  • 2 0
 @HardtailHerold: They hit every generation on the doomsday predictions. For 50 Years, doomsday eco-pocalyptic scientists have been wrong. 0 for 50 on doomsday predictions. lol.
  • 1 0
 @inside-plus: it already is a thing! They recently did an article about some white 14yrs old flat pedals and a while ago some shorts..
  • 78 2
 Came to the comments to bash the lame green washing but hey i actually read the article ( well skimmed some parts) for a change and don't have much to actually criticize. Good news was no video to trigger my autoplay autocomplaint.
  • 29 1
 I'm here to complain that PinkBike has deprived me of the opportunity to complain about autoplay.
  • 40 1
 Autoplay is bad for the environment
  • 1 0
 @DizzyNinja: That's true. And it's annoying too.
  • 4 0
 “Autocomplaint” is fantastic
  • 1 0
 It was actually kind of informative, right? Some of the efforts seem more real than others, but it's a good article!
  • 26 2
 As much vitriol is thrown at Patagonia, it does feel like they are attempting to do their best in regards to repairing/ recycling (ugh, I hate that word) their products, and I think this deserves recognition. I'm still rocking a pair of Goretex rain pants that would probably be in the landfill was it not for their repair program.
  • 20 0
 Yep. My patagonia stuff lasts longer than virtually any other gear I've got, and when it fails they'll generally repair it free of charge. I shudder to think how much money I've spent on gear that had to be discarded because of early failures and challenges in getting it repaired.

Patagonia is $$$ but I've got thermals that are, literally, 40 years old that I inherited from my dad, and I still use them for ski touring.
  • 6 0
 Their stuff is good. They stand behind their product to a degree that the bike industry is less and less willing to. I'm looking at you Giant!!
  • 2 0
 They are certainly one of the better companies but they are still making more and more stuff for consumers to buy. They still pay lots of people to travel round the world to generate marketing content
  • 23 2
 The Pro's Closet is a rip off unless you have a bone stock bike. They don't take the time to evaluate upgrades and simply give you the blue book value. I sold a bike for almost twice what they offered due to upgrades....
  • 9 0
 Pretty standard in the dirt bike/motorcycle world as well. Farkles are worth about 5-25 cents on the dollar, as in most cases they are rather subjective "improvements".
  • 7 3
 The benefit to a service like The Pro's Closet is convenience. Sure, you could probably get more for your equipment by selling it yourself, but if you don't want to deal with the hassle of listing and dealing with buyers, they are an option. It's like selling a used car to a dealer vs. privately on FB Marketplace or Craigslist. I'd venture to guess that most PBers know more about their bike than the general public might, and therefore might be more inclined to do the work of selling it privately for a good price. But I won't knock someone that wants to take that extra time and effort and put it somewhere else, especially if bikes aren't their biggest passion.
  • 8 0
 @woofer2609: Exactly. Too often we see, 'plenty of upgrades' or similar in an ad and it's just a non-stock handlebar or upgraded pedals in a color that doesn't match the bike anyway. Seller uses that to justify 5% below full retail on a 3 year old bike. Unless a seller puts full X01 /XTR drivetrain over a stock SX/Deore, upgrades really don't do much for resale value.
  • 2 0
 @woofer2609: These weren't farkles. The bike was a 2017 Epic FSR with XX1 drivetrain, XTR race brakes, dropper post, Roval carbon wheels, etc. All upgrades over lower end stuff that came on the bike I got thru my team pro deal. Funny thing is Pro's Closet will list out these upgrades when they sell a bike but they don't want to pay for them when they are buying. That is my issue, you can't play it both ways. FYI, this was all before COVID
  • 2 0
 Any arbitrage is a rip-off, for the buyer and seller. If you want a used bike, do some searching and diligence and find a used whip on Craigslist, eBay or PinkBike. If you can't afford new, it's worth your time.

But.....if you don't know what you're looking for (and don't have a trustworthy friend who does and can help you) you're better off just buying a new bike.
  • 2 0
 @mgs781HD: I think some people just want to sell their bike, and aren't as worried about recouping as much money as they can. I've started keeping the stock parts to swap back when I sell a bike, unless it's going to be a major PITA to do so. Anyone want a killer deal on the 7.7lb Suntour XCM 34 forks that came on my RMB Growler 20?
  • 7 0
 @woofer2609: You are right...in my experience any upgrades that are worth talking about are better sold individually. If you put a $1500 saddle on a $2500 motorcycle, then the value of the motorcycle is like...$2700. Maybe. But if you sell them separately you get the 25 for the bike and probably 1000+ for the saddle. The people that want the saddle are usually not the people that want the whole bike. So it goes for mtb, too. Slap the Suntour XC fork back on there for the sale and sell the Fox 38 with C3P0 damper separately.
  • 2 0
 @WaterBear: +1 to this. IMO that's the best way to get as much of your investment back as possible, and you also have the option of rolling those upgrades forward to your new bike if you like them a lot. Having that option is a win-win really.
  • 18 0
 Riding your bike more and using your car less would make more of an impact than any of this.
  • 16 2
 I asked the same question about the CK recyclable carbon rims and never got a clear answer and have the same question about GG frames. Does this stuff actually get recycled in practice? Their own website just says:

"
The material is economical to recycle.
None of our waste is put into the ocean (duh, we live in Colorado).
The material is safe for handling during the layup process.
90% less sanding and finishing work is needed, minimizing air particulates.
Powder coating does not emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like wet paint.
Working conditions are A-OK (after-work beers, anyone?)
Short supply chain dramatically reduces the carbon footprint—even the raw material is made in the US!
"

and that the material is "economical to recycle" but nowhere does it ever say that it actually * is * recycled. And just that it doesn't end up in the ocean. So..... landfill then?

Either it's recycled or it isn't. If a company doesn't say so then the omission is the answer to my question I guess
  • 8 1
 “ Revved Carbon manufacturing “drop” is more straightforward to re-use within the manufacturing environment. Uniquely to Revved, repurposing our material is a one-step simple process with no chemicals needed and the resulting fibers are much longer. We can then directly mold this laminate into a variety of structural components of a new bike frame. As such, and as a company mandate, we are moving towards zero manufacturing waste, overall.”
“ End of product life recycling of Revved Carbon is similar to reusing manufacturing drop, has fewer steps involved than traditional thermoset carbon, and the resulting material has long fiber lengths, increasing the mechanical properties for its next use. Because of the long functional life of the bikes themselves, our current focus is in productionizing the reuse of manufacturing “drop” in our US production environment, and we remain committed to continuously developing this area of our technology.”

This is direct from GG’s founder/chief engineer in an interview with Bikerumor. Tells you exactly how they are recycling their waste.
  • 2 1
 Read before you bash?
  • 11 0
 @Keegansamonster: sounds like they are recycling production waste but not recycling used frames (yet).
  • 8 3
 @Keegansamonster: If you parse the words carefully enough you'll notice that he never actually says what they are doing. Only what is possible to do, and what their "current focus" is.

I'll stand by my calling out of greenwashing. Someone show me a product or set of products that are actually being made from recycled bike frames or wheels, and the facility or process that accomplishes it and I'll shut up.
  • 3 2
 @nilswalk: Steel frames are generally made from recycled steel, all Reynold 853 material is fully recycled. There already a very effective worldwide system for recycling steel. Leave a tiny bit of metal on you front wall and the scrappies have it collected within minutes!

But totally agreed, thermoplastic carbon fibre (and definately not epoxy based composites) just go to landfill.
  • 3 0
 @nilswalk: I work in product sustainability and am fully on board with your greenwashing view of slapping 'recyclable' onto a product and think that makes the product environmentally friendly!

The nerd alert podcast from Cycling Tips is worth a listen on this subject (28th Apr '22)
  • 1 1
 @Keegansamonster: That still doesn’t say anything about actually doing it. Just that it could be done, not that it is being done
  • 1 0
 @CM999: “As such, and as a company mandate, we are moving towards zero manufacturing waste, overall.”
That literally says, they have been, they are, and they will continue improving on, using their manufacturing drop (aka waste) so that they can have no manufacturing waste. So yes, it does say they are doing it.
  • 1 0
 @nilswalk: last sentence of the first paragraph is pretty clear in stating that they are reusing their production waste while trying to move towards having zero production waste overall. We can’t expect companies to figure it out over night. It’s going to take some time.
  • 2 1
 @phutphutend: as an employee at one of the companies listed above and an avid steel rider I will only opt for steel frames due to the repair ability and recyclability. At work we use 75% recycled aluminium to create our products so I’m completely with you on the carbon fibre being shite for the environment
  • 3 0
 @nilswalk I see you posed this question in the CK mountain wheel review. I'm not sure that's the best place to expect an answer - you could actually reach out to King, or CSS, and then you'd actually get an answer I'm sure. You could also read the rest of the comments in that thread to see if someone else provided an answer to a similar question, which I did! Here it is, cut and paste form the CK review:

"Everything coming from CSS - Be it from Revel, Evil, King, Atomik, or anyone else using FusionFiber, is recyclable. And getting that rim back for recycling is part of the warranty process as I understand it.

I sat down in person with a team from CSS last month. I can tell you they very much want broken rims back so they can use the materials for other products. It's good for the environment, but also it's cheaper for them to use these materials instead of buying virgin materials at full cost again, so it's a win win from the perspective of a socially and environmentally responsible business. No chances about it, they are for sure being recycled/down-cycled."

This was a road trip, so the guys were not armed up with a slew of parts made from recycled broken rims, but they did put a set of really nice tire levers in my hands that were made from broken rims. Bottom line - the rims are not ending up as landfill - they are being recycled.
  • 1 0
 @Keegansamonster: I imagine the reality of this being frames stripped of any metal inserts and stuffed into something related to a wood chipper?!? It’s short strand carbon non pre preg so they really just need to munch it up.
My guess is that they are not getting frames back yet so they haven’t bothered scaling up at this end of the system.
  • 16 2
 Every little bit helps but we need get real. We are mountain bikers, climbers, kayakers, hikers, etc. We seldom stay in one spot and are always on the move looking for new challenges. Every gallon of fuel we burn going to those "new" places produces roughly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. California alone uses 52 million gallons of fuel per DAY. That's over 1 billion pounds of carbon in the atmosphere daily and that's not counting all the other states and countries. Now multiply that by 365 and the numbers become mind numbing. I'm 73 and will continue doing what I do but every day I try to conserve, stay local, buy local, ride local, climb local, so that all you young people will have a planet to enjoy. My generation might be mostly responsible for this mess but your generation is going to suffer the consequences. That not only means you but it also means my kids, grand kids and great grand kids. This is a team effort and this article highlights companies willing to take risks. I will find a way to support them because "environmental" is not a four letter word. OK, I'm off my soap box.
  • 4 7
 How does burning 1 gallon of fuel (8lbs) produce 20lbs of carbon dioxide?
  • 14 1
 @ibishreddin: Chemistry. You add oxygen from the air to the carbon in the fuel. Adding stuff makes it more heavy. Two oxygens weigh a lot more than one carbon.
  • 2 0
 @ibishreddin: I also asked that question because it seemed so counter intuitive but AK77 is spot on. The joys of modern chemistry... destroying our planet one forever chemical at a time
  • 3 0
 @ibishreddin: molar mass of C is 12 amu, oxygen is 16 amu. Two O for every C.
  • 1 1
 @rockvoyager: co2 is not a forever chemical though. People need to be honest about serious things.
  • 3 1
 @jwdenver: not a "forever chemical?" CO2 is certainly the most stable form of carbon in the presence of oxygen, which pretty much describes our atmosphere.
  • 1 0
 @jwdenver: While that comment was tongue in cheek W, I would suggest that carbon dioxide is about as "forever" as it gets.
  • 17 1
 If I buy green, does it cancel out me driving my 6.4L Dodge 20 times up Smith Grade Road to do 20 Jugs shuttle runs?
  • 3 1
 Definitely.
  • 10 1
 only if you're kitted out in full patagonia too
  • 14 2
 Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't using oil as coolant not that rare, especially for machining aluminium? And compacting swarf into pellet things is near standard too? Feels like CK are trying to get extra credit for stuff they should be doing anyhow...but I could be wrong.
  • 8 1
 I work for a metal recycler in the US currently. You are correct about the oil. However, over here people aren't compacting turnings/chips that much yet. If they are, they use metal briquetting machines that produce "pucks" most of the time and those get recycled. We're catching up to what Europe is doing so what is the "norm" there will hopefully be what's commonplace here in a few years.
  • 4 0
 He has been doing it for a long time though in reality the coolant I use comes from potatoes they reckon you can drink it but it tastes like shit im sure distilling potatoes into vodka tasted like shit too a lot of the really good coolants come from oil rather than a lot of the semi and full synthetics thyre just dirty in / on machines but great for cutting bastard materials
  • 1 3
 @NebulousNate: Briquettes, that's the word I was looking for. Thanks for confirming the greenwashing. Feels unlike CK to be touting this stuff!
  • 12 1
 I really like Patagonia, and have used their repair program a decent amount on gear for me and my family.

It's worth paying Patagucci prices when it's essentially a lifetime warranty for that piece of clothing. (Though, plenty of other outdoor gear without poorer warranty support has certainly eclipsed Patagonia's pricing now).

That said, I just sent something in this weekend, and their current repair estimate is 16(!) weeks. By the time I get the winter coat I just sent in back, we're gonna be thinking about planting the garden.

In the past, their repairs have taken 4-6 weeks. Hopefully this is just a temporary blip, and they're back to reasonable turnaround times soon.
  • 1 0
 Same in Europe, way too long lead times on their repairs
  • 17 0
 I mean it's no surprise it takes time. You don't send out your winter gear in November lol
  • 1 1
 @souknaysh: It's not just winter gear. I got the same timeline for repairing a pair of MTB shorts from them a couple of months ago.
  • 8 1
 @haen: my point is you send your summer gear during winter and vice versa.
  • 3 0
 I took a jacket in to my local Patagonia store for repairs -- they have a local repair shop that comes in once/week or so for pickup, then repairs locally. Took about two weeks.

If you've got a local Patagonia store that might be worth a try.

I will say, they managed the whole process far better than virtually any other company I've tried to get repairs from, even for high dollar items. The jacket was pretty old, definitely beyond whatever manufacturer defect warranty would apply.
  • 1 1
 @souknaysh: Right and my point is that it's a long wait no matter what you're sending in!
  • 6 2
 @haen: dude it's free stop complaining haha
  • 2 0
 I've had them turn around a North Face jacket, for free, whilst I was kayaking! The pop up van came to the whitewater centre.
  • 1 0
 @souknaysh: Not complaining. Just backing up the original post on the timeline being what it is regardless of season.
  • 1 0
 @atourgates Which other outdoor brands "without poorer warranty support" and better pricing would you recommend?
  • 1 0
 @cristouf: sorry, they was a typo. I meant, “there are other outdoor brands that charge more than Patagonia, and offer worse warranty support.”
  • 1 0
 @souknaysh: what if it fails during winter, when you need it? Or vice versa wrt summer gear?
  • 1 0
 @IamDave: then fix it yourself! The repairability is baked in right at the design stage with easy to replace zips and sensible design choices to make their lives easier down the line.
  • 2 0
 @L0rdTom: I guess you're putting that as an ideal world situation - in which case i agree - rather than the situation as it is now (depending on manufacturer, garment etc). I was just responding to the scenario above with patagonia's turnaround times and so on.

But i agree that most things should be made so they're repairable by a reasonably competent owner with basic tools, and spares are available to make this possible. Dualit toaster as an example - fixed mine recently for the cost of a new element at 15 quid. Not only a good as new toaster at little cost, but no landfill, and a warm fuzzy feeling inside
  • 16 3
 Patagonia is manufacturing in China. Why?
  • 11 2
 They don't hide the fact but should stop doing so. Shout-out to all my Uyghurs and Tibetans and @northern_square protesters on the Gram.

eu.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-eu-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/Made_in_China_EN.pdf
  • 11 0
 Here's an answer from the company. www.patagonia.com/stories/patagonia-clothing-made-where-how-why/story-18467.html

www.patagonia.com/factories-farms-mills And here's their map of where factories, mills, and farms are.
  • 17 1
 If you have children, are you hoping they pursue a career in the garment industry sewing clothes? Most people in developed countries are most definitely not pushing this as a career option, yet they expect their clothes to be sewn in the country they live in. I spoke to Arcteryx about this, and they said that as much as they'd like to, they simply cannot meet demand for their products with locally sourced labour. Makes sense to me. Most of the garment labour in developed countries is immigrant labour anyway, and most of these immigrant parents want their first generation children to go into a different (read white collar) field of work, so it doesn't look like things will change for the better.
  • 8 19
flag pistol2ne (Nov 14, 2022 at 13:07) (Below Threshold)
 @dreamlink87: They also "gave" away their company for tax purposes.

Also, their stuff fits like a TV box, but different stuff.
  • 3 0
 @woofer2609: I also like what Arcteryx is doing with their ReGear program as well as the ReCut program (using scrap fabric and material to make jackets, bags and other gear), although I wish the ReCut stuff wasn't marketed as super exclusive, limited edition pieces. I guess that's what happens when you become as much a fashion staple as you are technical gear staple.

I DO like how their stuff fits, though. Miles better than Patagonia (at least for me).
  • 12 6
 Great to see companies trying to take positive steps forward for the environment. But why not take a ‘step backwards’ and stop the use of carbon fibre completely. Aluminium and steel are 100% recyclable and frames made from these materials do not have to be inferior to their carbon models. I have owned a carbon bike and now being back on an alloy bike I will not purchase another carbon frame. I did not know at the time the impact carbon was having as a material and only hope the carbon repairer I left my damaged frame with can make some use of the material.
  • 8 1
 Does anyone have statistics on how many aluminum bike parts/frames are actually recycled at end of life? In my limited bike shop experience, that number is zero.

Carbon is not going away. We should be supporting companies that are investing in ways to reduce carbon fiber manufacturings impact.
  • 3 1
 Have you seen how much it takes (and by products/waste/chemicals) to mine and make Al specifically? I have both carbon and alloy bikes. That said, in the end alloy isn't much more 'friendly' to the environment than carbon.
  • 1 1
 @gregs22: carbon will eventually go away if you are looking specifically at the bicycle world I’d probably take a punt even now at its volume used being the square root of f*ck all in the grand scheme of things when you compare it to the projects where weight vs fuel are targets
  • 1 0
 @Compositepro: are you saying bicycle carbon fiber use is going away because other industries will consume it all? Or are you saying bicycle carbon fiber use is minuscule compared to other industries and therefore a non-issue?
  • 1 1
 @bman33: yep, there are no free lunches. Everything has an impact. Recycling aluminum takes transportation, energy and all sorts of processes to refine it to a useable point.
  • 2 0
 @gregs22: Aluminum is worth money. In many places, even if you dump it in the regular trash, waste handling companies will fish it out and sell it to a recycler. Actual re-use of parts for repair is rare for high-end bicycles. There's a sheltered employment shop close to me that does this for city bikes. It's a really great place. Socially benificial, environmentally friendly, nice service, fast, cheap, and they serve great sandwiches too. If they would do MTB as well I would consider letting someone else work on my bike.
  • 4 0
 @gregs22: bauxite refining is nasty but recycling aluminum is entirely efficient and economical.
  • 1 0
 @gregs22: I recycle all my old metal parts, I always have. Since when is recycling metal exotic behavior? I sell all my scrap metals to a business that I can guarantee puts them back into the supply chain.

I think you might be confusing metal with plastic, very little plastic actually winds up being recycled for a variety of reasons. Much of it is very difficult to break down into components that can be reused. Most metals simply require being melted down to be reused.
  • 6 0
 I do like GG bikes overall, but is it just me cause this whole mysterious 'FusionFiber' thing rubs me the wrong way? I really don't like the narrative "oversimplified" or "without getting into details" or "a new kind of carbon fiber" etc as if it's too complicated to understand for an average mountain biker. Just friken tell us how it's made and what it's made of, so we can make informative decisions for ourselves. Also the 'cost effective to recycle' bla-bla. Who recycles it, what gets recycled, how can I recycle my frame/rims? There shouldn't be a vail of mysteries and vague info around simple things like this
  • 1 0
 It's basically strong and stiff plastic. It's not carbon fiber as you think of it traditionally. It's really heavy and doesn't feel like carbon fiber. Lots of companies making rims out of it now too (Revel, Evil, Chris King, etc.) and charging real carbon fiber prices for those rims.
  • 1 0
 They have a patent on fiber reinforced laminates in a narrow use case. It’s tech that has been used in other industries for a while. Like anything else it has trade offs and is not a step wise change that justifies all other brands to retool.
  • 8 4
 Felt like the Greenwashing article w/ Mike Bascombe was a huge step forward... this seems like a little bit of a step backwards after that - almost clickbait by comparison. Would love to know more about the real impact of these products beyond just the marketing speak.

Tho kudos for throwing the PB buy/sell section high up on the list, I guess.
  • 7 2
 Guerrilla Gravity should advertise their relatively minimal impact given how short and domestic their supply chain is. Less human labor, less packaging, shipping, receiving, etc etc.
  • 3 1
 Agreed. I think more attention should be given to companies that are going to this extent to utilize repurposed materials and lessen their impact. It should be the norm by now, not the exception.
  • 2 1
 It’s only shorter if you happen to live in the USA. For the rest of the world it makes no difference as it will still be shipped half way round the world
  • 1 0
 @CM999: well it is good that high end bikes are barely differentiable and that other countries have great domestic choices too and it’s unlikely they have a reason to ship a frame across the world.
  • 8 0
 longer lasting = more sustainable
  • 2 1
 exactly
  • 2 0
 I think outdoor consignment stores are getting more popular too, especially with the amount of underused gortex and outerwear they have. Being able to at least have the ability to consign stuff rather than hoarding it just increases the products longevity of use
  • 1 0
 Very good and interesting article. Yes, buying second hand or maintaining parts are better, but I also look for environmental friendly companies to buy from. Here are great examples mentioned. I would also add, correct disposal of old parts and liquids should be considered from anybody. Old tires should not land in the home trash or in the woods!!!
  • 2 0
 More of this please. Can we also check into their "accreditations"? make sure there is no green washing
Next tackle ethical sourcing and brands that don't use cultural appropriation.
  • 1 0
 We have a LBS now taking on clothes for recycling and are looking to do tyres with fee as they will be taking the cost of sending them away. Shame you have to drive so far to engage in this recycling initiative as the LBS is 40 miles away!
  • 1 0
 Wanna save the planet buy a used fixed gear, or an old schwinn pre 1980, these new bikes are not lifetime bicycles but toys with lots of wear items. Drivetrains don't last, bushings don't last, bearings don't last, propriety tools that need manufacture and all the rest. Either that or just be quiet on the "environmental" front.
  • 1 0
 Bjorn make grips from post-industrial TPE rubber from ODI you say? It's probably semantics, but to my eyes that does not read like it is 100% recycled. Granted it's better than ODI throwing it in the river (not an accusation, I have no idea where the unused rubber went before).
  • 3 0
 I have the Bjorn grips. Love them. Only complaint is they are a little soft at the ends.
  • 1 0
 That must be cool. I 'd like to try other grips but Death Grips has a hold on me til Death.
  • 2 0
 Guess what: bikes are pretty good nowadays. Each model year does not bring huge performance benefits over your current bike. Ride it and maintain it till it's dead
  • 5 2
 Nothing worth saving on this blue rock. Nothing that has to do with the human species anyway.
  • 2 2
 Username checks out
  • 4 0
 Eat the rich. They consume, that's what they do.
  • 2 1
 If you live in usa/canada, you ARE the rich compared to a vast majority of people on the planet.
  • 1 0
 @Bro-LanDog: Plus Australia, Europe, the Arabian peninsula, Japan, S Korea, SIngapore.
  • 1 0
 Everybody should skip driving to work tomorrow
Play hooky and go ride bikes all day Smile
Just tell your boss, your trying to do your part, by working on saving the planet that day, and he should too!
  • 3 0
 Just wait till they start charging more for large and extra large frames because it takes more material...
  • 3 0
 What about the elephants? Half of the Pinkbike comments are condescendingly spoken from ivory towers.
  • 1 1
 I’m a fan (from afar and only based on what I have read) of GG. It seems that they were striving for a tech that could scale locally with the additional bonus that said tech produced something more impact resistant and able to go through its manufacturing process with less waste. Bonus if it is recyclable.
If a company can some up with a solid bearing seal solution for mtb manufacturers / designers that would be a massive enviro saving…
  • 1 0
 It's a shame that GG doesn't do a small frame. They will never be able to get my business with there current sizing. At least when they did aluminum they had small and xs. Sad to see there are Nanosophobic
  • 8 7
 Any commercial sanding should be controlled via bag house and not released as "air pollution". Bit of a stretch there Guerrilla Gravity.
  • 1 1
 "(minimal sanding required for finish work)" Key term is 'minimal', AKA: Less Sanding regardless of bag, no bag, vacuum or just power sanding with a Dewalt. Less = ..........Less
  • 4 3
 @bman33: you missed my point entirely. There is NOW minimal sanding which implies previously there was non-minimal sanding as a source of air pollution. Problem is, EPA regulations require air emission control devices to control air pollution for commercial sanding operations (aka a bag house). So they either just admitted to violating EPA regulations for air emissions, or in fact, they operated in compliance by using a bag house and didn’t produce any air pollution…which would completely nullify their claim here of processes contributing less air pollution because they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. Comprende?
  • 3 3
 @LaXcarp: Their 'less' is for their type of manufacturing. I used to live 5 min from GG. Those guys have been legit for years, especially with the new carbon process. When there were all alloy 10 years ago, not sure what their sanding/finishing protocols were, but that isn't the topic of this article. So again.....'Less'.
  • 7 2
 @bman33: you understand air pollution means releasing contaminated air into the environment right (outside the walls of the facility)? If they didn’t release contaminated air into the environment previously, and now they still don’t release, explain how that is less? It’s just misleading “green” marketing
  • 2 0
 @LaXcarp: exactly is just greenwash marketing bs. They will have always being making bike compliant with legislation. The only way a bike company can be green is if it doesn’t exist
  • 2 1
 @LaXcarp: Your understanding of 'less' is baffling. "Less" sanding and post prod finishing compared to other carbon manufacturing technics. I regardless of internal vacuum/bag systems, that particulate that is sucked up WILL eventually be disposed of in one way or another
  • 1 2
 @bman33: Just stop. You have obviously engaged in a discussion you know nothing about.
  • 2 1
 @LaXcarp: says the person that is just speculating and also doesn't know what they are talking about... source: i work at GG
  • 1 1
 @Swampjunkie: So then, enlighten us. How is the facility producing less air pollution now with the method of finishing? What were your methods of controlling fugitive air emissions for particles of carbon fiber previously? How are you now controlling them that has resulted in less air pollution? Source: I design and implement global environmental compliance programs for multi-billion-dollar companies.
  • 1 1
 @LaXcarp: It appears YOU are the one spouting the ignorance and smugness. Pretty straight forward: One method of production produces LESS residual waste/carbon/dust than another. GG didn't product carbon until th Revved product line. Not sure what part of that sentence you cannot comprehend
  • 1 1
 @bman33: I dont know whats so difficult for you to understand about this. Its really simple...I am not arguing that their process doesnt create less dust, I'm sure it does. What Im saying is commercial industries are not legally allowed to release their carbon dust air emissions into the environment, as a form of air pollution. So hypothetically, if 'process A' produces 2 tons of dust, and none of it is released as air pollution and 'Process B' produces 1 ton of dust and none of it is released as air pollution....you havent reduced your air pollution by 50%...its same amount.
  • 1 0
 @LaXcarp: You are still confused...I NEVER argued against that legality at all. You are also comparing US/Western regs which in that case, you are correct. Comparing US/Western rules on carbon dust vs. locations in China/Vietnam (where Yeti, SC, etc etc) are made is the comparison.
  • 1 1
 @bman33: I oversee facilities in China (and Taiwan, s. Korea, Philippines) and they are more tightly regulated than our facilities in NA. Im really not confused at all.
  • 1 0
 @LaXcarp: I find pretty difficult to believe China in all area has higher standards (Taiwan different story). Guess we will will just have to take your professional word for it
  • 1 0
 The Cooler page on PNW's website has been down for a while - www.pnwcomponents.com/pages/cooler-x-pnw. @pnwcomponents are you still doing the cooler thing?
  • 3 0
 Wheres like the ppl that make wallets out of inner tubes and stuff
  • 1 0
 More greenwashing bs from the bike industry to try and hide the reality. There is nothing green about mtb. Never has been and never will be
  • 4 2
 Haha!! This could have been a one sentence article!

“Stop riding e bikes.”
  • 1 0
 Right, take a BIKE, no motor, no battery, no LCD screen. Pure simple exercise now mine for a battery, build a motor that wears out and needs to be replaced annually and screens and wires....it's a bike it doesn't need all that. That is what my body is there for.
  • 1 0
 Just a "but....but.....but...It makes me feel good" scenario as they buy everything else made from petroleum products! IRONY
  • 1 0
 A great way to reduce environmental waste is to actually use the product you're riding with more than just a few months before you buy something new.
  • 1 0
 I'm 10 years behind, most of my bike stuff is used not for environmental reasons, I just a tight arse who refuses to pay stupid money
  • 1 0
 I didn't realize I couldn't recycle my old pedals... Good to know, in the trash they go!
  • 1 0
 Buy used bikes. Its going to do a lot more good than buying a brand new bike that cuts down in emissions by .1%
  • 1 0
 I have a bucket full of worn out chains, cassettes, and spokes. Where can I recycle them?
  • 3 0
 You can usually take it to a local recycling center. If they won't take it, they will tell you who can. Basically it is scrap metal, which has value and is one of the easier materials to recycle.
  • 1 0
 So silly how we cannot put newer engines in older vehicles in so many places(like caliwilfukya)
  • 2 1
 something we definitely need more of
  • 5 4
 Love my Guerilla Gravity Pistola and Gnarvana.
  • 2 1
 9 greenwashing minded marketing points for various manufacturers.
  • 1 0
 "Roooaaaaaaarrrr" - Katy Perry
  • 3 2
 Environmentally-Minded..., meanwhile promoting ebikes
  • 1 0
 Pembree pedals start at $149............................................
  • 1 0
 is the disposal of bad ebike batteries environmentally friendly? ... nope
Below threshold threads are hidden





You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2023. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.048785
Mobile Version of Website