• usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        tl;dr: e-bikes with a steel frame optimized for cost are more sustainable that weight optimized aluminum bikes.

        I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.

        It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can produce 28 aluminium bicycle with motors for the emissions of ONE Citroen C1 or 163 such bicylces for ONE Land Rover Discovery. The numbers for steel framed without a motor is nearly twice as high. It really does not matter what kind of bicycle you buy, as long as it lowers car usage it is a really good idea enviromentally speaking. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but the point is that a ebike with a steel frame is more enjoyable to drive (important factor for wide adoption) and also more sustainable than aluminum frame regular bikes. And there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.

          • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.

            It really doesn’t. The extra weight is about 1kg, 1.5kg max, on a total weight of 70-120kg, so around 1% to 1.5% lighter weight to get up hills. E.g. my inexpensive, 30 year old rigid steel mountain bike frame & fork is 7.5lb / 3.4kg. Tire choice and aero are much more significant than weight, typically.

            People think the lighter bike is significantly faster, because it feels faster, because it has less momentum under you so surges forward when you pedal, but in reality it’s a tiny percentage. Also, bikes have been marketed on weight. That feeling is great, it’s enjoyable, so it’s not nothing, but it’s hugely exaggerated in people’s mind in terms of journey time or effort.

    • ansik@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      A couple of years back I saw some napkin math claiming e-bikes has a lower CO-2 impact than normal bikes or walking since power plants and motors are more effective than your body at energy conversion. Couldn’t find the same source (and it was in my language anyways) but did find this (with a ton of other sites claiming similar things when searching)

      • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        … and I’m deeply skeptical of that. Bodies use a lot of energy sitting still and when we do work it’s not all additional energy burnt.

        On top, if you start bike commuting it’s not necessarily extra exercise in your day. For a lot of people it’ll be more a case of shifting how and when you get exercise. My commute’s up to 7 miles with some hills now and I am absolutely doing less physical work the rest of the time as a result. I’m getting a great amount of exercise and having shorter commute time and saving a lot of money and getting healthier. Perhaps I eat more as a result of doing this commute, but I don’t perceive it. I just eat the same meals at the same size as ever.

        … and … I don’t remember the article justification for sure, but I seem to recall they were comparing the full lifecycle energy cost of the ebike, including ultimate disposal and reuse of motors and batteries. All in all, I frankly flat out don’t believe it, though I freely admit this mostly my gut feel.

  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The issue with bicycles is bad infrastructure and not price. You can easily get a decent new one for 1000€ and second hand they often can be had for nearly nothing. Unfortunatly most will not ride bicycles in car traffic for very real safety concerns. So it is much better to build proper protected city wide cycling infrastructure and promote it especially towards students.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bad ones cost 300€ or even less, but they will not last. You really need to spend some money to get a good new one, but it will last a lifetime. Otherwise go second hand and as I said you can get good ones for nearly nothing, but they will not be up to date in terms of technology. Honestly second hand is the way to go anyway.