DaveB wrote:Gee Wacycle,
I hope you used the phone instead of your car, otherwise you probably burned through the 2.4 litres of oil trying to find the frame!
DaveB wrote:Yeah I suppose you could go to those length to calculate the environmental impact of your cycling!
If the frame and all the aluminium parts on your bike weighed 10kg this equates to 1% of 2.5 barrels of oil (about 4 litres) as apposed to 1.6 litres for the steel frame. This is assuming the equivalent steel parts still weigh 10kg, you can get lightweight steel but I still think it weighs more.
If the bike weighs 10%, it may equate to 1.5% of total bike/rider weight. You then need to eat more food to get to the top of that hill. More food, more fuel to seed, harvest, transport. You probably chew through the 2.4 litres of oil you saved pretty quick.
1.5% extra load on the tyres, they wear faster. More oil for more tyres.
The most popular steel alloy for bike is cro-molly, both chromium and molybdenum are toxic, should we take into account the damage of any spills/contamination of the heavy metals in the processing plants and the mining of the heavy metals themselves?
You are probably right, steel may be the more friendly product. But if you take into account how much oil you save by riding instead of driving, the one of hit in the manufacture of the bike pales.
By the way I have one steel and one aluminium bike
Don't get me started on water tanks!
John wrote:Probably as much energy as it takes to post a mine of boring information!
I would much rather consider teh energy needed to produce several bottles of fine moselle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest