Last month, we published an article asking if the bike industry is doing enough on climate action, which referred to the results of a survey that found 62% of those in the industry thought they were doing a good job on sustainability. This compared to only 23% of consumers who believe the same thing. To be honest, I am not surprised by either of these numbers, because I think the entire cycling industry and the way it sells products is fundamentally unsustainable.

Granted, those 62% of industry people patting themselves on the back have overseen massive improvements in manufacturing sustainability, supply chain sustainability, and even basic packaging improvements. This is undoubtedly something to celebrate, because being better than we were yesterday is positive. However, the way this should be seen is not that we are now doing well, but that we are – in general – just not doing as badly. 

We know that once a bike leaves a shop, it is one of the most sustainable modes of transport ever invented. So much so that research has shown that a human on a bike is not just the most efficient way for humans to travel, but more efficient than any living thing. However, the reason the performance cycling industry is not sustainable, and cannot be in its current guise, comes from almost every step before that.

Think about the way that the industry sells bikes and components, combined with the iterative development practices that almost every manufacturer uses. There is no other sport in the world that is more wedded to the secret squirrel philosophies of lots of small training and equipment improvements, making a larger compound performance improvement. 

We are seeing millions being spent on components that have a tiny improvement over what they replace, then the component that is replaced is normally just chucked in the bin or left in a box for years before being chucked. Think about how many high-end derailleur cages have been lobbed in the bin because somebody heard that oversized jockey wheels will save you a couple of watts over 100km, then think about whether the proportion of people buying them who would have the athleticism to even come close to seeing the performance benefits. 

Even when we picture a modern performance frame compared to 20 years ago, it is made from carbon fibre, a material that releases an estimated 24kg of carbon for every kilogram created. 

Yet, the fastest ever ascent of Alpe d’Huez, arguably the most famous climb in cycling, was done by Marco Pantani on an aluminium bike in 1997. It’s highly likely other unethical things were going on to get that record, but his bike was a very respectable 7.8kg, and the frame was made from a material that emits under 4kg of carbon for every kilogram created. Despite this, no team has competed in the Tour de France on an aluminium bike since 1998, and besides a handful of titanium frames, carbon fibre is the material used by almost every serious hobby cyclist since then. 

Let’s say for sake of argument that 1 million carbon frames have been made each year on average since 1998 (the true figure is much higher) – if those frames had been made from the same material that Pantani used to conquer the Alpe d’Huez, we would have saved well over half a billion kilos of carbon released into the atmosphere, which is the equivalent weight of 50 aircraft carriers. All because we’re told that carbon fibre will make us a little bit faster, and make our bikes a little bit lighter.

Canyon Endurace ON Fly CF 8 - front brake rotor
Canyon Endurace ON Fly CF 8 - front brake rotor (Image Credit: Liam Cahill)

There are bright points where we have genuinely seen an improvement in sustainability due to new cycling tech, so I don’t want to put a total downer on things. Disc brakes being used on basically every serious new bike, regardless of discipline, over the last decade has had a massive sustainability improvement. With this change, wheels have ceased to be a consumable and have become as much of a component as a frame or bars, all while improving braking performance and increasing rider safety.

With the majority of disc brake rotors being made from stainless steel, 1kg of which can be made with as little as 0.5kg carbon released, this significantly reduces the environmental impact of a bike compared to having to replace your wheels every few years, and burn through lots of pads. 

I say all this, but the idea that performance-orientated cyclists should be self-flagellating because our hobby is unsustainable is insane. Bikes get us places with practically no emissions after the bike has been made and transported to wherever you bought it from. They keep us fit and healthy, and give us a genuine alternative to more polluting forms of transport. In fact, the tactic that thousands of towns of cities across the world have used to try and increase their sustainability has been to increase the number of people using bikes, so it would be a mad to say the industry is a net negative on the whole. 

However, I think we should look in the mirror at what we’re doing as consumers and how damaging the performance end of the market can be to the environment. 

Performance does not always come from carbon intensive materials. Of the few bikes that have even received a perfect score in road.cc reviews, most of them have steel frames. The Fairlight Strael 4.0 that got a 10/10 score just this year is steel-framed, it looks amazing, and is “the closest bike to perfection I have ever ridden” according to Stu. It’s far more sustainable to produce than a carbon fibre equivalent, yet better according to, I would argue, one of the most experienced bike reviewers working today.

So, do we really need to sacrifice sustainability for performance? Evidence would say otherwise.