log in
register

It’s time to call bullshit on the ‘Eco Bike Cleaning’ sector

  • Creator
    Topic
  • January 11, 2016 at 7:01 pm #25229
    KiwiMike

    This has got me cross: http://road.cc/content/review/174384-green-oil-green-clean – 

    At £7.99 for 1000ml, it’s about *532 times* the  times the price of using dishwashing liquid.

    Ecover washing up liquid is £2.25 for 1L – or about *thirty* hefty 33ml squeezes into a bucket that will give you about 5L of hot, soapy (but eco-friendly)  water to deal to multiple bikes. I make that about £0.015 per litre (You could choose to use a lot less water too, but I like it sloshy).

     

    What about as a degreaser though? 

    £8 for 5 *litres* (£1.60/L) of Swarfega Oil & Grease remover (B&Q/Toolstation) does a bang-up job. And according the hazmat sheet, it’s biodegradable and non-hazardous: this stuff is *designed* to end up in waterways and treatment plants, as well as your lawn/garden beds

    http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1640410.pdf(link is external)

    The Green Oil equivalent ‘Clean Chain Degreasing Gel’ is £4 for 100ml – or £40/L. That’s *twenty-five times* more expensive than the Swarfega stuff.

     

    You may wibble on about disc brakes being all marketing. You may maintain that no-one needs 11-speeds, or that one cable feels *exactly* the same as another.  Meanwhile, the biggest scam in cycling today is quietly sitting on the shelves of your LBS: bike-specific ‘eco’ cleaners & degreasers.

    [edit 30/1/16: Actually, *any* bike-specific cleaner/degreaser. but ‘Eco’ ones are even more cynical.]

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 10 replies - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • January 12, 2016 at 3:33 pm #864705
    0
    rjfrussell

    Should one wear a helmet when

    Should one wear a helmet when using any of these products?

    January 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm #864703
    0
    KiwiMike
    adamthekiwi wrote:
    Do you doubt it because you know what they are, or because they have chemically-sounding names and so must therefore be evil?

     

    …

    Using that to clean your bike will have a much less profound impact on the environment than your daily shower.

     

    You, Sir, are my new hero. And this is why I love Road.CC – the forums have lurking industrial chemists with a high ability to string together a coherently devastating counter-argument.

    January 12, 2016 at 12:58 pm #864701
    0
    bikeclips
    adamthekiwi wrote:
    Simon E wrote:
    From the Swarfega MSDS you linked to:

    TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE, 2-AMINOETHANOL, BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID, SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE, ISOTRIDECANOL

    You think these things are good for the environment and your skin? I doubt it.

    Do you doubt it because you know what they are, or because they have chemically-sounding names and so must therefore be evil?

    – TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE is a salt composed of pyrophosphate and sodium ions. Toxicity is approximately twice that of table salt when ingested orally.

    – 2-AMINOETHANOL, or ethanolamine is an amino alcohol; a colourless, viscous liquid that smells like ammonia. Its derivatives are widespread in nature, e.g. lipids.

    – BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID is the simplest aromatic sulfonic acid. It forms white deliquescent sheet crystals or a white waxy solid that is soluble in water. It is strongly acidic (but so is lemon juice).

    – SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE is a surfactant, often found in shampoo because of its ability to serve as a  wetting agent. Approved by the FDA, considered a low-hazard ingredient.

    – ISOTRIDECANOL is a fatty alcohol used as a lubricant and surfactant.

    Are they *good* for your skin? That depends entirely on your definition of good. If any of these seriously concern you, stop using soaps, shampoos and shower gels.

    Are they bad for the environment? They’re all found in the environment. Of course, if you release several tonnes of any of them into a river in a day, they’ll have a huge impact. In the amounts that you release into the drainage system over a bike-cleaning session, they have a negligible impact.

    Using that to clean your bike will have a much less profound impact on the environment than your daily shower.

     

    Current leader in ‘Internet Comment of the Year – 2016’ competition.

    January 12, 2016 at 12:55 pm #864699
    0
    adamthekiwi
    Simon E wrote:
    From the Swarfega MSDS you linked to:

    TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE, 2-AMINOETHANOL, BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID, SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE, ISOTRIDECANOL

    You think these things are good for the environment and your skin? I doubt it.

    Do you doubt it because you know what they are, or because they have chemically-sounding names and so must therefore be evil?

    – TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE is a salt composed of pyrophosphate and sodium ions. Toxicity is approximately twice that of table salt when ingested orally.

    – 2-AMINOETHANOL, or ethanolamine is an amino alcohol; a colourless, viscous liquid that smells like ammonia. Its derivatives are widespread in nature, e.g. lipids.

    – BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID is the simplest aromatic sulfonic acid. It forms white deliquescent sheet crystals or a white waxy solid that is soluble in water. It is strongly acidic (but so is lemon juice).

    – SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE is a surfactant, often found in shampoo because of its ability to serve as a  wetting agent. Approved by the FDA, considered a low-hazard ingredient.

    – ISOTRIDECANOL is a fatty alcohol used as a lubricant and surfactant.

    Are they *good* for your skin? That depends entirely on your definition of good. If any of these seriously concern you, stop using soaps, shampoos and shower gels.

    Are they bad for the environment? They’re all found in the environment. Of course, if you release several tonnes of any of them into a river in a day, they’ll have a huge impact. In the amounts that you release into the drainage system over a bike-cleaning session, they have a negligible impact.

    Using that to clean your bike will have a much less profound impact on the environment than your daily shower.

    January 12, 2016 at 12:28 pm #864697
    0
    KiwiMike
    Simon E wrote:
    with Green Oil you are getting *genuinely* environmentally friendly products from a *genuinely* environmentally friendly business.

    I’m not doubting they are nice people. Just that like-for-like, paying 25 to 500 times the odds for a product with basically the same claims (biodegradeable, non-hazardous) just doesn’t make sense to me. I could take the hundreds of pounds saved and purchase a block of rainforest, thereby making a real difference without feeling greenmailed.

    Simon E wrote:
    From the Swarfega MSDS you linked to:

    TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE, 2-AMINOETHANOL, BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID, SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE, ISOTRIDECANOL

    You think these things are good for the environment and your skin? I doubt it.

    It’s listed as both non-hazardous and biodegradable. I didn’t say you would want to eat it, slather it on your eyeballs, or raise fish in it. Unless you’re accusing the lab that did the testing and the manufacturer/retailers of criminal conspiracy, I’ll go with their verdict, thanks.

    Simon E wrote:
    If you want to have a bitch about ripoff pricing then look at brands like Muc-Off, who are charging a lot more for poncy crap – £9 for a brush, FFS! I’m sure Wilko will have something similar for £1.99.

    Why not let people spend their money on what they want?

    Many people are selling ‘eco-friendly’ products targeted at affluent cyclists. This is just one example – and at least this one apparently works. Many don’t.

    People can spend money on what they like. I’m not stopping anyone spending anything, just calling bullshit on what seems to be questionable extra eco-smugness.

    FWIW, I purchased a brush set from Finish Line maybe 10 years ago. It still works, many, many hundreds of washes later. Would the Wilko brush last as long? dunno.

    January 12, 2016 at 12:15 pm #864695
    0
    Simon E

    Cycle-specific products are

    Cycle-specific products are always more expensive than general purpose ones, be it chain lube, grease, bike wash and so on. But at least with Green Oil you are getting *genuinely* environmentally friendly products from a *genuinely* environmentally friendly business. This is NOT true of the others – they might write ‘biodegradable’ on the packaging but the products are usually not naturally (or ethically) sourced and their ecological footprint is much bigger.

    There are huge price differences in all markets. A Specialized Venge costs far more than an Allez. Dura-Ace pedals twice as much as the very similar 105s, and people on here will spend £500 or £1,000 on wheels when a pair costing £150 would be fine. Do we demand a boycott of Dura-Ace pedals or £500 wheels?

    A Ranger Rover is more than a Honda CR-V, a TAG Heuer more than a Timex. A Macbook Pro more than an Acer laptop. A hardback more than a paperback (with exactly the same words inside!). Diamonds more than that Zircon stuff.

    I have used Ecover WUL for years, it does the job perfectly well and I agree, the scare stories about salt in WUL are bullshit – at least in Ecover. I know, I checked a long time ago. Green Oil chain lube is a similar price to other bike chain lubes, it works well for me and lasts ages so I can justify it.

    From the Swarfega MSDS you linked to:

    TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE, 2-AMINOETHANOL, BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID, SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE, ISOTRIDECANOL

    You think these things are good for the environment and your skin? I doubt it. There are better (safer) products around, and TBH a nail brush with normal soap and a tiny bit of sugar works just as well to scrub your paws. As for degreasers, the eco-friendly citrus ones seem effective for me, I’ve not used my solitary tin of nasty Jizer for well over a decade.

    If you want to have a bitch about ripoff pricing then look at brands like Muc-Off, who are charging a lot more for poncy crap – £9 for a brush, FFS! I’m sure Wilko will have something similar for £1.99.

    Why not let people spend their money on what they want?

    January 12, 2016 at 11:17 am #864693
    0
    KiwiMike
    stem wrote:
    I was told ages ago not to use washing up liquid for bikes and cars because it has too many corrosive salts. Can anyone confirm or deny that? (I do know you’re meant to rinse it off). You can get 5L of car shampoo pretty cheap abyway.

    I’m with you on generic degreaser though.

     

    Urban myth. The amount of ‘salt’ is tiny. Certainly a hell of a lot less than what you happily plaster your bike with for hundreds of hours a year, if you ride in the UK.

     

    Been using dishwashing liquid for many years. Never seen a hint of corrosion. Like anything, rinse well – dishwashing liquid is designed to rinse away completely. 

    January 12, 2016 at 10:47 am #864691
    0
    stem

    I was told ages ago not to

    I was told ages ago not to use washing up liquid for bikes and cars because it has too many corrosive salts. Can anyone confirm or deny that? (I do know you’re meant to rinse it off). You can get 5L of car shampoo pretty cheap abyway.

    I’m with you on generic degreaser though.

    January 11, 2016 at 11:30 pm #864689
    0
    KiwiMike
    foot_loose wrote:
    I always thought Swarfega was for cleaning your hands, not degreasing your bike or anything else.

    You do know Swarfega make more than one product, right?

    January 11, 2016 at 8:56 pm #864687
    0
    foot_loose

    I always thought Swarfega was

    I always thought Swarfega was for cleaning your hands, not degreasing your bike or anything else.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 10 replies - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.