Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacknews | Hacker News Reader

I think the point is we may not need 55k bikes a day if they were made to be good, and made to last.

Can you think how much less 'new bikes' could be required if students in schools (10 to 14 years old maybe ?) were to learn some basic bike fixing skills and bike maintenance ? I feel like I have so many friends who have no idea how to do the most basic operations, like changing a chamber. This could have such a big impact.

And it goes much further. A bike is potentially something that is quite easy to comprehend, and relatively simple to repair and maintain, and the experience of doing so can instill a sense of ability, control, and responsibility, vs. helpless consumerism.

55k is not that much imo. ~50k people are born everyday in China and if we assume that the same number reach an age where they need a bike everyday the number seems quite reasonable. Maybe even a bit low taking the export market into account.

edited: Also lots of great durable bikes are made in China.

Yes you're right it doesn't seem astronomical, though I'm sure the global number is higher. But, China's population is now shrinking I believe, and I don't think bikes are grave goods.

They don't last? At least aluminum frames last quite some time. That you have ti replace a component over the years is normal. IMHO.

First, people don't know that bicycle components are replaceable and fairly standardized. Second, replacing a few worn out parts with decent quality replacements costs more than a new bike-shaped object.

It depends on the country. Here in Argentina you never send a bike to the scrap yard. First you try to fix it yourself, then go to the local bike shop that is 5 blocks (1/2 mile) away. When it's too old you give it to your nephew. And when it's really old or has a massive problem it may be cannibalized and the remainders send to a scrap yard.

I guess experiences vary: I’ve never heard that – in fact, people who bought cheap Walmart bikes were surprised when they learned that a part was non-standard and hard to replace.

My experience with the cheap bikes is that literally every component is garbage, and if one fails, it's not long before something else does.

The frames can sometimes be fairly durable, but I've had plenty of mount points shear off and stuff like that, even if the frame doesn't outright fail.

The other problem is that the entire design is often just kitsch 'fashion' and 'disposable', and even if you could fix it/upcycle it economically, it's so heavily 'styled' as to make it undesirable.

I don't think in general the problem is not that they don't last, but they are destroyed.

See the problem created by the "shared bikes" :

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversup...

In what way do these bikes fail typically, do you know? It might not be a matter of manufacturing but rather maintenance, if the frame doesn't fail you can definitely fix it, usually pretty cheap if it is a commodity bike.

I only have my own experience and some travel to go off, but I routinely see 20+ year old bikes still kicking about, riding as if they were new. I used to do my own repairs at a non-profit that helped people keep their bikes on the road, it's not very challenging or expensive to keep most bikes moving.

Carbon and aluminum bike frames die from fatigue, eventually. And since they're weaker materials (carbon is very strong in some ways, very weak in others) they're more liable to actually crack or bend irreversibly in a crash.

Steel and titanium, to my knowledge, will never break from fatigue alone. You essentially need to hit them with a car or a hammer to break em. And you can always keep those frames going indefinitely with welded fixes, as long as you know a decent welder. Rust is what gets steel in the long term, if you don't keep your bike clean, especially if your town salts roads in the winter. But it's otherwise very robust.

In the USA it seems like a lot of people just like new bikes, and neglect their old bikes. Some get stolen. Enthusiasts get upgradeitis. But compared to the carbon footprint of smartphones, cars, asphalt roads, factory farming, and a million other things, I'm not convinced it's a major issue.

In the west I think you are right, there's a bit of keeping up with the jonses going on. Lots of new specializations happening too, suddenly it's not good enough to have just a mountain bike, it has to fit the right specialization too. Downhill, enduro, trail, XC, gravel! I think we have finally ran out of sensibile suspension travel divisions to group bikes around, it might calm down now.

I think the fatigue rate of an aluminum frame is overblown a bit. It is certainly a fact about aluminium, but does it actually occur over the lifetime and use of a typical frame? You can expect to use an AL frame for 10+ years, or tens of thousands of KMs, so it still has a longer shelf life than I think most cyclists have enthusiasm to ride.

Consider that most AL frames are made of 2024 or 6061, the same stuff used on aircraft wings which have significant lifespans (30+ years). It depends on the grade and craftsmanship of course but I would not personally worry about the AL itself.

I've had a Aluminum CX bike (kinesis built) have a fatigue failure in the bottom bracket cluster. That one also had the non-drive side crank have a fatigue crack at the BB interface. I've had a (cheap) Trek steel late 80's mountain bike have a fatigue failure at the chainstay bridge. Each one had thousands of miles, but not 10k.

In each case, it was probably more of a welding or detailing issue than the actual material involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com