Funding sought for “world’s first 100% recycled aluminium bikes”

I like the idea and the frame design's certainly novel and eye-catching. But I agree that the seat post tube plays an imporant role in frame stiffness. Taking it out means you have to go fo stronger and heavier tubes all round. Otherwise, you end up with a bendy frame that doesn't handle.

I have to agree with the above, I wouldn't have one of those, I'd take an angle grinder to it and send it back for them to "recycle"

I would not even punish an African child by sending it out to them.

Why are they only recycling ugly aluminium?

Honestly, if they weighed 8lb, never broke and cost £300 I'd still not buy one. Maybe at £100, but I'd need a free bag to put over my head and a washable sick bag for the handlebars.

Interesting idea, but as I see it there are a few problems. First, I'm curious if this is in fact "the world’s first 100% recycled aluminium bikes". The recycling of aluminium is one form of recycling where the economical and environmental advantages are completely unambiguous. Aluminium is usually produced from ore through the Hall–Héroult process, which requires massive amounts of electricity - a large cost that does not exist when producing ingots from recycled aluminium. Which of course makes me wonder if tubing manufacturers are not already buying ingots made from recycled aluminium.

Secondly, I can only think of maybe two performance -oriented bikes with a traditional quadrilateral frame that isn't made with a seat tube. It just does not happen often, even before UCI rules, and even for bikes not governed by UCI rules (e.g. tri bikes and lightweight exotics). That's because the seat tube is there for a very good reason - it provides triangulation for the structure, and minimises shear, bending and torsion loads, which basically no known material is good at resisting. Without the seat tube every other tube must be made thicker and heavier than they need to be. The bike is definitely heavier than it needs to be.

Sure the bikes may not be made to maximise performance, but remember the weight of the frame reflects the amount of material used - a heavier bike uses more material, and the amount of material used is very important for a bike claimed to be "the greenest transportation option available anywhere". The same goes for all the design flairs like the huge dropouts.

So on that point I agree with aslongasicycle, they need to make up their mind - either produce a "boring" double-triangle frame to minimise the weight/material used and hence making the bike actually "greener", or drop the act and just sell it as unusual cruisers (of which there is plenty already). $2,250 is a lot of money for a single speed cruiser with unknown specs and most likely made in China or Taiwan, and as it is it just seems like a cynical attempt to sell overpriced bikes with dubious green-credentials and stupid terms like "Ma Earth". The greenest bike you can buy is a used one.

I agree with aslongasicycle – a recycled aluminium bike is a strong selling point. The people who are attracted to a product like that could probably be satisfied by a retro/traditional design - Kona Africa bike-esque, highly practical and with the promise of longevity.

Good to luck to them. Raising finance is a nightmare. They're doing great.

But I do feel that its best not to muddy your innovations. The really great one here is recycling aluminium (I've no idea if that is unique, but if it is, brilliant!). But its muddied by some very leftfield designs. Best stick to a clear single message and allow normal choices, rather than narrowing down to an ultra specific audience who are now buying on out-there designs, not the recycling ticket.

Do they make unusual bikes? Or recycled bikes?

I hope I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon who'll be proved horribly wrong!