[dvzk]

For athletes and co., sustainability isn't even an idea thought about. Like, I've built quite a few bikes and I've rode with some of the world's best MTBers/cyclists: not once has someone proposed, "How can we make this bike more environmentally friendly?" It's a concept that exists squarely within the minds of some commuters and environmentalist nerds. I'm not making a counterargument: I'm saying, don't expect to win over the enthusiast market if your suggestion is "Buy a heavier (i.e. non-carbon) bike."

> In addition, many carbon-intensive bicycles are bought for recreation and are not meant to replace cars at all – they may even involve more car use as cyclists drive out of town for a trip in nature. In all those cases, emissions go up, not down.

I'm impressed: In discussions about cycling, cyclists always get lumped together, and the default assumption is cyclist = commuter, and cycling = less emissions = good. Except that in reality, Dave is transporting 1-2 $10k+ bikes on his 8-15 MPG modified Jeep Wrangler, 3-7 times per week, for drives that he otherwise wouldn't perform.

[AstralStorm]

That means said Dave has the wrong bike and is not riding.

The bike is foremost made to not be a wall hanger. Neither is it supposed to cost more than a few hundred bucks.

Recreation does not require a $10k bicycle either. Just a different bike design. Neither does it require a damn battery. The battery is useful for commuting. If you cannot finish or go to a recreational drive without one, train up to it or change the path. It's that easy.

Manicuired bike parks are kinda fun in the same sense a rollercoaster is. That is, once or twice. Someone should run a bike rental at one of these to fix the issue of bikes getting carried.

[ZeroGravitas]

In terms of carbon and pollution, people's hobbies are generally way, way, way down the scale and not worth discussing unless you actively want to annoy people for no benefit to the climate.