BD Ultralight Lifespan - Are you mad? - We can do something about it!

that guy named seb wrote:

People do it with slings I struggle to see how a stem is worse. I highly doubt dsm would just burn uhmwpe, its not like they have to be concerned about dyes or anything along those lines pretty much all uhmwpe is virgin after you've melted it down. 

Currently DSM shred it for use as staple fibres or burn it. Melted Dyneema is useless as far as I know (it´s probably just reverted to PE anyway), the actual filaments are made from a gel to get the long crystalline structure which makes it so strong.  

It´s a couple of years since I did a product-life audit involving Dyneema but then it was thermal recycling. With something like a cam it´s just all going into the furnace anyway I expect.

Jim Titt wrote:

Currently DSM shred it for use as staple fibres or burn it. Melted Dyneema is useless as far as I know (it´s probably just reverted to PE anyway), the actual filaments are made from a gel to get the long crystalline structure which makes it so strong.  

 Your correct that once melted Dyneema  looses its most desirable quality (highly oriented crystalline structure)  but as far as I'm aware there's no reason why it can't  be gel spun again. 

that guy named seb wrote:

 Your correct that once melted Dyneema  looses its most desirable quality (highly oriented crystalline structure)  but as far as I'm aware there's no reason why it can't  be gel spun again. 

Who knows, maybe it´s uneconomic or practically difficult? DSM don´t do it with their factory waste so there must be a good reason.

In real life cams are just going through the shredder and either the plastics and metals sorted or all into a furnace for thermal sorting, that the recyclers are going to bother to sort the Dyneema bit out from the rest of the plastic is hard to believe since it´s going to be thermally recycled anyway.

it sure isn´t going to be better to ship cams around the world to replace a couple of ounces of stem

Yes forget recycling the stem but when considering replacing the stem the argument is reasonable but not obviously true.

It’s an interesting impact balance question: is the impact of shipping the cam back to bd for stem replacement greater than the impact of manufacturing and shipping a brand new new cam. 

No one would argue that junking a car has less impact than replacing the tires. In the case of a cam the answer is not so obvious especially considering that all internet orders get shipped to the consumer. 

bttrrtRock Charles wrote:

Yes forget recycling the stem but when considering replacing the stem the argument is reasonable but not obviously true.

It’s an interesting impact balance question: is the impact of shipping the cam back to bd for stem replacement greater than the impact of manufacturing and shipping a brand new new cam. 

No one would argue that junking a car has less impact than replacing the tires. In the case of a cam the answer is not so obvious especially considering that all internet orders get shipped to the consumer. 

I think what's not being taken into account is the energy requirements for manufacturing all the other parts of the cam, as far as energy consumption goes the creation of a dyneema stem is barely anything compared to what is required to create any metal part of a cam. 

I think what's not being taken into account is the energy requirements for manufacturing all the other parts of the cam, as far as energy consumption goes the creation of a dyneema stem is barely anything compared to what is required to create any metal part of a cam. 

these and the shipping to the consumer are the only things I would consider in my proposed scenario. 

Manufacturing the stem cancels out because it is the same whether assembled on a new cam or replaced on a used cam. 

The unplesant reality is that the energy to make a cam or any other piece ogf climbing equipment is irrelevant compared with it´s use. To make a kg of aluminium takes around 15kW/h and the aluminium  is still around to recycle afterwards, that gallon of gas you just burnt in your car just to have fun is 33kW/h and it´s never coming back.

bttrrtRock Charles wrote:

Andrew - your over thinking it man. I could care less about convincing you that one nascent concept is safe. 

You're*, could NOT care less.

for future reference.

i own a full rack of BD UL's. mainly because i weigh 126lbs soaking wet, and weight matters, and i mostly us them for mixed climbing, and back country stuff. but since you made such a stink of it, i'll be sure to use my bidet vs toilet paper for the next 2 weeks. that should cover the difference. 

and i mostly us them

?

Jim Titt wrote:

The unplesant reality is that the energy to make a cam or any other piece ogf climbing equipment is irrelevant compared with it´s use. To make a kg of aluminium takes around 15kW/h and the aluminium  is still around to recycle afterwards, that gallon of gas you just burnt in your car just to have fun is 33kW/h and it´s never coming back.

This. It is strange to me how people are getting so hung up here on the environmental impacts of thier gear, when this is a tiny, tiny portion of th total environmental impact of your climbing. All the energy and resources used to manufacture your rack of Camlots are pretty irrelevant compared to the energy used to drive your Tacoma to the Creek last weekend to use them. And if you ever get on an airplane to go on a climbing trip...

I think that this style of getting lost in the details of sustainability is a distraction that takes focus away from the more important big-ticket issues of environmental impact. People have a finite amount of attention to give to environemtnal issues. If they spend all thier time worrying about recycling dynema, that takes attention away from the aspects that actually make a difference, like diet and transportation.

Wow, I guess I think of those "real climbers" who put up routes with 1" webbing, tied slings, rigid stemmed friends, and shitty boots with socks...and new climbers make BS excuses about ultra light gear and still can't climb the old school routes. 

I guess this is trolling, but how about the new generation steps up their game and stop whining about gear weights...

bttrrtRock Charles wrote:Sure I buy consumable goods. But this choice by BD was a step backwards in sustainability  and is thus ethically irresponsible.

And what part of us driving all over the country to climb a stupid piece of rock has to do with sustainability. 

You can easily recycle just about any metal, though.  No need to put them in the landfill. 

It is strange to me how people are getting so hung up here on the environmental impacts of thier gear, when this is a tiny, tiny portion of th total environmental impact of your climbing.

If the companies that we buy gear from make sustainable choices that influences climbers to make more sustainable choices. We can't make big needed changes until we change the attitude of whole bunch of people. That's why having companies like patagonia who are making small positive changes visible to a whole bunch of people is important. 

And what part of us driving all over the country to climb a stupid piece of rock has to do with sustainability.

If we were a more sustainable oriented community (thus hating less on wanting more sustainable gear) then we may choose to drive less too.

 People have a finite amount of attention to give to environemtnal issues. 

People have a finite amount of attention they choose to give to environmental issues. cuz they (including me) have other priorities. That seems to be categorically different then hating on my idea without a good argument (credit to Jim's argument though - he may have a point - devils in the details). If you have a finite amount of attention for environmental issues and you are spending that attention by trying to get others (see this whole thread) to not make a difference, how does that make sense?

You could of course just stop buying cams anyway and bolt everything, stainless steel bolts are infinitely recycleable (made from 80% recycled material to start with) and all the energy (power, light and heat) I use to make mine comes from our bio-gas generating plant so renewable and CO² neutral.

On the other hand I just sent 400kg of the things halfway around the world by airfreight to a well known holiday climbing destination, to fly there and back I´d use 5000kW/h of energy which would make my operational energy balance look pathetic. 

It´s a commonly used argument by politicitians that by making small but obvious changes we will become more aware and all save the planet. It saves them actually having to do something about the major causes and has no effect whatsoever in reality, in fact the last decades of "eco" education merely mean we use even more resources and energy than ever before. I´ll start worrying about renewable cam stems when the 747´s flying out of Munich Airport stop going over my head  

bttrrtRock Charles wrote:

That's why having companies like patagonia who are making small positive changes visible to a whole bunch of people is important. 

If you think that Patagonia is doing things “better” than any other company, you’re high on your own farts. I refuse to buy Patagonia because I also refuse to buy into their hippy-trippy bullshit version of sustainability. Every year, Patagonia creates new products, new shit that will eventually end up in a landfill. Primaloft, Goretex, stretch fabrics, fleece... where’s the sustainability in plastic-based fabrics?

This is why I laugh at companies that try to tout that they’re more environmentally responsible because they’ve used 25% less plastic in a product, or used a new screen printing process that eliminates 5 gallons out of the dyeing process. It’s all a fuckin joke. “Drops in the bucket.”

Like others have said, if you want to make a difference get back at the reason why we feel the need to buy all these products in the first place. Companies exist because there is a niche to be filled. Companies succeed because there is perceived value in what they create.

bttrrtRock Charles wrote:

If the companies that we buy gear from make sustainable choices that influences climbers to make more sustainable choices. We can't make big needed changes until we change the attitude of whole bunch of people. That's why having companies like patagonia who are making small positive changes visible to a whole bunch of people is important. 

If we were a more sustainable oriented community (thus hating less on wanting more sustainable gear) then we may choose to drive less too.

Man, this is so completely full of shit I don't know where to begin. If you want to consider, just for one second, how sustainable or not the climbing gear market is, take a look at how it's actually USED and where people get gear. Just, for example, take a look at the "for sale, want to buy" section of this very forum. Look at the vigorous market in used climbing gear on eBay. Look at how cams, in particular, hold their value. Gear gets resold and reused over and over again. 

Very little climbing gear is going into the landfill or incinerator. If it is, it's been broken. But of all the consumer goods to get rightfully upset about planned obsolescence and disposable construction climbing gear is about the LAST thing I can think of that fits the bill. 

I think we have established that reusable UL camalot stems aren't doing much to offset the environmental impact of climbing. However, it could do a hell of a lot to offset climbing's impact to our wallets. I think that if BD did a good job of effectively pricing such replacements, it could be profitable by exploiting a market of climbers who want to replace their UL camalots with more UL camalots but don't want to pay another 90 bucks for them.

These customers might otherwise opt to replace their old UL camalots with other ultralight cams such as metolius ULs, but if BD offered stem replacements for something like 20-30 bucks they may choose BD over other products, still turning a profit for BD.

If I knew I could replace the stems for relatively cheap every 5 or 10 years, I would strongly consider replacing some of my cams with UL camalots. 

Jim and others are arguing the drop in the bucket argument for why they don’t care to have replaceable stem bd ultralight cams. I can’t really argue against drop in the bucket because I am of course guilty of the same reasoning regarding many thousands of other ways to limit my impact. 

But pretending to care about the environment then fighting against positive change doesn’t cut it. 

Then start doing something that actually makes a difference. Fighting against a cam that may need replacement in 10 years... pathetic. 

Any renewable energy in your home?

Man, this is so completely full of shit I don't know where to begin. If you want to consider, just for one second, how sustainable or not the climbing gear market is, take a look at how it's actually USED and where people get gear. Just, for example, take a look at the "for sale, want to buy" section of this very forum. Look at the vigorous market in used climbing gear on eBay. Look at how cams, in particular, hold their value. Gear gets resold and reused over and over again.

Very little climbing gear is going into the landfill or incinerator. If it is, it's been broken. But of all the consumer goods to get rightfully upset about planned obsolescence and disposable construction climbing gear is about the LAST thing I can think of that fits the bill.

Andrew, I fail to see how you’re description opposes my argument. Based on your post it sure seems like you would agree that climbing gear should continue to have a long lifecycle which is the entire point of this thread. 

In case people are just confused: I think climbing gear should continue to have a long lifecycle. If we get comfortable buying hard goods with shorter lifecycle then companies will take advantage of that by making more gear that way which increases our impact. Plus we’ll just get gear that is more expensive and wears our quicker. I am arguing that in this case (bd UL) we could have both long lasting and ultra light cams while simultaneously exploring the possibility of reducing impact. 

I’ll just assume ahead of time that people still don’t care to support the idea. It is a bit odd though.