Washing your cycling shorts

thiscocks

Have 5 pairs of decent padded shorts for commuting and the odd weekend ride.

Wear one pair a day and wash them all with my other clothes at the end of the week on a cool wash and obviously no tumble drying.

The only time I would consider wearing shorts on consecutive days would be if I wear them over my tights, but then I would wash the tights instead of the shorts...

I don't think many would use a base layer twice so don't see how you can for shorts! The saddle area, atleast for me, gets just as sweaty as your torso.

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

But that's the thing, bio washing detergents have enzymes which remain in the environment as toxins for longer but you can use lower temps in the wash. Non bios don't have the enzymes but DO have harsher surfactants and bleaches and need to use higher washing temps whereas Ecover has neither harsh surfactants and bleaches or harsh enzymes and is 100% biodegradeable. I haven't tried it on any less than 40C....

As for phosphatesI realise the techniology exists to remove these from water but is it really utilised in the UK or do phosphates filter into the environment?

As for efficiency, I really don't know. I have no stats. Of course as an ex employee of one of the "big 2" you will claim that they are more efficient. I suppose there are many ways of measuring environmental efficiency CO2 emmitted per unit produced, CO2 emmitted per employee, tonnes of toxins produced etc etc...

If Ecover uses neither - either they rely on Harry Potter style magic or it just doesn't work as well. Selling an inferior product that doesn't do the job properly is just a waste of resource. Running your machine at 40C (versus, say, 15C) multiplied by the number of households that use the product, can hardly be described as environmental. As for enzymes, they're incredibly fragile as they're only proteins so I'd be astonished if they even show up in our water courses - I've never heard of anybody questioning their environmental impact. They do cause some people to become sensitised to them and some people are naturally sensitised to them too - almost certainly why the kit manufacturers recommend non-bio - they don't want the hassle of complaints. They do no damage to clothes and, as described, improve cleaning performance without the need for chemicals that might harm the clothes or environment.

I don't think there's much phosphate (if any) left in laundry detergents.

The efficiency bit is a simple engineering statement. Knowing the lengths we (I) went to to reduce energy and improve efficiency, I really can't see how Ecover could do it better - again, unless an H Potter is on the team. I have no stats (I doubt they exist) but, if they do manage it, I'd love to know how because I don't think it's possible.

I didn't say that Ecover uses neither enzymes or surfactants/bleach however they claim 100% biodegradability (with or without Harry Potter's help). I don't know the details of the ingredients they use and it sounds like you don't either, however somehow they break down a lot more quickly than those used by the big brands (unless they're lying). Ecover claims to have been a finalist in the European Business Awards for the Environment in the Process Award category for its production process of Eco-Surfactants in 2010.

The big brands don't claim this level of biodegradability, which I'm certain they would if they could, so as far as I'm concerned and in the face of what is claimed and not claimed by manufacturers, it seems that Ecover CAN back up its green claims.

As for running the washing machine at 15C, I don't know anyone who does that... The lowest I've heard people say they use is 30C but who knows.

Re efficiency of the Ecover plant, they claim the following on their website

"Ecover employees keep the factory's energy consumption to a minimum and turn the lighting and heating on only when really necessary. Ecover employees are encouraged to travel to work by bicycle or car pool and receive a salary incentive for their efforts.

Ecover is a company that operates with sustainability at its very core and has gained knowledge from years of experience that it is a feasible way to operate. Ecover is constantly innovating and pushing boundaries to create new and more effective products that have a minimum negative impact on the environment."

Whilst this sounds like a lot of marketing gumpf, it doesn't sound like you are familiar with their processes either but you are naturally going to believe in your own work at your ex employer, so I take what you and Ecover both say with a pinch of salt and without an expert on both, I can't really say which is better. However, having said that, a firm like Ecover whose major (if not sole) marketing point is its environmentally friendliness is likely to make itself as environmentally efficient as is humanly possible, whereas "the big 2" do not attempt to market themselves with this angle so have no major pressures to do so.

powenb

Headhuunter wrote:

I've heard of people who have developed skin conditions like eczma through constant exposure to biological washing powders/liquids. Certainly wash shorts every day (or at least every other day). Much more than that and you risk developing fungal skin infections!

I found this very interesting as I suffer from Psyriosis. Which can be easily flared up.

Think I am going to get myself 5 pairs of the cotton padded under-shorts.
These will be padding enough for my commute.
Then just wash them all properly in a skin friendly washing powder.

Headhuunter

powenb wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I've heard of people who have developed skin conditions like eczma through constant exposure to biological washing powders/liquids. Certainly wash shorts every day (or at least every other day). Much more than that and you risk developing fungal skin infections!

I found this very interesting as I suffer from Psyriosis. Which can be easily flared up.

Think I am going to get myself 5 pairs of the cotton padded under-shorts.
These will be padding enough for my commute.
Then just wash them all properly in a skin friendly washing powder.

My aunt has really bad eczma and bio washing powders send her into a complete frenzy. Even soaps and shower gels with artificial "parfum" and chemicals in are a no no...

powenb

Headhuunter wrote:

My aunt has really bad eczma and bio washing powders send her into a complete frenzy. Even soaps and shower gels with artificial "parfum" and chemicals in are a no no...

I'll have to have a google to see what is recommended.

meanredspider

I think the point you're missing about the "big 2" is the marketing angle. Let's use Calgon as a "neutral" example. Calgon sell on the anti-limescale capabilities of their product. Ariel doesn't. Ariel is every bit as good as Calgon on protecting your machine from limescale (not that limescale is an issue to anybody at 15C either or, probably, at 40C). The point is this - Ariel doesn't market on limescale because you don't buy Ariel for that reason - you buy it to clean your clothes. For the same reason, Ariel tends not to market on its environmental credentials. I don't think Ecover's market share has P&G quivering in its boots. In marketing (P&G's real forte) you keep the message simple.

The whole cycling to work encouragement kinda misses the point. It's gesture politics. I'll explain. When I worked there, there were 600 employees at the P&G site (and reducing). On the same site there were 220 lorries delivering and 220 lorries collecting (often the same) everyday. Those lorries weren't popping around the corner (like the employees did) - they were suppling warehouses all over the country. We optimised that system to ensure maximum efficiency. Same goes for the power supply. Same goes for the dedicated gas supply. All of these thing dwarf cycling to work and keeping the office temp down (things P&G do too btw - just don't share because it's a drop in the ocean). Focus on the important things.

I don't have any loyalty to my old employer. They produce some shocking products (Sunny Delight and Pringles being 2) but I do believe that people shouldn't be drawn in too much by the hype surrounding Ecover. You're free to use it - it's no skin off my nose - but do so with your eyes open.

meanredspider

powenb wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I've heard of people who have developed skin conditions like eczma through constant exposure to biological washing powders/liquids. Certainly wash shorts every day (or at least every other day). Much more than that and you risk developing fungal skin infections!

I found this very interesting as I suffer from Psyriosis. Which can be easily flared up.

Think I am going to get myself 5 pairs of the cotton padded under-shorts.
These will be padding enough for my commute.
Then just wash them all properly in a skin friendly washing powder.

Lever Bros, when they started using enzymes, discovered that people can generate sensitivity to them (as you can to just about everything - house mites, grass pollen, etc etc) with constant exposure. In the manufacturing facilities great care is now taken in handling enzymes. It's no different though to sensitivity to other things. If you suffer sensitivity, use non-bio. With all household cleaning products, it's important to protect your skin - they're designed to breakdown fats and proteins - stuff your body is made of - that's how they get your clothes clean.

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

I think the point you're missing about the "big 2" is the marketing angle. Let's use Calgon as a "neutral" example. Calgon sell on the anti-limescale capabilities of their product. Ariel doesn't. Ariel is every bit as good as Calgon on protecting your machine from limescale (not that limescale is an issue to anybody at 15C either or, probably, at 40C). The point is this - Ariel doesn't market on limescale because you don't buy Ariel for that reason - you buy it to clean your clothes. For the same reason, Ariel tends not to market on its environmental credentials. I don't think Ecover's market share has P&G quivering in its boots. In marketing (P&G's real forte) you keep the message simple.

The whole cycling to work encouragement kinda misses the point. It's gesture politics. I'll explain. When I worked there, there were 600 employees at the P&G site (and reducing). On the same site there were 220 lorries delivering and 220 lorries collecting (often the same) everyday. Those lorries weren't popping around the corner (like the employees did) - they were suppling warehouses all over the country. We optimised that system to ensure maximum efficiency. Same goes for the power supply. Same goes for the dedicated gas supply. All of these thing dwarf cycling to work and keeping the office temp down (things P&G do too btw - just don't share because it's a drop in the ocean). Focus on the important things.

I don't have any loyalty to my old employer. They produce some shocking products (Sunny Delight and Pringles being 2) but I do believe that people shouldn't be drawn in too much by the hype surrounding Ecover. You're free to use it - it's no skin off my nose - but do so with your eyes open.

What you say about Calgon is interesting but as far as I'm concerned still doesn't prove that the big 2 produce washing detergents which are as "green" (biodegradeable and environmentally friendly) as Ecover (or other "green" detergents). Ecover claims that it's product is 100% fast degrading. The mass market products don't (even in small print) and never have. I'm afraid I am not going to read "greenness" into a mass market detergent when it is not claimed by the manufacturer. I go into this with my eyes open and believe what is, or isn't, claimed by manufacturers.

You clearly know about products produced by your ex employer but it sounds like you worked more on the IT and logistics side rather than as a chemical engineer and expert on ingredients and I've gotta say, I will rely on what Ecover claims about its own products.

As for economic and environmental efficiency, as I've said, I don't believe either of us know enough to comment properly. Clearly you know what measures your previous employer went to in ensuring efficiency but neither of us really knows what Ecover does.

meanredspider

Have a read of

http://www.ariel.co.uk/AboutAriel/ArielHistory.aspx

You'll see that Ariel removed phosphates in the Ultra products (what is now the "standard" formulation) in the 80's (when I worked there)

I was actually the manager for Fairy Liquid production as my first job - don't even begin a discussion comparing Ecover dish liquid vs Fairy - there's no comparison. But I worked mostly in manufacturing and engineering.

Also read P&G's sustainability report - I think you'll see the extent of what they are aiming to do and the improvements they have already made.

I don't really understand "fast" biodegradeability - how "fast" is acceptable?

I notice in the link above that reducing the washing temp from 40c to 15c reduces energy consumption by 50% - since CO2 is currently our biggest challenge, I'm not sure where Ecover stands on this. It's the carbon footprint of the entire lifecycle of a product that's important - not that the employees cycle to work and wear a woolie in the office.

andrewjoseph

meanredspider wrote:

I think you can safely blame the farmers these days. By far the highest percentage comes from fertilisers (and my info is 10 years old - laundry detergent contribution was shrinking rapidly back then)

I was not apportioning blame, just pointing out that phosphates (as well as nitrates, silicates etc) are getting into the water supply.

on the Ecover point, We tried all the Ecover products over 20 years ago. They were useless, we had to add 3-4 times the amount stated to get clothes, dishes etc clean.

Tusher

These are utterly superb- http://www.lakeland.co.uk/ecoballs!REG/ ... duct/21756

on anything other than white shirts. I have no idea how they work, but they do.

meanredspider

Tusher wrote:

These are utterly superb- http://www.lakeland.co.uk/ecoballs!REG/ ... duct/21756

on anything other than white shirts. I have no idea how they work, but they do.

I think they work on the "beat your clothes on a rock by the river" principle.

Tusher

meanredspider wrote:

Tusher wrote:

These are utterly superb- http://www.lakeland.co.uk/ecoballs!REG/ ... duct/21756

on anything other than white shirts. I have no idea how they work, but they do.

I think they work on the "beat your clothes on a rock by the river" principle.

Don't care if it's that or elfin magic, but they work

andrewjoseph

Tusher wrote:

...

Don't care if it's that or elfin magic, but they work

No need to swear!


... oh, sorry I thought you said effin.

must get down to specsavers.

Sigh, i wish i could get out for a ride instead of spending all my time on cycling forum's. hopefully riding again by April.

simon_e

meanredspider wrote:

don't even begin a discussion comparing Ecover dish liquid vs Fairy - there's no comparison.

After years of using Fairy etc I switched to Ecover (refills) and found it worked just as well. Sorry if that offends you or P&G's shareholders.

Companies like Bio-D usually have more ethical banks/finance methods and supplier contracts. Their laundry liquid and powder seem to work as well as the standard powder I used before. I also use green soap on stains before stuff goes in the machine (I did that before too).

While it is fair to blame farmers for contamination of watercourses with nitrate and phosphate the chemical companies like Unilever have had made their share of environmental cock-ups. Organic farmers are not allowed to use chemical fertilisers and have restrictions on use of manure etc to reduce this kind of pollution. If the PR teams at P&G and Unilever are so switched on to ethical and environmental issues perhaps they could emulate Ecover's openness.

I have a few pairs of Lusso's inexpensive 6 panel lycra shorts, which fit and work well for me (no more than 2 commuting days before changing). In colder weather I use Altura winter cruisers over padded undershorts or Aldi padded briefs.

meanredspider

Simon E wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

don't even begin a discussion comparing Ecover dish liquid vs Fairy - there's no comparison.

After years of using Fairy etc I switched to Ecover (refills) and found it worked just as well. Sorry if that offends you or P&G's shareholders.

When you say "Fairy etc" what do you mean?

It doesn't offend me and I care very little about P&G's shareholders. What I do know unequivocally is that Ecover comes nowhere near Fairy for performance - you were using one or other product wrongly. Most people use far too much Fairy to get the job done.

I'm not sure you're going with the rest of it. When someone demonstrates to me that Ecover has a smaller carbon footprint per wash, then I'll begin to take interest.

rjsterry

First the original question: two pairs of shorts plus various assorted other lengths of 'bottoms' and a similar number of tops. All washed after a single day's use in the machine on a basic 40˚C wash with Persil non-bio and no conditioner (gunks up the machine anyway).

Further to the discussion on the green-ness or otherwise of various laundry detergents, the biggest thing I have noticed is that when our old machine finally gave up and we replaced it, the new one needed maybe a third of the detergent to do the same wash. I have yet to be convinced by sub-40˚C washes as so far they don't seem to shift the kind of 'ground-in' man-funk that cycling (at least my type of cycling) seems to generate.

Headhuunter

Simon E wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

don't even begin a discussion comparing Ecover dish liquid vs Fairy - there's no comparison.

After years of using Fairy etc I switched to Ecover (refills) and found it worked just as well. Sorry if that offends you or P&G's shareholders.

Companies like Bio-D usually have more ethical banks/finance methods and supplier contracts. Their laundry liquid and powder seem to work as well as the standard powder I used before. I also use green soap on stains before stuff goes in the machine (I did that before too).

While it is fair to blame farmers for contamination of watercourses with nitrate and phosphate the chemical companies like Unilever have had made their share of environmental fool-ups. Organic farmers are not allowed to use chemical fertilisers and have restrictions on use of manure etc to reduce this kind of pollution. If the PR teams at P&G and Unilever are so switched on to ethical and environmental issues perhaps they could emulate Ecover's openness.

I have a few pairs of Lusso's inexpensive 6 panel lycra shorts, which fit and work well for me (no more than 2 commuting days before changing). In colder weather I use Altura winter cruisers over padded undershorts or Aldi padded briefs.

I also find Ecover (or Faith in Nature which I've also tried) products are just as effective as the major brands. I used biodegradeable washing liquid/conditioner, washing up liquid and dishwasher tablets and they all work fine... I really don't believe that the big 2 or whoever can compete on biodegradability and "greenness" of production. On the latter, as we concluded we have no firm evidence to prove anything, I'm sure that the big 2 make efforts to improve efficiency of production and environmentally friendliness but if their efforts matched those of Ecover et al I am absolutely certain that marketing departments would be shouting about it from the higest rooftops...

simon_e

Headhuunter wrote:

I also find Ecover (or Faith in Nature which I've also tried) products are just as effective as the major brands.

Tsk tsk, you have been hoodwinked by the marketing. Those products are inferior - we've been informed by an expert. He'll be along shortly to reiterate the point

meanredspider wrote:

When you say "Fairy etc" what do you mean?

The mainstream brands. Also I don't use too much of any products, I don't like excess foaming or wasting materials. I have found Ecover washing-up liquid to be as effective as the alternatives so I will continue to buy Ecover. I see no good reason to change. I'm not a closed mind but I'm also not easily swayed by "internet forum people".

When someone demonstrates to me that P&G or Unilever products are as biodegradable and the company is trying as hard as the likes of Ecover and Bio-D to be ethical and environmentally benign I may consider buying them. It's not a surprise to me that the latter two companies' ethical ratings are pretty high while those of P&G and Unilever are very low.

BOYDIE

I have had a very bad skin condition caused by not washing my shorts enough after my commute.I was an every second day "cough" 3rd day washer.The infection was a bacterial infection of my groin and backside region,it took months to clear,had to get cream on prescription.

My workplace has a washing machine and showers already installed,so I now have a box of soap flakes in my locker and wash my shorts and any other items of clothing that contact my skin each time I cycle in at 30 degrees.

I also use an anti bacterial chamois cream. Assos is quite good but I have used others which ever is cheapest at the time.

This seems to be doing the trick,don't risk it.

meanredspider

Well - for the Ecover vs the Big 2 debate, we're going to have to simply disagree. You have what Ecover want you to know and some home testing to go by, I have 15 years of experience at the sharp end of the industry including 4 years at P&G's technical headquarters working alongside the R&D people developing products & processes. But yeah, let's go with your "informed" view :roll: I'll worry about the carbon footprint of the products I use (and whether they actually work) and you continue to worry about the speed of biodegradation :roll:

kurako

I add a bit of Napisan to the wash when I do the bike stuff. I figure if it's good enough for the baby's nappies it'll be fine for me. It's anti-bacterial so does a good job of getting rid of whiffyness. Colour-fastness doesn't seem to be an issue so far...

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Well - for the Ecover vs the Big 2 debate, we're going to have to simply disagree. You have what Ecover want you to know and some home testing to go by, I have 15 years of experience at the sharp end of the industry including 4 years at P&G's technical headquarters working alongside the R&D people developing products & processes. But yeah, let's go with your "informed" view :roll: I'll worry about the carbon footprint of the products I use (and whether they actually work) and you continue to worry about the speed of biodegradation :roll:

OK we agree to disagree. You may have 15 years of experience in the industry You may know a lot about Ariel but you don't actually know anything about Ecover, its ingredients, its biodegradability, its factory etc etc, it seems. Your view seems to be that you think that more Ecover is needed per wash than Ariel, that somehow the big 2 have more efficient production from an environmental point of view than Ecover (but no proof) and that Ariel et al are more biodegradeable than Ecover (again no proof). :roll: