Environmental and Economic Comparison of Additive with Traditional Manufacturing: A Motorbike Case Study

3D-Printing, also known as Additive Manufacturing (AM), presents numerous opportunities for design engineers, such as fabricating complex geometries without tooling and manufacturing parts using material only where it is functionally required. Despite these advantages, one of the main challenges remains energy consumption. To assess whether AM offers superior sustainability performance compared to Traditional Manufacturing (TM), both Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) analyses are essential. While scientific literature includes various studies comparing AM with TM methods, these evaluations are often conducted using general-purpose tools. In response to this gap, the present study provides an LCA and LCC-based comparison between AM and TM for producing a motorbike brake caliper. The objective is to determine whether AM can deliver greater sustainability, from both environmental and economic perspectives, when assessed over the entire product life cycle. For AM, the analysis is conducted using a dedicated life cycle tool developed in prior research, whereas the evaluation of TM is carried out using established commercial software. The comparison deliberately excludes other considerations, such as product quality and performance. The findings indicate that AM does not emerge as the most suitable manufacturing option for this component, despite the implementation of lightweighting strategies.