3 ms·

I get what they're getting at here, but isn't cycling still wildly more efficient than walking/running? Maybe they haven't changed because they are already reas

I get what they're getting at here, but isn't cycling still wildly more efficient than walking/running? Maybe they haven't changed because they are already reasonably optimal.

Someone 5y ago
FTA: It has survived, largely unchanged in dimension, philosophy and architecture, since the time of The Boer War, precisely because it is not that bad. It is actually reasonably good at low to moderate power outputs.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  What makes you say "reasonably good"? It's excellent. Ten kilograms of metal makes you three times faster at a quarter the energy spend, I'd say it's amazing.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Not disagreeing, but the biggest efficiency boost is the wheel here without doubt.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      Well the wheels alone are not enough, a draisine bike is not as efficient as a pedal powered bike!
Robotbeat 5y ago
Biking is wildly more efficient than running. Heck, if you’re on the large side (250-300pounds), you burn as much energy (~0.25kWh or ~200Calories in terms of human food, which—unless you’re eating almost entirely bulk staples like corn meal—has a really high footprint, especially fruit and meat) to run a mile as it takes to drive a Model 3 for that same mile. Biking is a quarter that. (Walking is a bit more efficient than running, but not much.)
- tetsusaiga 5y ago
  Okay thanks for confirming, that's about what I was remembering, but it was such a big different I was unsure. The car really puts it in perspective
grayrest 5y ago
The usual study/reference for this is someone biking at ~10mph. Bicycles become progressively less efficient at higher speeds due to air resistance. Fairings and reduced frontal area (recumbent/supine positioning) can help this considerably. The combination is commercially sold as velomobiles and they're not especially popular but they do work. As an example, dedicated amateur enthusiasts do 3 hour century rides in commercial velomobiles regularly.

I get what they're getting at here, but isn't cycling still wildly more efficient than walking/running? Maybe they haven't changed because they are already reasonably optimal.

Someone 5y ago

FTA: It has survived, largely unchanged in dimension, philosophy and architecture, since the time of The Boer War, precisely because it is not that bad. It is actually reasonably good at low to moderate power outputs.

Grustaf 5y ago
What makes you say "reasonably good"? It's excellent. Ten kilograms of metal makes you three times faster at a quarter the energy spend, I'd say it's amazing.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Not disagreeing, but the biggest efficiency boost is the wheel here without doubt.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Well the wheels alone are not enough, a draisine bike is not as efficient as a pedal powered bike!

Robotbeat 5y ago

Biking is wildly more efficient than running. Heck, if you’re on the large side (250-300pounds), you burn as much energy (~0.25kWh or ~200Calories in terms of human food, which—unless you’re eating almost entirely bulk staples like corn meal—has a really high footprint, especially fruit and meat) to run a mile as it takes to drive a Model 3 for that same mile. Biking is a quarter that. (Walking is a bit more efficient than running, but not much.)

tetsusaiga 5y ago
Okay thanks for confirming, that's about what I was remembering, but it was such a big different I was unsure. The car really puts it in perspective

grayrest 5y ago

The usual study/reference for this is someone biking at ~10mph. Bicycles become progressively less efficient at higher speeds due to air resistance. Fairings and reduced frontal area (recumbent/supine positioning) can help this considerably. The combination is commercially sold as velomobiles and they're not especially popular but they do work. As an example, dedicated amateur enthusiasts do 3 hour century rides in commercial velomobiles regularly.