4 ms·

Pure efficiency in locomotion is a terrible measure, is a person on a bicycle more efficient traversing a forest? Trying to say that a dog is incredibly uneffi

Pure efficiency in locomotion is a terrible measure, is a person on a bicycle more efficient traversing a forest? Trying to say that a dog is incredibly unefficient is misleading at best - especially when we're trying to make a statement about nature's most efficient traveller. It's the classic physics issue - you are ignoring air resistance, but in this case you are ignoring everything other than a perfectly paved road.

Sharlin 1y ago
They aren't saying that dogs are incredibly inefficient – looks like dogs are right where they "should" be based on their body weight. The point of course stands that bikes need a flat ground to be efficient, but this isn't some sort of competition or measure of moral worth. It's just an observation that given that we've already filled human-inhabited spaces with nice flat surfaces, cycling happens to be a really efficient form of locomotion. Fish also need to be in water to be able to move at all, but that's immaterial for the purposes of the chart.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- unglaublich 1y ago
  By extension, the electric bike is a very efficient way of transportation for those that don't like to do the manual work.
  - digdugdirk 1y ago
    Agreed! And for older people, and those with injuries or minor disabilities that would otherwise require them to use a car. All in all, ebikes are a huge win! And likely to be one of the highest value outcomes of the ongoing electric transition.
LogicHound 1y ago
> Pure efficiency in locomotion is a terrible measure, is a person on a bicycle more efficient traversing a forest? Quite possibly. I would imagine it depends on the forest. I've been in forested areas on the mountain bike and you can cycle through these areas fine. > It's the classic physics issue - you are ignoring air resistance, but in this case you are ignoring everything other than a perfectly paved road. Rolling resistance is mainly down to the types of tyres used, how wide they are and how much they are inflated. Surface doesn't make that much of a difference IMO unless it is on a really lose surface e.g. loose gravel, mud or ice. The biggest improvements to cycling efficiency is usually either being in a recumbent bicycle (less air resistance as you are led down) or by being in a more more Aero position with lycra on. But air resistance only becomes a big thing past 20mph or if you are wearing clothing that is really baggy. Bicycles are the most efficient forms of transport in energy per mile. They are often the fastest in built up areas as well.
- endymion-light 1y ago
  "Bicycles are the most efficient forms of transport in energy per mile. They are often the fastest in built up areas as well." I don't disagree, but if this is the purpose of this graphic, why not just specifically measure different forms of transport in energy per mile? This article is putting a metric of efficiency, while ignoring the reasons why things like a dog may have less efficent locomotion over perfectly flat terrain, because there are very few natural landmarks that have perfectly flat terrain. I'd love to see a deeper comparison, how does efficiency of locomotion compare between animals within different types of environments, obstacles, etc. Otherwise this is a graphic that was used to make a point about cycling using an abstract measure rather than actual research.
  - abakker 1y ago
    my intuition is that over smoothish, but hilly terrain, mountain bikes fare very well, too, since you get to go downhill for free. once you end up in a talus field, I think it becomes clear that "efficiency" is gone for basically any creature on land.
  - LogicHound 1y ago
jvanderbot 1y ago
Given all the means by which one might get from A to B, what is the most efficient. It might be that not all means are available, but the "pure efficiency" analysis allows you to answer that question from the means that are available. Don't overthink it.
- endymion-light 1y ago
  I did a dissertation on exactly this topic and the problems regarding it, so unfortunately I did directly overthink it for a long time

Sharlin 1y ago

They aren't saying that dogs are incredibly inefficient – looks like dogs are right where they "should" be based on their body weight. The point of course stands that bikes need a flat ground to be efficient, but this isn't some sort of competition or measure of moral worth. It's just an observation that given that we've already filled human-inhabited spaces with nice flat surfaces, cycling happens to be a really efficient form of locomotion. Fish also need to be in water to be able to move at all, but that's immaterial for the purposes of the chart.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
unglaublich 1y ago
By extension, the electric bike is a very efficient way of transportation for those that don't like to do the manual work.
- digdugdirk 1y ago
  Agreed! And for older people, and those with injuries or minor disabilities that would otherwise require them to use a car. All in all, ebikes are a huge win! And likely to be one of the highest value outcomes of the ongoing electric transition.

LogicHound 1y ago

> Pure efficiency in locomotion is a terrible measure, is a person on a bicycle more efficient traversing a forest? Quite possibly. I would imagine it depends on the forest. I've been in forested areas on the mountain bike and you can cycle through these areas fine. > It's the classic physics issue - you are ignoring air resistance, but in this case you are ignoring everything other than a perfectly paved road. Rolling resistance is mainly down to the types of tyres used, how wide they are and how much they are inflated. Surface doesn't make that much of a difference IMO unless it is on a really lose surface e.g. loose gravel, mud or ice. The biggest improvements to cycling efficiency is usually either being in a recumbent bicycle (less air resistance as you are led down) or by being in a more more Aero position with lycra on. But air resistance only becomes a big thing past 20mph or if you are wearing clothing that is really baggy. Bicycles are the most efficient forms of transport in energy per mile. They are often the fastest in built up areas as well.

endymion-light 1y ago
"Bicycles are the most efficient forms of transport in energy per mile. They are often the fastest in built up areas as well." I don't disagree, but if this is the purpose of this graphic, why not just specifically measure different forms of transport in energy per mile? This article is putting a metric of efficiency, while ignoring the reasons why things like a dog may have less efficent locomotion over perfectly flat terrain, because there are very few natural landmarks that have perfectly flat terrain. I'd love to see a deeper comparison, how does efficiency of locomotion compare between animals within different types of environments, obstacles, etc. Otherwise this is a graphic that was used to make a point about cycling using an abstract measure rather than actual research.
- abakker 1y ago
  my intuition is that over smoothish, but hilly terrain, mountain bikes fare very well, too, since you get to go downhill for free. once you end up in a talus field, I think it becomes clear that "efficiency" is gone for basically any creature on land.
- LogicHound 1y ago

jvanderbot 1y ago

Given all the means by which one might get from A to B, what is the most efficient. It might be that not all means are available, but the "pure efficiency" analysis allows you to answer that question from the means that are available. Don't overthink it.

endymion-light 1y ago
I did a dissertation on exactly this topic and the problems regarding it, so unfortunately I did directly overthink it for a long time