4 ms·

> I think the point is that bipedal could be more energy efficient than wheels and that feet can go where wheels can not. The second one, absolutely. As for t

• claudius 12y ago
  The perceived efficiency of bipedal movement comes mostly from the ludicrous efficiency of biological actors when converting chemical into kinetic energy – a cyclist (or even runner) can go a day on the chemical energy that would get a motorcycle to the next petrol station [0]. Also consider that even the fastest bipedal runners tend to go much slower than any motorised vehicle, and even quadruped animals rarely reach into what is considered standard with cars. [0] The guideline daily amounts for a human are roughly 10 MJ, from personal experience, cycling a bit during the day only increases that marginally (e.g. 10-20%). It seems reasonable to claim 1 MJ per 100 km cycled, whereas one kg of gasoline (~1L) is at ~42 MJ. Given the usual 1-10L/100 km, 1 MJ appear to correspond to a few kilometres.
• VLM 12y ago
  Here is a trivial proof of the former: take an elite biped marathon runner on foot vs an older marginally in shape biped like myself on a bicycle, and on my bicycle I can beat the elite runner quite easily. Another way to model it is I can quite easily maintain 10 MPH without much if any sweating on a bike trail, but on a calm hike with the kids on the same trail I struggle to achieve 3 MPH average.