Myth or Truth?

[Fleet 500]

I read some years back that the bicycle is the most efficient mode of transportation ever invented.

More efficient than a car, motorcycle, train, airplane, etc.

What do you say... myth or truth?

[henk4]

good question
how are we going to define efficiency in the first place?
energy needed to transport a specific mass (payload) over a specific distance?

[DesmoRob]

Hard to say. You can't really generalize something like that.

Time is money, and bicycles can make you lose plenty of that if you have a long way to go. That could deem them as not very efficient.
If you're going three blocks, then yes they'd be more efficient than waiting on a train that doesn't exist, or getting stuck in traffic with your car/motorcycle.

[pimento]

If we're speaking purely on energy expenditure per unit distance then probably.. but as Rob mentioned there, there's time to take into consideration as well. 'Tis a question with many answers.. most of which come down to the situation at hand.

[Matra et Alpine]

Let's not forget the energy expended in the creation of the transport device and in it's maintenance and finally it's disposal ---- just to remove all those "green" electric loonies from the equation.

[henk4]

Let's not forget the energy expended in the creation of the transport device and in it's maintenance and finally it's disposal ---- just to remove all those "green" electric loonies from the equation.

I would like to apply those principles also to the human leg.

[Matra et Alpine]

Well the leg can't do very much on it's own, so perhaps you need to consider the complete body ??

[aiasib]

Consider the price of fuels alone, the cost of raising the cow, wheat, etc and burgerizing it, so you can eat it to power your legs, which power the bike versus the cost of extraction, refinement of crude oil. Yet as stated above consider the price of a thousand burgers for a long long trip, versus a comparatively cheap tank of diesel.

[cmcpokey]

i have read that it is the most efficient method of turning energy into motion. i have only seen it on bike focused sites, but makes a lot of sense to me.

[Matra et Alpine]

^^^ recumbant bikes qft

I think it's only "efficient" when considering that it will be human powered.
We are a VERY inefficient device for converting enough fuel in to work beyond our own needs eg walking/running ( which cycling makes more efficient )

Consider the below ..... 1 gallon of fuel or 69 big macs ???? and that's just to get the energy IN to us.

[cmcpokey]

so lets say a car gets 30 mpg. so 1 gallon of gas gets 30 miles. on my bike i can do 30 miles and burn about 1000 calories. so in theory, if i were powered by gasoline, i could ride 900 miles on one gallon of gas. compared to the 30, i'd say that is massively more efficient.

granted that is massively over simplified, but very interesting no less.

[Ferrer]

Aside form the speed factor which has already been mentioned, machines can get their fuel consumption ratings constantly for ever, which a human can't do. Also it takes minutes to fill a fuel tank, but how long it takes to fill a human properly?

[Matra et Alpine]

"IF" you were powered by gasoline has just avoided the major inefficiencies of the human system.
For equivalent energy of 1 gallon as that pic showed --- 69 big macs.
So how far do you think you could actually get after eating 69 macs ?
The answer woudl be determined by the distance from your eating location to your TOILET

We can't convert petrol, so it's not a valid thing to compare as RAW input. As an energy equivalent it is tho'.


As Ferrer points out and in addition there is "recovery time" for humans ... and the need to sleep. Not very efficient at all

[CdocZ]

Cmc, without complicating that too much more you could factor in the amount of weight/cargo that can be transported, or the number of people - I would say efficiency per person to be a pretty strong candidate for consideration.

For example, without significantly increasing the amounts of energy being used, a typical car can carry four, sometimes five people easily (assuming no one is in the trunk). For bikes to get four people somewhere, with the assumption of no luggage, is either four separate bikes (meaning four times your numbers) or two two-person bikes (no idea what the figures on those would be, however).

[henk4]

Cmc, without complicating that too much more you could factor in the amount of weight/cargo that can be transported, or the number of people - I would say efficiency per person to be a pretty strong candidate for consideration.

For example, without significantly increasing the amounts of energy being used, a typical car can carry four, sometimes five people easily (assuming no one is in the trunk). For bikes to get four people somewhere, with the assumption of no luggage, is either four separate bikes (meaning four times your numbers) or two two-person bikes (no idea what the figures on those would be, however).

your example actually shows how much energy is wasted as cars mostly carry one person....