Hacker News Reader

Comment by tetsusaiga | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

Not disagreeing, but the biggest efficiency boost is the wheel here without doubt.

Well the wheels alone are not enough, a draisine bike is not as efficient as a pedal powered bike!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com