or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Other Stuff › Archives › rec.bicycles.rides › Cities Turning to Bicycles
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cities Turning to Bicycles - Page 9

post #121 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:S6Odndu7qdQ9RdjcRVn-rw@speakeasy.net...
> In article <H8F0d.11128$Mm2.11000@hydra.nntpserver.com>,
> Mike Kruger <mikekr@mousepotato.com> wrote:
> >
> >Then, one can discover how these recreational routes can be used to get

to
> >interesting places, or to shopping places. Maybe you can't get to the big
> >box Home Depot easily, but you can get to a neighborhood hardware store.

The
> >difference in price is counterbalanced by the savings in fuel (and the
> >ability to get some daily exercise in).

>
> Trying to carry lumber on a bicycle isn't a good idea.


OK. But do I carry much lumber anyway? No. The couple of times I've wanted
to carry lots of lumber (more than will fit in a car), it's made more sense
to ask a neighbor who owns a pickup truck to help me. I can buy he and his
wife a nice dinner quite a few times for the cost of the truck. Besides,
Home Depot will RENT me a truck for a lot less than a monthly payment on an
SUV.

You may carry stacks of lumber several times a week; I don't.

For the same reason, I use American Airlines rather than owning my own
plane.
post #122 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

>>>[A bicycle is] the most
>>>energy efficient way to move a human and considerable cargo



Is the human body more efficient at converting X calories into Y work
than an internal-combustion engine? (I know some diesels have achieved
50% efficiency.)

I mean, supposing you had to move a ton of masonry blocks three-hundred
miles, and your choices are a minivan (20mpg) or a bicycle towing a cart
(we grant as a given that the bike has ultra-low gearing, such that it's
actually possible to move, if at a snail's pace) -- which mode of
conveyance consumes fewer calories?

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Twin City Strategy Gamer: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC_Strategy/

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
post #123 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:

>The human body has roughly the same thermal efficiency as an internal
>combustion engine.



Some diesels and gas-turbines are over 50% thermally efficient. Maybe
Lance Armstrong's muscles are that good....but I doubt most people's are.


> But the bike itself is far more efficient than a car.



It's also a lot slower, and I have only so many minutes in my life.


What's the point of all this?

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Twin City Strategy Gamer: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC_Strategy/

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
post #124 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Mike1 wrote:

>>>>[A bicycle is] the most
>>>>energy efficient way to move a human and considerable cargo

>
>
>
> Is the human body more efficient at converting X calories into Y work
> than an internal-combustion engine? (I know some diesels have achieved
> 50% efficiency.)


To do that, you'll need a very sophisticated deisel operating at a fixed
rpm. That's much different than what you get in even a typical deisel
powered car - and in the US, at least, deisel cars are still rare.


>
> I mean, supposing you had to move a ton of masonry blocks three-hundred
> miles, and your choices are a minivan (20mpg) or a bicycle towing a cart
> (we grant as a given that the bike has ultra-low gearing, such that it's
> actually possible to move, if at a snail's pace) -- which mode of
> conveyance consumes fewer calories?
>


I think you'll find it's the bike.

Of course, you're setting up a rather impractical test for a bike. But
in general, bikes have much lower internal friction losses than cars,
and much lower rolling resistance coefficients.

Where bikes lose is in aerodynamic losses at higher speeds (like, over
25 mph). This is the main reason bikes don't usually go 35 mph. So if
the bike stays slow, it stays more efficient.


Of course, it's all a matter of choosing the appropriate tool for the
job. Many people light up a 1.5 ton car to move themselves 1/4 mile to
get a magazine or a few groceries. In that case, the bike is clearly
the more efficient device. For moving a ton of masonry blocks 300
miles, a train is much more practical.

If you want to say something in favor of a car, you can say it's much
more versatile than either the bike or the train. Too bad that
versatility is so often misused.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
post #125 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Mike1 wrote:
>>>>[A bicycle is] the most
>>>>energy efficient way to move a human and considerable cargo

>
>
>
> Is the human body more efficient at converting X calories into Y work
> than an internal-combustion engine? (I know some diesels have achieved
> 50% efficiency.)


>
> I mean, supposing you had to move a ton of masonry blocks three-hundred
> miles, and your choices are a minivan (20mpg) or a bicycle towing a cart
> (we grant as a given that the bike has ultra-low gearing, such that it's
> actually possible to move, if at a snail's pace) -- which mode of
> conveyance consumes fewer calories?
>



The bicycle, by far.

Wayne
post #126 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

"Raoul Duke" <spamophile@charter.net> wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > "Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No. I am a registered Democrat who does not want anyone
> > > telling me how to live my life. Not the extreme left or right.

> >
> > Translation: "It's a free country and I can foul it up as much as I

> like."
>
> You, of all people, have a problem with freedom?


I have a problem with those who abuse their freedom at the expense of
others. Instead of incarcerating or killing those who do things I
think are wrong (like the authorities do), I tell them that they are
wrong in the hope that they will reconsider their harmful practices.

I do this because I believe that before society can improve, the
people who compose it must _want_ to do the things they must do in
order for improvement to occur. Before they can refrain from doing
needlessly destructive things, they must first admit that those things
are destructive, even if they are permitted. If that means leveling
criticism at folks who transgress on the collective well-being, so be
it. Reasonable people eventually respond to valid criticism with
change.

(Yes, that implies that I believe Mark Jones may be a reasonable
person.)

The Civil Rights Act and other legislation ended the official
institution of overtly racist policies in the USA, but it has been
social pressure that made overt racism at the individual level
unacceptable. There is a long way still to go in this regard, but I
believe that so far, the social pressure has made more of a positive
difference than the change in the law did.

Before our society can progress to a transportation paradigm less
destructive than automobiles, we must first admit that each
individual's car driving, including our own, has a detrimental effect
on the community in which we live. The supply of viable
transportation alternatives will not arise except to meet a demand.

Chalo Colina
post #127 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:19:17 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net>
wrote:

> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Mike1 wrote:
>>>>>> [A bicycle is] the most energy efficient way to move a human and
>>>>>> considerable cargo
>>>
>>> Is the human body more efficient at converting X calories into Y
>>> work than an internal-combustion engine? (I know some diesels have
>>> achieved 50% efficiency.)

>>
>>> I mean, supposing you had to move a ton of masonry blocks
>>> three-hundred miles, and your choices are a minivan (20mpg) or a
>>> bicycle towing a cart (we grant as a given that the bike has
>>> ultra-low gearing, such that it's actually possible to move, if at
>>> a snail's pace) -- which mode of conveyance consumes fewer
>>> calories?

>>
>> The bicycle, by far.

>
> Oh, my yes. The standard figures are dramatic. According to Whitt
> and Wilson:
>
> A bicyclist riding 15 mph uses half the energy per mile as someone
> walking at 4 mph. A car uses 11 times as much energy to go one mile
> at a modest 30 mph and 16 times as much energy at a more typical 60
> mph. A horse at 10 mph uses 6 times as much energy as a cyclist
> riding at 15 mph.
>
> The bicycle is incredibly efficient in its energy use. But of course
> it has its limitations- not, for example, a good way to haul 500
> bushels of wheat to market. But a great way to move one person to
> work or school at distances under 10 miles (about a 40 minute commute
> for most people at a moderate pace). Not only that, it reduces
> dependence on foreign oil, which improves national security.
> Bicycling creates a tiny fraction of the emissions any car generates,
> which reduces environmental costs. Riding a bike does no damage to
> roads, unlike multi-ton motor vehicles, which reduces maintenance
> costs and in turn taxes. And bicycling 5 miles a day (20 to 30
> minutes) will reduce your risk of many illnesses, which in turn would
> help keep down the cost of health care, health insurance, and in the
> long term Medicare.
>
> The only downside to bicycles is that most roads are not well designed
> to mix cyclists and motor vehicles safely. On busy roads, a lack of a
> wide clean paved shoulder means bicyclists are at the right side of
> the outer lane and mixing it up with the cars. Some riders lack good
> skills to ride safely in this situation, and some drivers lack the
> skills to drive safely around cyclists. In areas where there are more
> cyclists, this is less of a problem. In areas with good road design,
> it is even less of a problem. Urban streets present a different set
> of problems with parked cars, buses, pedestrians, etc all competing
> for limited road space.


That's all well and good, but how would one move a ton of product using a
bike? There's no way you'd get it up some of the hills around where I
live (I barely get myself and my bike up them).

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
post #128 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

"Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Strange that Chalo thinks the extremists from either side are a good idea.


I think it's strange that you don't see that owning two wasteful cars
and driving them to work twice a day is a form of extremism in itself.

Chalo Colina
post #129 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Mike1 <mike1_shoot.them.shoot.them.both@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
> > But the bike itself is far more efficient than a car.

>
> It's also a lot slower, and I have only so many minutes in my life.


If you tally all the minutes it takes at work to pay for, feed, and
maintain your car, and add them to all the time you spend sitting in
your car, and divide by the number of miles you cover...

I bet the bicycle comes out ahead.

Chalo Colina
post #130 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Chalo wrote:

> Mike1 <mike1_shoot.them.shoot.them.both@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But the bike itself is far more efficient than a car.

>>
>>It's also a lot slower, and I have only so many minutes in my life.

>
>
> If you tally all the minutes it takes at work to pay for, feed, and
> maintain your car, and add them to all the time you spend sitting in
> your car, and divide by the number of miles you cover...
>
> I bet the bicycle comes out ahead.


I agree.

I've had students who were flunking out of school because, they said,
they didn't have enough time to study. They were working more than 40
hours per week.

When I suggested they might try for grants, loans, etc. to cut back on
work hours, they said "But I have to pay for my car and insurance."

Slaves.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
post #131 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:
|| Chalo wrote:
||
||| Mike1 <mike1_shoot.them.shoot.them.both@usfamily.net> wrote:
|||
|||| Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:
||||
||||
||||| But the bike itself is far more efficient than a car.
||||
|||| It's also a lot slower, and I have only so many minutes in my life.
|||
|||
||| If you tally all the minutes it takes at work to pay for, feed, and
||| maintain your car, and add them to all the time you spend sitting in
||| your car, and divide by the number of miles you cover...
|||
||| I bet the bicycle comes out ahead.
||
|| I agree.
||
|| I've had students who were flunking out of school because, they said,
|| they didn't have enough time to study. They were working more than
|| 40 hours per week.
||
|| When I suggested they might try for grants, loans, etc. to cut back
|| on work hours, they said "But I have to pay for my car and
|| insurance."
||
|| Slaves.

Yeah, I've heard the same from my students, too.
post #132 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:m2d60ownu2.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...

> > The bicycle, by far.

>
> Oh, my yes. The standard figures are dramatic. According to Whitt
> and Wilson:
>
> A bicyclist riding 15 mph uses half the energy per mile as someone
> walking at 4 mph. A car uses 11 times as much energy to go one mile
> at a modest 30 mph and 16 times as much energy at a more typical 60
> mph. A horse at 10 mph uses 6 times as much energy as a cyclist
> riding at 15 mph.
>
> The bicycle is incredibly efficient in its energy use. But of course
> it has its limitations- not, for example, a good way to haul 500
> bushels of wheat to market. But a great way to move one person to
> work or school at distances under 10 miles (about a 40 minute commute
> for most people at a moderate pace). Not only that, it reduces
> dependence on foreign oil, which improves national security.


But these are figure that don't count the oil used to grow, transport, and
cook the food that is used to power the person that is doing the riding. A
totally stupid analysis.

Its like those idiot that call electric cars zero pollution because they
don't know where the energry came from. Just for food processing we get

"All together the food-processing industry in the United States uses about
ten calories of fossil-fuel energy for every calorie of food energy it
produces."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...112796599/pg_3

That does not include a lot of the transportation, cooking, and dish washing
cost of food.

The Harper's Magazine Feb 2004 analysis article starts at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...112796599/pg_1


> Bicycling creates a tiny fraction of the emissions any car generates,
> which reduces environmental costs.


How can you possibly make that claim when you have no idea how much oil must
be burned for the person to pedal the bike?

> And bicycling 5 miles a day (20 to 30
> minutes) will reduce your risk of many illnesses, which in turn would
> help keep down the cost of health care, health insurance, and in the
> long term Medicare.


How about the death and accident rate of bikes which is much higher per mile
or per trip than a car. Again a statement with no reality.
post #133 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:m28ybcwnpo.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
> Mike1 <mike1_shoot.them.shoot.them.both@usfamily.net> writes:
> > Some diesels and gas-turbines are over 50% thermally
> > efficient. Maybe Lance Armstrong's muscles are that good....but I
> > doubt most people's are.

>
> About the same in terms of thermal efficiency. There are other issues
> in athletic performance, though.


Oh now we have a 98.6 degree thermal engine is just as efficient as a more
than a thousand degree thermal engine. So we now have bikes that violate
the laws of thermodynamics and probably several other laws of physics.
post #134 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b4b7de4.0409141643.4d6d33bd@posting.google.com...

> If you tally all the minutes it takes at work to pay for, feed, and
> maintain your car, and add them to all the time you spend sitting in
> your car, and divide by the number of miles you cover...
>
> I bet the bicycle comes out ahead.


I have to work for less than twenty minutes to pay for a week of gas with a
long commutes. Insurance and maintenance per year I have to work less than
half a week per year. A lot depends on how much you make.

My time on a bike would be prohibitively expensive. A bike comes out ahead
for low income and short commutes.
post #135 of 789

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Jack May wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:m28ybcwnpo.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
>
>>Mike1 <mike1_shoot.them.shoot.them.both@usfamily.net> writes:
>>
>>>Some diesels and gas-turbines are over 50% thermally
>>>efficient. Maybe Lance Armstrong's muscles are that good....but I
>>>doubt most people's are.

>>
>>About the same in terms of thermal efficiency. There are other issues
>>in athletic performance, though.

>
>
> Oh now we have a 98.6 degree thermal engine is just as efficient as a more
> than a thousand degree thermal engine. So we now have bikes that violate
> the laws of thermodynamics and probably several other laws of physics.


More likely, Jack, is that you don't know enough about thermodynamics,
or physics, or biochemistry.

Why not see if you can find some information on the thermal efficiency
of the human body as a work-producing device? Post your results here,
and we can examine them.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: rec.bicycles.rides
Cycling Forums › Forums › Other Stuff › Archives › rec.bicycles.rides › Cities Turning to Bicycles