If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV?

Jack May said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Jack May wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>George Conklin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle.

Quoted message said:

I do not know the statistics for the US.
In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
classical margin of measureability.

Extremely unlikely!

And those few fatalities that occur

Quoted message said:

on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
intersections).
So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

That is how lies are fabricated.  That is not how accident and death rates
are compiled.

I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics.   I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
people seem to have no memory capability.  At times I feel I will soon need
to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider.   Riders are
small in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the
world wide problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Quoted message said:

Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do disagree
strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter nonsense, as
proven by many others on these boards often. But the above is the peak of
nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

You can not make such a statement just looking at how much energy the body
uses to power the bike.     Not only are my statements rational, they are
part of normal research these days.  Your statement is nonsense and
ridiculous by the standards of energy research these days.

Quoted message said:

As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of moving
1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy.   It takes roughly
ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
car.   For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
drop down into the range of other cars.

These type calculations are commonly done for example to show why it takes
more oil energy to produce ethanol than the energy we get from ethanol.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think one can ever accurately estimate the MPG of a bike for a
number of reasons. First off, there are tremendous substitutions that
you'd have to look at. For example, if a biker bikes to work and then
doesn't drive to the gym to work out, can you count the gasoline
saving of not going to the gym toward's the bike's total? For the
car, do you add in the energy to actually drive the car? That
requires some level of exertion. Or do you count the car-energy and
subtract it from the bike energy because you'd be using that energy
anyway. If you are biking to work instead of taking the bus, what
about the bus' energy. The bus went anyway so maybe the bike is just
plain wasting energy because the bus going on no matter what.

No matter how you frame your model, someone else can frame it
differently and be just as legitimate. This goes back to a concept
that George can never understand -- you can use the data and frame the
question in any number of ways and get any number of equally logical
(and "good"😉 results. There is no one, right answer.

Jack May said:

...
I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon need
to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."....

But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
per mile basis.

Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

...
I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a

lot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly

exceed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the rates for car occupants."....

But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
per mile basis.

Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

What nonsense. For autos, throw out drunk drivers, fatalities of
pedestrians, wrong-way drivers and everyone else you want, and consider only
"experienced drivers commuting to work," and voila, what do you have? FRAUD.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes roughly
ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
drop down into the range of other cars.

So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.

After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:

According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
your math is rather off...

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

On Jan 18, 12:07 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

...
I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics.   I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since alot
people seem to have no memory capability.  At times I feel I will soonneed
to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

Quoted message said:

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

Quoted message said:

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."....

Quoted message said:

But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
per mile basis.

Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

Drivers present a clear and real threat to bikes, particularly when
they don't pay attention to driving. And you only need *one* stupid
driver to make you lose that *one* life you've got. The first step in
gaining cyclists' confidence would be to BAN CELL PHONES and ENFORCE
RIGHT LANE 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT. Oh, and put cameras and bicycle signs
everywhere.

Meanwhile I'll be riding this...

http://www.kmart.com/shc/s/p_10151_10104_9990000092164911P?vName=Gifts&cName=Teenage+Girl

Of course, these issues will addressed by some presidential candidate
in the year 2088 --if WWIII allows. 😉

Jack May said:

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider.   Riders are small
in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the world wide
problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.- Hide quoted text -

This is funny! Are you saying that car drivers eat less than bike
riders? Believe me, I've seen some drivers that can really "put it
away" at the table. Or do you live in some alternative universe where
everyone is allotted a certain number of calories per day and that's
all they get? Cool! I know some people who need to move there....

Jenn

George Conklin said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

...
I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a

lot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.

http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly

exceed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the rates for car occupants."....

But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
per mile basis.

Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

What nonsense. For autos, throw out drunk drivers, fatalities of
pedestrians, wrong-way drivers and everyone else you want, and consider only
"experienced drivers commuting to work," and voila, what do you have? FRAUD.

I guess this needs some explanation. I CAN control HOW I ride, and
thereby greatly reduce MY risk while cycling. That, of course, is what
is of real interest (Duh).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 18, 9:21 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

George Conklin said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May wrote:
> ...
> I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics.   I
> guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup sincea

lot

Quoted message said:

> people seem to have no memory capability.  At times I feel I will soon

need

Quoted message said:

> to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
> nothing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly

exceed

Quoted message said:

> the rates for car occupants."....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But you are missing something important. Throw out accidents involving
children, drunks on bicycles, wrong way cyclists, sidewalk cyclists,
etc. I think you will find that the fatality rate for experienced
commuter cyclists is less than 10% (and probably closer to 1% if you
believe Forester) of that of people on bicycles (POBs) in general, on a
per mile basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Riding as a VEHICULAR CYCLIST is NOT dangerous, relative to other
activities. Riding as a doofus is dangerous.

Quoted message said:

What nonsense.  For autos, throw out drunk drivers, fatalities of
pedestrians, wrong-way drivers and everyone else you want, and consider only
"experienced drivers commuting to work," and voila, what do you have? FRAUD.

I guess this needs some explanation. I CAN control HOW I ride, and
thereby greatly reduce MY risk while cycling. That, of course, is what
is of real interest (Duh).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But how do we tame the jungle out there?

Yesterday I was about to cross the street at the corner as a
pedestrian, when I heard the blast of a car and turned around... It
was a Mercedes with a lion saying, "Out of my way, stupid monkey," and
he just turned at supersonic speeds.

Now let me go to put together my stationary bike. Sad America, sad.
The law of the jungle still rules on our roads, and it makes us feel
terrorized.

Jack May said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack May said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>Jack May wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>
>>
>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Fitness is probably countered by the very high injury and death rate of
riding a bicycle.

I do not know the statistics for the US.
In my country, and I guess it's not any different in other European
countries, the death and injury rate of cycling is almost below the
classical margin of measureability.

Extremely unlikely!

Maybe in 'your world'.
As a matter of fact thats status quo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And those few fatalities that occur
on bikes are practically never 'alone accidents' but cyclist hit by cars
due to bad infrastructure design (namely separated cycle paths at
intersections).
So your statement is irrelvant quality and quantity-wise.

That is how lies are fabricated. That is not how accident and death rates
are compiled.

No lies, probably just not fitting into your concept. Or not valid for
the US, but not a law of nature. Probably just a bad transport system
habitat for cyclist.

Quoted message said:

I just previously posted the summary from a lot of bike statistics. I
guess it does absolutely no good to post anything on a newsgroup since a lot
people seem to have no memory capability. At times I feel I will soon need
to post URLs for simple math since so many people seem to know almost
nothing.
http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermail/nyckayaker/2006-June/000605.html
"Bicyclist death rates per trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed
the rates for car occupants."

Maybe in the US, matter of fact, in Austria - which is definitely not a
cycling friendly country in comparison to NL or DK it is definitely
(national statistics bureau and national transport safety agency data,
EU comission data) the opposite is true by a rate of 1 to 4 on a death
per trip basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ecology? Doubtful because of the high oil consumption required to for the
extra fuel needed for the food to power the bike rider. Riders are
small in number now, but if they became large we run into some of the
world wide problems we are having now with ethanol from corn.

Wow, honestly Jack, I've read many statements from you that I do disagree
strongly with. A lot of them I would even consider as utter nonsense, as
proven by many others on these boards often. But the above is the peak of
nonsense so far! Ridiculous!

You can not make such a statement just looking at how much energy the body
uses to power the bike. Not only are my statements rational, they are
part of normal research these days. Your statement is nonsense and
ridiculous by the standards of energy research these days.

Definitely not, as the same principle applies, see below.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As you consider yourself as a guy with technological insight: How's the
relationship in energy consumption ratio of additional energy needed for
moving human body and bicycle one one hand side and on the other of moving
1000+ kg of vehicle and one human body on average?
One or two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude?

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy.

Yeah, so how much crude oil (fossil fuels) do you use more to produce
the more food if more people would cycle?
How much? Please do not, as you are on the spear-head of energy research
is that in comparison to fossil fuel burned by cars?

Quoted message said:

It takes roughly
ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
car.

Complete [censored].
Let's do one estimation.
The human's base energy consumption is a function of the person, so
let's leave that aside, as we consider the same person driving and cycling.
An estimated avg. gasoline consumption by the car is abt. 8 l/100km.
Gasolin comes in at abt. 32 MJ/l.
The additional energy consumption by the human body for car driving is
given *) between 5.9 and 13.4 kJ/min
Cyclists' energy is: 19.7 kJ/min for 15 km/h and 32.8 kJ/min for 20km/h
(Conk use appropriate smaller numbers!)
Now lets take a route length of 100 km.

Car: 8 l * 32 MJ/l = 256,000 kJ/100km

Driver: let's estimate we are driving at an avg. speed of 50 km/h, that
needs us 2 hours for the distance.
120 min * (13,4 + 5,9) / 2 = 1,158 kJ/100km

Cyclist: 100 km / 20 km/h = 5 h = 300 min
300 min * 32,8 kJ/min = 9,840 kJ/100km

Cyclist: 9,840 KJ/100km
Driver plus car: 257,158 KJ/km
That's 1 to 26.

So now you are trying to tell us, that the additional 17 KJ/min that the
cyclist uses additionally to the driver increases the food-production
induced fossil energy use by as much as 25 times!??

That's ridiculiousness V2.0!

*) german classic of ergonometrics: (Hetinger, Kaminsky, Schmalle 1981)

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

Quoted message said:

Complete [censored].
Let's do one estimation.
The human's base energy consumption is a function of the person, so
let's leave that aside, as we consider the same person driving and cycling.
An estimated avg. gasoline consumption by the car is abt. 8 l/100km.
Gasolin comes in at abt. 32 MJ/l.
The additional energy consumption by the human body for car driving is
given *) between 5.9 and 13.4 kJ/min
Cyclists' energy is: 19.7 kJ/min for 15 km/h and 32.8 kJ/min for 20km/h
(Conk use appropriate smaller numbers!)
Now lets take a route length of 100 km.

Car: 8 l * 32 MJ/l = 256,000 kJ/100km

Driver: let's estimate we are driving at an avg. speed of 50 km/h, that
needs us 2 hours for the distance.
120 min * (13,4 + 5,9) / 2 = 1,158 kJ/100km

Cyclist: 100 km / 20 km/h = 5 h = 300 min
300 min * 32,8 kJ/min = 9,840 kJ/100km

Cyclist: 9,840 KJ/100km
Driver plus car: 257,158 KJ/km

Typo!
That should mean:
"Driver plus car: 257,159 KJ/100km"

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes roughly
ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of energy.
For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient small
car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
drop down into the range of other cars.

So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.

After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:

According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
your math is rather off...

Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
"normal research these days"!

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes

roughly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of

energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient

small

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
drop down into the range of other cars.

So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.

After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:

According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
your math is rather off...

Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
"normal research these days"!

Tadej

Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart buildings
so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe has
many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

George Conklin said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

> I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes

roughly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
> Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of

energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient

small

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
> drop down into the range of other cars.

So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.

After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:

According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
your math is rather off...

Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
"normal research these days"!

Tadej

Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart buildings
so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe has
many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

You will want a shower after riding a bicycle in the upper Midwest on a
summer day.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

George Conklin said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

>I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes

roughly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
>Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of

energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient

small

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent MPG
>drop down into the range of other cars.

So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to account
for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.

After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:

According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So accepting
for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline energy
to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
your math is rather off...

Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
"normal research these days"!

Tadej

Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart buildings
so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe has
many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

Nice post Conk, nevertheless wrong location of the thread.
Yes you are probably true regarding moist and heat in the south. But
please do not compare apples and pears. Europe is not of singular
dimension, it has quite a respectable N-S extension and has very hot
places in the south too.
So compare e.g. New Orleans to Napoli or Boston to Hamburg.

Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Claiming that a bicycle is efficient in oil use is a real stretch to say the
least

The examples you list are rather extreme cases, however. If you eat
stuff that isn't grown on another continent, and/or is packaged near
where it's picked, those numbers change rather dramatically.

However, you were the one who stated a 10:1 ratio between food energy
and oil energy, so that's the number I used, and a bike comes out ahead
using that number and just the gasoline energy that the car consumes
directly. If you take into consideration the energy used to produce and
transport your car's gasoline to travel that 30 miles, the car comes out
even worse, and the other externalities which are higher for cars than
for bikes (road wear and resulting maintenance, etc), it comes out even
worse.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

George Conklin said:

"Tadej Brezina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] says...
>
>
>>I am talking about oil energy required, not food energy. It takes

roughly

Quoted message said:

>>ten units of oil energy to get one unit of food energy into your body.
>>Farming, fertilizer, transportation, cooking, cleaning take lot of

energy.

Quoted message said:

>>For ideal cases, a bike may burn as much energy as a very efficient

small

Quoted message said:

>>car. For head winds and other non-ideal conditions the equivalent

MPG

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>drop down into the range of other cars.
>
>
>So if I go on a ride and burn 600 kCal of energy over and above what I
>would burn driving that same 30 miles or so, I would use 6000 kcal of
>oil energy? Do you realize just how little gasoline it takes to

account

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>for that much energy? My 30 mpg car would burn approx 1 gallon of
>gasoline to go that distance, which is way more than 6000kCal.
>
>After looking up the numbers, here's what I found:
>
>According to the DOE, 1 (US) gal of gasoline provides approx 124000
>BTU's of energy (an average across all common grades). 1 BTU is approx
>252 calories (251.9958 according to my converter), so 1 gallon of
>gasoline provides approx 31248000 calories, or 31248 kCal. So

accepting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>for the sake of argument your assertion that 1 cal of food energy takes
>10 cal of oil energy, I would burn about 5 times as much gasoline

energy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>to drive 30 miles as I would to ride my bike that same distance. So
>your math is rather off...

Hey don't be so hard on Jack, he's just doing calculations according to
"normal research these days"!

Tadej

Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart

buildings

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

Nice post Conk, nevertheless wrong location of the thread.
Yes you are probably true regarding moist and heat in the south. But
please do not compare apples and pears. Europe is not of singular
dimension, it has quite a respectable N-S extension and has very hot
places in the south too.
So compare e.g. New Orleans to Napoli or Boston to Hamburg.

New York is really opposite Madrid on the maps.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Jack, as usually, you are right!
Bicycles have no chance in comparison to walking regarding their
ecological impact.

Overall impact, possibly, but in just energy consumption terms, cycling
is much more efficient than walking.

Quoted message said:

Your original claim, that bicycles might be as low in energy consumption
as cars is a masterpiece of ridiculousness - making intelligent design
seem respectable in comparison.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Part of smart growth buildings these days in the USA is to include
showers, clothes washing services and chaning rooms in eco-smart

buildings

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so bike riders can enter the business world in proper clothing. Europe

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

many fewer hot days than we do in the southern part of the USA.

Nice post Conk, nevertheless wrong location of the thread.
Yes you are probably true regarding moist and heat in the south. But
please do not compare apples and pears. Europe is not of singular
dimension, it has quite a respectable N-S extension and has very hot
places in the south too.
So compare e.g. New Orleans to Napoli or Boston to Hamburg.

New York is really opposite Madrid on the maps.

I was thinking more climate-wise, not latitude-wise.
T.
--
Frauen sind als Gesprächspartner nun einmal interessanter,
weil das Gespräch nicht beendet ist, wenn nichts sinnvolles mehr zu
sagen ist.
<David Kastrup in d.t.r>