Comments on: Bicycle MPG

By: dr2chase

dr2chase — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:02:22 +0000

I don’t think the additional calories are that large — most likely the auto driver is either gaining weight or burning calories at the gym — and you can get them from nuts and honey, and you can keep your own bees. We did when I was a kid, there’s a guy in town here who keeps a beehive, too.

By: Mauricio Babilonia

Mauricio Babilonia — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:03:35 +0000

krylon wrote:

“[...] does our prototypical urban cyclist really eat much more than her much-maligned SUV-driving counterpart?”

My question exactly. A more interesting comparison of MPG would

a) subtract the number of calories needed to stay alive from the total caloric intake of the cyclist, and thus consider only the differential as what’s needed for transportation;

b) subtract the number of calories needed to stay alive from the total caloric intake of the motorist, and thus consider how much of the differential is used for transportation (probably close to zero); and

c) consider resources consumed for the entire life of the automobile and bicycle as part of the mileage calculation

I suspect the bicycle would win handily.

By: krylon

krylon — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:15 +0000

This is surely an interesting discussion. But does our
prototypical urban cyclist really eat much more than her
much-maligned SUV-driving counterpart? Isn’t it true that
North Americans in general tend to eat more than they really
need to? I would bet that the average cyclist of typical
build weighs somewhat less than the average motorist, not
because he eats more or less, but because the calories he
consumes are used in a different way (ie. to power muscles as
opposed to being stored in tissue).

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:50:14 +0000

On the question of how high up the foodchain the food comes from, the energy accounting I ran into when looking at corn-ethanol had corn at a kilcalorie yield of 3.84 kcal output for 1 kcal input (it is in the ethanol processing that corn-ethanol tips over to a net energy loss).

And corn is a fairly energy intensive crop, because of the fertilizers …

And if takes 14 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef, that flips over to less than 0.27 kcal of energy from beef for 1 kcal input.

So if the extra food intake is grain, it will be 70% solar energy or more. If the extra food intake is meat, it could cost 4 times its weight in fossil fuels.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:06:42 +0000

We haven’t even started adding in the cost of health care into this formula. A person who maintains an active lifetstyle (healthy eating, regular exercise, etc) will be a much less burden on the health care system than someone who leads a typical suburban life. Heart disease, diabetes, and cholesterol and all the assorted care as the population ages starts to play with take home pay, insurance premiums, cost of care, etc, and as Social Security disappears (or is mangled by politics), and universal healthcare remains a dream – more of these costs will become large portions of the younger populations burden.

My bet is that the cyclist eats the same or more, but long term, being in far greater shape and taking better care of her body, will be less a burden on society than a car driving “typical” American. I’d wonder what the linkage to fuel efficiency would be if we could somehow add it all together.

Sort of an expanded ecological footprint, as we need to take all sorts of things into consideration. MPG is one thing, but factor in what it takes to build the car, the infrastructure and technology needed to maintain it, and add all the problems with pollution, health, and etc… and the equations looks pretty grim.

Perhaps it could be the EL (effective living) number. Some sort of formula that starts to reduce everything to life energy, or units of energy derived from the sun that we are burning… or something – to show all the hidden “costs” our typical lives take.

By: Odograph.com » Blog Archive » Electric Bicycle Efficiency II

Odograph.com » Blog Archive » Electric Bicycle Efficiency II — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:17:02 +0000

[...] cleverchimp has an interesting discussion going. I learned about it when I saw the “trackback” link come in for one of my old bicycle fuel efficiency posts. [...]

By: Bastiaan

Bastiaan — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:12:24 +0000

Erik, you have to keep in mind that most food today has been made by using large quantities of oil products (like fertilizer, gasoline, pesticides, etc). Eating more is not nessesarily an ecological thing to do.

By: t

Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:36:19 +0000

Vegan bicyclists win, hands down!

By: Erik Sandblom

Erik Sandblom — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:08:41 +0000

I don’t understand the issue. If you eat more due to biking, then that’s healthy. Since my body is a natural part of the environment and ecology, it’s ecological and environmentally friendly too.

If any of that is not to be taken for granted, I think it’s a religious or philosophical issue. In school, I was taught that my body is a temple of worship. Later close encounters re-inforced that view.

So for me, eating right and exercising is a fundamentally and inherently ecological and green thing to do.

By: Ken Heronheart

Ken Heronheart — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:20:48 +0000

Bicycles are definitely only part of the overall sustainability equation. (but a vital part). Another part is my 2.5 mile bike ride to our local horse and goat farmer to buy cheese, eggs and vegies.