Aero bikes on roof racks *save* money on fuel.

[gaijintendo]

Can someone verify this statement? That's true, yeah?
I am working on some internal marketing techniques here should I wish to buy a new bike.

It looks like a bike racked up drops efficiency by about 10% and an aero bike is generously 15% less drag... So that's a saving of 1.5% in very general terms.

If you pockle the numbers up, 100,000 miles cycled with an aero bike will save you £200!

That's 2.5 times around planet earth.

Bargain!

How does it sound?

 

[fossyant]

Baloney. Your missus won't fall for it !

 

[subaqua]

Might get effort points though .....

 

[Drago]

I'm very anal when it comes to recording my fuel consumption and the addition of roof bars and bike carrier have made zero measurable difference.

Therefore, by that logic a new bike will make zero measurable difference to your bank account.

 

[gaijintendo]

I'm very anal when it comes to recording my fuel consumption and the addition of roof bars and bike carrier have made zero measurable difference.

Therefore, by that logic a new bike will make zero measurable difference to your bank account.

It offsets the drag if you have someone on the bike pedalling.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Therefore, by that logic a new bike will make zero measurable difference to your bank account.

A new bike will make a considerable negative difference to your bank account.

Not that that's a bad thing, mind.

 

[gaijintendo]

Baloney. Your missus won't fall for it !

But... That's Two-And-A-Half times around the planet!!! Don't you think that's impressive?! Huff!

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm very anal when it comes to recording my fuel consumption and the addition of roof bars and bike carrier have made zero measurable difference.

Therefore, by that logic a new bike will make zero measurable difference to your bank account.

You don't understand. That's not the answer he wanted to hear. Help the man out, modify your answer. Zero is a very strong word. Perhaps you can find more decimal points or mention that because your bike is extremely aero, you achieve incredible consumption and you've already taken it for granted.
There's more than one way to skin a justification. Get with the program.

 

[Lozz360]

Hang on. 1.5% of 100,000 miles is 1,500 miles. That's not twice round the planet! That's just gets you from here to Odessa.

 

[growingvegetables]

Bubble bursting time .

Why is the bike on the roof rack, and not on the road where it belongs?

 

[PeteXXX]

Bubble bursting time .

Why is the bike on the roof rack, and not on the road where it belongs?

Because it's much easier to bag a few KOMs

 

[gaijintendo]

Hang on. 1.5% of 100,000 miles is 1,500 miles. That's not twice round the planet! That's just gets you from here to Odessa.

Oh sure, if you are not impressed by 100,000 miles, then you could start looking at the facts... I guess.

 

[Lozz360]

Oh sure, if you are not impressed by 100,000 miles, then you could start looking at the facts... I guess.

OK let's look at the "facts". I can see where you get the £200 saving: -

100,000 miles at, say, 40 miles per gallon = 2,500 gallons used. Convert to litres = 11,375 lt. if our fuel costs are, say, £1.20 / litre then 100,000 miles driven costs us 11,375 x £1.20 = £13,650. If we save 1.5% because our bike that's been on the roof rack for all the 100,000 miles is aero; then our saving is £13,650 x 0.015 = £204.75.

So, we are agreed about the £200 savings. But where does "2.5 times round planet earth" come into it? 2.5 times around the planet is 62,252.5 miles. That is a fact.

 

[srw]

Let's pretend that your numbers for drag are right. By putting your bike on the roof of the car you're using 10% extra fuel. By making it an aero bike (whatever one of those is) you're saving 15% of the extra 10% - so you're using "only" 8.5% extra fuel.

Your maths is horrible.

Get a much more fuel efficient car with a big enough inside space to bung the thing inside.

 

[gaijintendo]

OK let's look at the "facts". I can see where you get the £200 saving: -

100,000 miles at, say, 40 miles per gallon = 2,500 gallons used. Convert to litres = 11,375 lt. if our fuel costs are, say, £1.20 / litre then 100,000 miles driven costs us 11,375 x £1.20 = £13,650. If we save 1.5% because our bike that's been on the roof rack for all the 100,000 miles is aero; then our saving is £13,650 x 0.015 = £204.75.

So, we are agreed about the £200 savings. But where does "2.5 times round planet earth" come into it? 2.5 times around the planet is 62,252.5 miles. That is a fact.

Oh dear lord.

So, first up, I for some reason thought the earth was 40k miles, but let's put that aside.

What I was doing was emphasising 100k miles was an impressive distance. I'm using every trick in the rhetoric book, currently being written by the reigning political ethos.

It's about things that sound impressive, not facts.

100,000 miles is FOUR-TIMES-AROUND-THE-PLANET. Why are you not impressed by that?

I guess i could always pretend it was on C2W...