Very silly question - or is it?

[Norm]

How do you define efficient? as a matter of - context - speed - power use

Not sure how anyone else would do it but I'd go with being able to maintain 15mph on a bike, compared to 6/7 running, or being able to cycle for 60 miles a day, compared to about 5 running, or being able to ride non-stop for 3 hours, compared to about 3 minutes running.

It seems a very pedantic question, as most everything measurable that I can think of is faster for longer periods on a bike.

This question came to me last week, as I cycled up behind someone running in Windsor Great Park. I slowed to her pace for a few yards, to exchange pleasantries, before cycling off again. Given that she was under half my age and probably under a third of my weight, as well as looking very *ahem* fit, that didn't seem right.

 

[psmiffy]

So cycling is faster and less tiring = more efficient
Roller skates and ice skates are also more efficient than running?
Hand cranked tricycles and wheelchairs more efficient than running?

Is walking more or less efficient than cycling - I have never heard of anyone cycling very fast up Everest

 

[ASC1951]

Anyone know scientifically why cycling is more efficient than running?

This is asked every few months. The answer is always the same and someone else has already pointed it out.

When you run, you lift your entire body weight with every stride. The bicycle is extra, but you don't have to lift it. It's that simple.

 

[johnnyh]

have to factor in momentum I'd have thunk - stop running and you are do just that, stop, stop pedalling and you roll on. (or backwards if on a hill )

 

[psmiffy]

It is because there is a machine involved - the wheel - before bicycles had cranks and chains -hobby horse cyclists could travel faster and for longer than runners - they still ran - add in cranks and gears and you can go a lot faster. Plus by supporting the body weight and using only specific muscles to drive the machine it is becomes more efficient - compare how tired you get riding 50k with and without a saddle

And of course it is only more efficient in a particular enviroment - on a nice road or a decent trail - try racing a fell runner sometime

 

[Black Sheep]

You are able to spin your legs, getting a smooth, continuous motion, the principal that is behind steam engine design, your leg being the piston

that's my thoughts anyway

 

[psmiffy]

You are able to spin your legs, getting a smooth, continuous motion, the principal that is behind steam engine design, your leg being the piston

that's my thoughts anyway

Not many pistons on modern trains - the crank is is just a good way of transferring a linear force to a rotational torque

 

[arallsopp]

the 'critical mass' of joggers doesn't exist in the metropolitain majority - ref. Bongman's post.

Sorry Ape. This is just plain wrong. Try heading into the metropolis this weekend, then tell me the joggers haven't reached critical mass.

 

[Aperitif]

Sorry Ape. This is just plain wrong. Try heading into the metropolis this weekend, then tell me the joggers haven't reached critical mass.

OK OK - London will be full of Mall contents then...no room for a spin along there then?

Cool runnings for all.

 

[Norm]

And of course it is only more efficient in a particular enviroment - on a nice road or a decent trail - try racing a fell runner sometime

For the particular environment of cities, roads, downhills, paths and tracks, cycles are better. Even across Dartmoor last year, I was cycling up the hills faster than I could have walked up them, let alone run.

It seems very strange that you are happy to pick one particularly specific example where legs may be more efficient and then criticise Black Sheep's post which explicitly says he is talking about steam engines.

Not many pistons on modern trains...

The trains through Maidenhead have quite a few, I think that the IC125 has 12 at either end.

 

[arallsopp]

I was cycling up the hills faster than I could have walked up them, let alone run.

In my experience, cycling is faster than running is faster than walking.

 

[psmiffy]

It seems very strange that you are happy to pick one particularly specific example where legs may be more efficient and then criticise Black Sheep's post which explicitly says he is talking about steam engines.

I am sorry I should have prefaced my post This is not a crticism - If I have offended you black sheep then I apolagise - However, a very silly question really deserves some very silly answers - what do we mean by efficient?

It would appear that the concensus is that speed = Efficient

Not so - a bicycle is only a machine that allows a person to travel faster and with less effort than running and then is efficient only in certain circumstances - it is not more efficent per se

It is quicker for me to walk from my desk to the fridge than to cycle - It is quicker for me to cycle to Tescos than to run - It is more efficient of me to use a taxi to collect my new washing machine than my bike

 

[arallsopp]

It is more efficient of me to use a taxi to collect my new washing machine than my bike

You're right, but I don't understand why you'd need to collect your bike in a taxi anyway. Surely the best efficiencies are gained in riding it to and from wherever you're leaving it.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Silly question thread demands silly answers.

 

[psmiffy]

Petards and all that

 

[tyred]

A bicycle can be very efficient. Just grab the boot spoiler on a passing car and travel at 60mph without any effort and the driver pays the fuel costs