FenrirIII@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agoMuricalemmy.mlexternal-linkmessage-square83linkfedilinkarrow-up14arrow-down10file-textcross-posted to: greentext@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up14arrow-down1external-linkMuricalemmy.mlFenrirIII@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square83linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: greentext@sh.itjust.works
minus-squareLedivin@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 years agoFood -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
minus-squareNaz@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 years agoIt’s about 22-24% efficient which is the same as a carbon engine. Chemistry and physics, yo, stochiometric ratios. No free lunch. The difference is the mass component of F = M•A
minus-squaregrue@lemmy.worldMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 years agoIIRC, even considering those losses, biking is still one of the most efficient forms of land transport. What I found interesting was a study that found that e-bikes were even more efficient than regular ones.
Food -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
It’s about 22-24% efficient which is the same as a carbon engine.
Chemistry and physics, yo, stochiometric ratios. No free lunch.
The difference is the mass component of F = M•A
IIRC, even considering those losses, biking is still one of the most efficient forms of land transport. What I found interesting was a study that found that e-bikes were even more efficient than regular ones.