Why is riding a bike easier than....

[Gothgar]

the wheel, an amazing thing

 

[Kev]

Education fail.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: SoftwareEng

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Other than not having to support your weight, as mentioned ALL of your power goes toward forward movement. Walking and running are both extremely pitiful movements from an efficiency standpoint. In both you lean forward past your center of gravity and you tip forward in relation to the contact point with the ground. However, you then need to act in a way to prevent falling nose-in to the ground, and so you subsequently contact the ground whether it's walking or running (only exception being an accelerating sprinter) in front of your center of gravity, essentially braking every single step.

Not only in the horizontal plane are you wasting energy applying it both in the direction of travel and against it, but you're also going up and down constantly. You know you can burn energy running in spot, but if you're on a bike and not moving forward you burn nothing; you're just sitting on it.

On a bicycle you're never applying energy opposite to travel direction and you're never increasing or decreasing your height. Via the drive train every bit of muscle power is going to turning the crank and therefore the wheel.

I'm sure that in running the greatest energy loss is not the up/down, but rather the constant necessary braking with each step. If you think of an ice skater he glides constantly, so after a push off as long as he's balanced only wind resistance and ice friction slow him down, but simply the act of staying upright for a runner while running sucks energy.

I get that, it's a good point, but with pedaling you're still "pushing off" - off pedals, as opposed to the ground as with running. In fact, good bikers "run on pedals". I still don't get why biking is more efficient, though! damn

Pedals move in a circular motion. Even if you're "running" on the bike, your motion is still going to be circular and carried through. This follow through (circular) motion is not happening when you're running on the ground.

Great points all around. I suggest this thread be moved to highly technical, cause my mind is being blown to shit right now.

 

[arrfep]

I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, but I haven't seen anybody really expound on a bicycle's gearing. It's easier to go fast on a bike because you're getting (in most common gear ratios) double the output (or greater) for your input. But get in your granny gear up front and your largest cog in back, or even just a 1:1 ratio and cycling becomes less efficient than walking. Which is why when you're struggling up a hill, sometimes it makes more sense to hike-a-bike than to grind up in your smallest gear.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: keird
I want to see the OP's reaction to trains.

<--Waits for the, "Why are trains more efficient than horses?" thread.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: SoftwareEng

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Other than not having to support your weight, as mentioned ALL of your power goes toward forward movement. Walking and running are both extremely pitiful movements from an efficiency standpoint. In both you lean forward past your center of gravity and you tip forward in relation to the contact point with the ground. However, you then need to act in a way to prevent falling nose-in to the ground, and so you subsequently contact the ground whether it's walking or running (only exception being an accelerating sprinter) in front of your center of gravity, essentially braking every single step.

Not only in the horizontal plane are you wasting energy applying it both in the direction of travel and against it, but you're also going up and down constantly. You know you can burn energy running in spot, but if you're on a bike and not moving forward you burn nothing; you're just sitting on it.

On a bicycle you're never applying energy opposite to travel direction and you're never increasing or decreasing your height. Via the drive train every bit of muscle power is going to turning the crank and therefore the wheel.

I'm sure that in running the greatest energy loss is not the up/down, but rather the constant necessary braking with each step. If you think of an ice skater he glides constantly, so after a push off as long as he's balanced only wind resistance and ice friction slow him down, but simply the act of staying upright for a runner while running sucks energy.

I get that, it's a good point, but with pedaling you're still "pushing off" - off pedals, as opposed to the ground as with running. In fact, good bikers "run on pedals". I still don't get why biking is more efficient, though! damn

All you need is Skoorb's first sentence. That should be enough to understand why biking is more efficient.

On a bike, ALL of your energy is being applied to forward motion.
When walking or running, only part of your energy is being applied to forward motion and the rest of it is being applied to upward motion to counteract gravity.

When ALL your energy is moving you forward, it's going to be a lot more efficient than when only PART of your energy is moving you forward.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: arrfep
I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, but I haven't seen anybody really expound on a bicycle's gearing. It's easier to go fast on a bike because you're getting (in most common gear ratios) double the output (or greater) for your input. But get in your granny gear up front and your largest cog in back, or even just a 1:1 ratio and cycling becomes less efficient than walking. Which is why when you're struggling up a hill, sometimes it makes more sense to hike-a-bike than to grind up in your smallest gear.

The reason walking can be more efficient(or equally efficient when going up a hill is gravity. On a flat surface, gravity is working against you while walking, but not while biking. Going up a hill, gravity is working against you in both cases.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: iGas

Science of Cycling.

1. The wheel.
2. Constant motion is more efficient than stop-n-go, hence pedaling in circular motion is more efficient than block pedaling.

What is this "the wheel"?

There's been alot of talk, though, in Mac circles about it.

Essentially, the concept is simple, but revolutionary. The iWheel is a disc shaped object that can be affixed to the bottom of any heavy object/platform. What happens is as follows: as a force is applied to the object, either by pulling or pushing it, the attached iWheel, whose circumference is made of rubber, begins to rotate as a result of the torque applied to it due to the traction of the rubber with the ground, while at the same time propping up the object to which it's attached so as to keep it from having any direct contact with the ground.

The result is that the object to which it's affixed becomes significantly more mobile, because all friction of the object with the ground is eliminated, all the while the object is MOVED by the spinning iWheel which by itself imparts minimal friction on the axle--the metal rod that forms its axis.

From what I've heard, a single iWheel can be affixed to the object, or multiple ones (i. e. in pairs) can be attached. The iWheel's potential in the marketplace is incaclulable, and if the latest gossip in MacWorld is true, the transportation industry alone is planning to spend billions on iWheels.

The latest scoop is that the iWheel will be immediately available in four colors: Rebel Black, Conservative White, Shocking Pink, and Sky Blue. A FIFTH color, which Jobs has yet to identify, will debut in December 2007 (in time for Christmas).

--
Think different. Think iWheel.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: SoftwareEng

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Other than not having to support your weight, as mentioned ALL of your power goes toward forward movement. Walking and running are both extremely pitiful movements from an efficiency standpoint. In both you lean forward past your center of gravity and you tip forward in relation to the contact point with the ground. However, you then need to act in a way to prevent falling nose-in to the ground, and so you subsequently contact the ground whether it's walking or running (only exception being an accelerating sprinter) in front of your center of gravity, essentially braking every single step.

Not only in the horizontal plane are you wasting energy applying it both in the direction of travel and against it, but you're also going up and down constantly. You know you can burn energy running in spot, but if you're on a bike and not moving forward you burn nothing; you're just sitting on it.

On a bicycle you're never applying energy opposite to travel direction and you're never increasing or decreasing your height. Via the drive train every bit of muscle power is going to turning the crank and therefore the wheel.

I'm sure that in running the greatest energy loss is not the up/down, but rather the constant necessary braking with each step. If you think of an ice skater he glides constantly, so after a push off as long as he's balanced only wind resistance and ice friction slow him down, but simply the act of staying upright for a runner while running sucks energy.

I get that, it's a good point, but with pedaling you're still "pushing off" - off pedals, as opposed to the ground as with running. In fact, good bikers "run on pedals". I still don't get why biking is more efficient, though! damn

Pedals move in a circular motion. Even if you're "running" on the bike, your motion is still going to be circular and carried through. This follow through (circular) motion is not happening when you're running on the ground.

Great points all around. I suggest this thread be moved to highly technical, cause my mind is being blown to shit right now.

Just wait till we get to toe clips and clipless pedals...