FenrirIII@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoMuricalemmy.mlimagemessage-square86linkfedilinkarrow-up1548arrow-down115file-textcross-posted to: greentext@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up1533arrow-down1imageMuricalemmy.mlFenrirIII@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square86linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: greentext@sh.itjust.works
minus-squareLedivin@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down2·1 year agoFood -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
minus-squaregrue@lemmy.worldMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 year 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.
minus-squareNaz@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year 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
Food -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
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.
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