Bicycling wastes gas?
 

Depending on what you eat but here's an Interesting Article

From another forum.

The average price of U.S. gas is $2.66/gallon. We can go 20.36 miles on $2.66 in the average car, how far can we go on $2.66 with a bike figuring 10 mph @ 528 calories an hour.

"MPG of bicycling" (i.e., miles a cyclist can travel on $2.66 worth of food)
6.1 miles - salmon or catfish (farmed)
8.3 miles - Big Mac
12.9 miles - ground beef (85% lean)
16.2 miles - chicken breasts (boneless)
18.8 miles - cheese

26.6 miles - Cheerios
46.1 miles - potatoes
68.6 miles - peanut butter
70.4 miles - oats
81.6 miles - pinto beans
94.1 miles - rice (white or brown)

So if your food fuel comes from the items in the first section, it actually costs you *more* to bike than to pay for gas.

Although the basic math is correct, unless you are truly impoverished and starving it doesn't really apply. Who here can't spare a few hundred calories a day without adjusting your diet? I can and choose to use them to commute by bike.

It seems to me that the comparison of those numbers apply only if you choose to drive without eating. I don't know many people who will make that choice.

I like biking, and I like eating, but when I have to drive, I still like eating.

It's not the fact that the driver also eats. The fact that the driver *burns* calories by driving is whats is relevant.

So riding my Ninja 250 is more efficient than riding a bike fueled by pinto beans.... interesting!

Heck of a lot more fun too :turtle:

I grow all of my food on my farm, with my animals that I slaughter personally. Your point is invalid for me.

Seriously though, this doesn't really make sense to me, at all. I eat the same thing when I bike that I would eat when I drive.

Actually, the point is still valid, only on a slightly larger scale. You have to pay for feed for the life of those animals, and care, so you have one more thing to consider in the "bigger picture".

Of course, the study has to consider the pollution created by growing the food that was burned in the act of bicycling versus driving, etc.

There are alot more factors than fuel in/energy out.

The point, however, isn't whether or not you eat, rather that you'd have to eat more to sustain a higher energy level for biking, for a commute, for instance. Or, you could drive, and save the extra food and all the fuel/crap used to create it.

Like it's not only about pure calories, but also how they are delivered (correct ratios of fats, sugars, proteins, etc.).
Or keep your diet but lose the spare tire;)

That's cute, but in that case, there is still excess that is being used.

What do you do when all the "spare tire" is gone? Now you have to start eating more to sustain the same energy level that you would have had just from burning fat stores, right?

So, when that comes to pass, the point still becomes relevant. You still have to buy more food and consume it to bike, as opposed to buying fuel for your car to motor.

Fuel for fuel, there probably are instances where it's actually cheaper to run a car, even if you don't consider the actual impact of each fuel source.

Remember, food takes more fuel to make, deliver, buy, and consume than fuel does. ;)