Infinity Miles Per Gallon

[JacobAziza]

I posted the same cost per mile analysis on the Mr Money Mustache board, and someone pointed out something important I had neglected in my numbers:

"I think you shouldn't be looking at the absolute calories burned when biking, but rather, the calorie differential between biking and whatever other activity the person would be doing, since we burn calories even when sleeping. From the same source, "Police, driving a squad car" burns 141 calories/hour (no mention if that includes donut-eating), so if you ride your bike instead of drive for that half hour, the calorie differential is only 180 calories, not 250 (this is good news for the people trying to save money by biking, but bad news for those trying to lose weight!) That brings the cost of the extra calories down to 27 cents.

Then, removing the "6 miles" from the numbers to simplify it, we arrive at 4.5 cents/mile for cycling fuel, and 17 cents/mile for driving costs."

Of course with that we are still assuming that the biking is an additional activity.
If we assume that a person is going to get some form of aerobic exercise regardless, and that they substituted biking to work for, say recreational running, then they aren't using any additional calories at all. Then, compared to the 17 cents a mile, it costs $520 a year to drive, vs $0 to bike which is reasonably substantial savings.

[ProDarwin]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

so if you ride your bike instead of drive for that half hour, the calorie differential is only 180 calories, not 250 (this is good news for the people trying to save money by biking, but bad news for those trying to lose weight!) That brings the cost of the extra calories down to 27 cents.

Except that even in traffic, you'll travel much farther in a car than on a bike in 30 minutes My commute would be ~1 hour by bike, 20 minutes by car.

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by ProDarwin

Except that even in traffic, you'll travel much farther in a car than on a bike in 30 minutes My commute would be ~1 hour by bike, 20 minutes by car.

1) depends on how far you have to go, and how bad traffic is. It isn't always a given that driving is faster

2) I was only trying to address the actual cost; one issue at a time

3) The same opportunity cost question applies to time as it does to extra calories: we need some form of exercise to stay healthy. If you drive to work, then you need to spend 30 mins running or at the gym some other time during the day - 50 minutes total. If you bike, in that hour you got both done at once, so instead of taking up an extra 40 minutes, it only took an extra 10.

If you are traveling about 15 miles each way, at 17 cents a mile, that $5.10 a day you save for that 10 minutes, the equivalent of $40 an hour (pre tax),
you know what they say, time is money. It works both ways.

[ProDarwin]

Indeed, time is money... sometimes. I find it funny when MMM posts articles suggesting that commuting time directly translates to money (~$25/hr in his blog), yet doesn't seem to take that into account when comparing biking to driving. Just the $25/hr rate would mean biking would cost me $50 a day in commuting costs, vs. $20 in a car (time + 0.17/mile)

FWIW, driving to work is 40 mins round trip for me, biking would be approx. 2 hours. I can drive and do my heavy-lifting workout at home and still have 30 minutes extra free time than if I were to bike to work. (and this doesn't account for the fact that biking is not a substitute for weight lifting).

From the time perspective, it boils down to how much you personally value your time.

[LeanBurn]

I walk when ever I can. I walked a mile each way to work for years no matter the weather. It wasn't difficult at all. Took an extra 10 mins. I biked to work 7 miles each way for years as well from early spring to late fall. I found I ate less and better foods, drink a lot more water and stayed in shape resulting in more energy. Funny thing is it only cost me 5 extra mins.

I know people that drive literally for 1/2 block to get to work. I can't wrap my head around it. They could get to work faster by walking its only a few extra steps...when you consider entrance and exit time from the vehicle, vehicle parking and reversing...I just don't get it. Not to mention its really hard on the car to have such a short cycle.

[ecomodded]

Only on the nice days but
sometimes travel with my bike in the car, then once I reach a free parking spot, park and ride the rest of the way.
The parking fees can really hurt the economy of your trip. $2 to $3 bucks a hour or $5 to $10 a day on a fairly short commute and you just blew the economy of the trip.

[niky]

Originally Posted by LeanBurn

I found I ate less and better foods, drink a lot more water and stayed in shape resulting in more energy. Funny thing is it only cost me 5 extra mins.

This is what bugs me when people adamantly insist that biking or walking will cost them extra in food.

I was a runner for several years, and I biked a lot. Our high-meat western lifestyle means that we already take in many more calories than we need to simply go to work and sit down at a computer every day. The excess is MUCH MORE than enough to fuel your commute. And losing weight and increasing metabolic activity make you leaner and more energy-efficient. When I was running, I'd often have to remind myself to eat more, simply because I got used to eating a lot less.

It would be a different story if you actually lowered your caloric intake (below 2000 calories) when not exercising... but really... who (besides anorexic supermodels) does that?

[ProDarwin]

Originally Posted by niky

It would be a different story if you actually lowered your caloric intake (below 2000 calories) when not exercising... but really... who (besides anorexic supermodels) does that?

A lot of people do?

Right now I'm approx 182lbs and 10% body fat. In December I was almost 190lbs and similar body fat(didn't have calipers at the time). Due to a wrist injury (Triangular fibrocartilage complex tear) I wasn't able to lift for about 12 weeks. My intake dropped almost immediately, and I don't count calories. I was down to 174lbs when I started lifting again.

4000-4500 calories/day costs more than 3000-3500 calories/day. That part is fact.

Your argument seems to imply that we all are already fat or over-eating.

[JacobAziza]

He should have said "anorexic supermodels AND serious bodybuilders."
Everyone always forgets about bodybuilders when talking about people with abnormally low bodyfat. (No disrespect implied, I'm trying for 10% bodyfat, and it ain't easy!)

The majority of Americans ARE overweight, and DO eat too much, so his general argument has some merit, even if it was too over-reaching

[niky]

And 3000 calories a day is more than 2000.

You're spending those calories to build muscles. Not to bike. A runner or biker doesn't eat ungodly amounts of protein to build extra muscle mass that will just slow him down.

Different strokes.