Technology0 min ago
Cycling and walking
1 Answers
Like all mechanical devices, my bicycle is less than 100% efficient. Therefore, if I traverse a circular route to end up where I started, I must exert more energy than if I was just walking.
Why is it, then that if I cycle my 24 mile circular route in 2 hours, I take less time to recover than if I walk the same route in 8 hours?
OR have I made a faux pas and not realised that walking is actually far less efficient than cycling? If so, where is the wasted energy? Do my feet get hotter than when cycling?
Why is it, then that if I cycle my 24 mile circular route in 2 hours, I take less time to recover than if I walk the same route in 8 hours?
OR have I made a faux pas and not realised that walking is actually far less efficient than cycling? If so, where is the wasted energy? Do my feet get hotter than when cycling?
Answers
Only 1 answer
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrisrob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think you'll find cycling far more efficient than walking.
If you are at the top of a hill you can reach the bottom cycling with hardly any energy expenditure at all.
Imagine a single stroke of the pedals - how much further will that take you than a single step?
Why don't your feet get hot? well they do all of you does - but that energy is disapated over a much longer time period 8 hours as opposed to 2 in your example
If you are at the top of a hill you can reach the bottom cycling with hardly any energy expenditure at all.
Imagine a single stroke of the pedals - how much further will that take you than a single step?
Why don't your feet get hot? well they do all of you does - but that energy is disapated over a much longer time period 8 hours as opposed to 2 in your example
Only 1 answer
