Jul 5, 2026, 9:14 PM@ellie If you've ever seen the graph of vehicle efficiency, you get all the way down to electrified-track trains and think to yourself "surely this is the /ne plus ultra/ of vehicle efficiency" but then you hear bicycles calling over from all the way at "efficient as fuck" yelling, "Not even close, dipshits! I'm half a rickshaw away from taking all your moms home tonight." And all you can do is nod and think, "Yep. Bikes got game."
@log @ellie this forbes article has a plot that does show efficiency or bicycles being top, but was from 1973 so doesn't have EVs. There have also been a lot of advancements in fuel efficiency and increases to weight. Many plots on image searches showed escooter/ebike being better than bicycles but the sources were not noteworthy.
Jul 5, 2026, 10:07 PM@fullywoolly @ellie That's definitely one of the graphs that bicycle has on a big poster on the wall of its shed, but I also recall seeing one with only human vehicles on it. Bicycle is still ahead of electric-motor bicycle. Because lithium-ion to electric motor still has more conversion losses than glycogen to slow-twitch muscle fiber.
@log @ellie oh very cool. If you remember I'd love to see it. This was the best I found https://www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-environmental-impact
> That’s 30 per cent lower than the figure from cycling a conventional bike.
>
> Because ebikes require less food production per kilometre travelled, they have lower greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetime than conventional bikes, despite the added emissions from electricity production and battery manufacturing.
@fullywoolly @log @ellie original figure is from "Bicycle Technology" by S.S. Wilson which reviews the technological marvel that is the bicycle, including also cross-sections of a Sturmey-Archer Hub. It's quite good reading for any #Cycling enthusiast.
https://notfine.com/bikes/articles/Scientific_American-Mar1973-Bicycle_Science.pdf
@fullywoolly @log @ellie there was an "updated" version of the figure in 2025 that was basically just copying this article's work and added in a bunch of distracting animation to the figure which conveys no information. I prefer the original but in the interests of completeness, I'll link the more modern one here:
@fullywoolly @SnoopJ @log @ellie Speaking of finding the original article, the 1970 article by Tucker cited in the Scientific American article doesn't plot the bicycle rider! The data aren't in the table either, which only lists:
Cherokee airplane
Volkswagen automobile
Cadillac automobile
Sikorsky S62 helicopter
Grand Commander
F105F jet fighter
DC 9-10 jet transport
DC 8 jet transport
@spacehobo @SnoopJ @log @ellie I like that it has conversion factors for fat, glycogen, and gasoline.
@fullywoolly @SnoopJ @log @ellie Oddly, Tucker cites his own work on the energy efficiency of various models of jet aeroplane.
@SnoopJ @fullywoolly @log @ellie found this
@Fangh @SnoopJ @log @ellie I saw that too and another one from presumably Colorado State University that showed very small numbers for ebike and escooters. I'll admit that I'm pretty weary of infographics without knowing the context and data that lead to their creation. I feel myself seeing them and saying "oh that's pretty this must be right" and I feel my defenses going up.
@Fangh @SnoopJ @fullywoolly @log @ellie
You could add a Saturn 5 going to the Moon to the end of that list at about 12,000 J/m/p.
I'd also like to see those numbers divided by each method's average speed as well.