More distance per Calorie: Walk vrs Granny Gear Uphill?

Artemisia wrote in news:1189175506.087339.182640
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On 7 sep, 15:28, Peter Clinch wrote:

Which is what I've supposed all along, but do you want to get the top of
the hill in the most optimally energy efficient way, or the most
subjectively /comfortable/ way right there and then? I, and I suspect
Artemesia, and the majority of other cyclists will prefer the most
subjectively comfortable way, even if it's slower. And especially if
it's quicker.

Exactly - I guess I didn't phrase my initial question correctly. I
should say, for the same speed and distance uphill, which will get me
less out of breathe, walking or cycling?


For me walking because I can walk more slowly than I can cycle. It will
take longer and use more energy but I will be less out of breath doing it.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On 7 sep, 14:37, "Clive George" wrote:

But more importantly with the trike you've got something you can't do on any
bike : stop and sit there. So you pedal until you're puffed, put the brakes
on (with locking device/velcro as appropriate) and sit there relaxing, coz
you can.

Ah, but on the bike I just hop off , you see. When I get huffed, I
stop by the roadside, standing and visible. It's easy to walk the bike
along with me. Whereas that becomes a lot harder with the trike. So
overall, the hill may be easier with the bike, insofar as it's a walk,
with stops whenever needed.

I'm trying to figure out if the trike is an advantage or an
unnecessary bother on the morning commute.

Apart from that, I could also take the bus. ;°

EFR
Ile de France

On 7 sep, 14:44, "

Now in the case of a steep hill with grass and thus relatively high
rolling resistance, it may be that the increased rolling resistance
more than makes up for the difference of cycling not being a weight
bearing exercise.

I should mention that in the case of my particular hill, there's no
grass; its all smooth tarmac. Its just dark and windey and infernally
steep and there are cars on it. You can tell how steep it is by how
much the cars are stinking - I get practically asphyxiated whenever
I'm passed by one.

But I can see how the presence of grass would complicate the problem
in abstract.

EFR
Ile de France

"Artemisia" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 7 sep, 14:37, "Clive George" wrote:

But more importantly with the trike you've got something you can't do on
any
bike : stop and sit there. So you pedal until you're puffed, put the
brakes
on (with locking device/velcro as appropriate) and sit there relaxing,
coz
you can.

Ah, but on the bike I just hop off , you see. When I get huffed, I
stop by the roadside, standing and visible. It's easy to walk the bike
along with me. Whereas that becomes a lot harder with the trike. So
overall, the hill may be easier with the bike, insofar as it's a walk,
with stops whenever needed.

Yes, pushing the trike isn't good. So you don't do it. It's a different
approach - rather than walking, you stop, relax, then ride again. Or indeed
ride _really_ slowly - which you can, because there's no need for balancing.

I'm trying to figure out if the trike is an advantage or an
unnecessary bother on the morning commute.

I think the only way you'll find it out is by trying it. I reckon the trike
will be less efficient than the bike, but other factors may make it more
effective for you.

cheers,
clive

In article .com,
Artemisia
says...

Exactly - I guess I didn't phrase my initial question correctly. I
should say, for the same speed and distance uphill, which will get me
less out of breathe, walking or cycling?

On a tadpole trike on road in the right gear I reckon pedalling should
easily win (especially if you factor the dismount/remount time into the
speed calculation), but if you pick the wrong gear you might get puffed.

Artemisia wrote in news:1189176557.361981.144840
@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

I should mention that in the case of my particular hill, there's no
grass; its all smooth tarmac. Its just dark and windey and infernally
steep and there are cars on it. You can tell how steep it is by how
much the cars are stinking - I get practically asphyxiated whenever
I'm passed by one.


You need one of these:
http://www.egopt.co.uk/

Users report double takes from people as they pedal seemingly effortlessly
up steep hills

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On 7 Sep, 13:44, "
wrote:
On Sep 6, 7:09 pm, Artemisia wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:

I recall one incident when a pal and I were taking our MTBs up a fairly
steep grassy field. I got bored at walking pace, and decided I'd walk.
While walking, I soon overtook my pal, still spinning happily in 1st...

So isn't it actually more efficient energy use to walk uphill than to
pedal, even if you do have unimaginably low gears and no topple-over on
a trike?

I'm thinking perhaps the only advantage of trying to pedal up my hills
is the inconvenience of trying to stand up out of a recumbent...

EFR
Ile de France

Cycling (particularly on a recumbent!) is not a weight bearing
exercise like walking. That is to say, cycling up a hill requires you
to only move your center of mass up the slope, not carry it. When you
carry something up a hill you need to not only move it up the slope,
you need to support it's weight the whole time too. Think about
carrying rocks up a hill with a wheelbarrow vs a backpack. When
cycling the center of mass stays pretty still and thus follows the
slope of the hill without too much extra energy spent. Walking makes
the center of mass bob up and down a bit which uses energy that
cycling doesn't. Cycling has the added weight of the bike, and the
resistance of the drivetrain, rolling resistance, and wind resistance,
but in terms of calories per distance at slow speeds where wind and
rolling resistance are minimal, cycling will always be more efficient.
At high speeds where the exponential wind resistance is much greater,
one needs to expend a lot more energy to overcome this resistance, and
then walking is more efficient in terms of calories per distance. A
lot slower too!

Now in the case of a steep hill with grass and thus relatively high
rolling resistance, it may be that the increased rolling resistance
more than makes up for the difference of cycling not being a weight
bearing exercise. Gearing and what is a comfortable range of cadence
and force generation for the leg muscles comes into play too.

If you try pushing someone on a bike on a flat feild of grass you can
see how much resistance there is. And since it seems that riding up
this hill vs walking was more or less a wash despite the extra rolling
resistance, this suggests to me that cycling is that much easier than
walking by the same amount of effort it took to push the person on the
grass. (That made sense to me at least...)

Joseph

cycling up steep hills is less efficient than walking.ive seen many
mountain bikers riding,legs spinning round,hardly moving,whilst
walking i have also passed bikers on the mountains.ive even seen
cyclists in very low gear on the road,in too low a gear,legs going
round like mad,hardly moving,very innefficient,one turn on my gear on
a racing bike leaves them standing.i think some of them dont want to
put any hard effort into cycling.ive also seen bikers on low gear
dawdling along,no physical effort being used,they cant be benifiting
physicaly in fitness riding that slow.god forbid if they ended up on a
hill on a cycle track.

gary2006uk wrote in
oups.com:

cycling up steep hills is less efficient than walking.ive seen many
mountain bikers riding,legs spinning round,hardly moving,whilst
walking i have also passed bikers on the mountains.ive even seen
cyclists in very low gear on the road,in too low a gear,legs going
round like mad,hardly moving,very innefficient,one turn on my gear on
a racing bike leaves them standing.i think some of them dont want to
put any hard effort into cycling.ive also seen bikers on low gear
dawdling along,no physical effort being used,they cant be benifiting
physicaly in fitness riding that slow.god forbid if they ended up on a
hill on a cycle track.


You've mixed up lots of things that have nothing to do with efficiency
and some that do and you have the wrong way round. For example spinning
quickly is more, not less, efficient than your "one turn on my gear".
Speed has nothing to do with efficiency unless you are starting to go
fast enough to introduce air resistance. Those fast spinning cyclists
you deride are probably getting up that hill far more efficiently than
your wasteful technique.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven wrote:
Artemisia wrote in news:1189175506.087339.182640
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On 7 sep, 15:28, Peter Clinch wrote:

Which is what I've supposed all along, but do you want to get the top of
the hill in the most optimally energy efficient way, or the most
subjectively /comfortable/ way right there and then? I, and I suspect
Artemesia, and the majority of other cyclists will prefer the most
subjectively comfortable way, even if it's slower. And especially if
it's quicker.
Exactly - I guess I didn't phrase my initial question correctly. I
should say, for the same speed and distance uphill, which will get me
less out of breathe, walking or cycling?

For me walking because I can walk more slowly than I can cycle. It will
take longer and use more energy but I will be less out of breath doing it.

But she says "at the same speed".

It's still not a black and white answer, because your muscles
aren't all working in a common pool in a precisely similar way
between the two modes so it's not just a case of working out the
energy needed.

There will be times when walking will work better, and there are
times when cycling will work better. Variables include the hill,
the wind, your tiredness, how fast you can hit the bottom of the
hill, how gung-ho you feel at the time, and so on.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven wrote:
gary2006uk wrote in
oups.com:


cycling up steep hills is less efficient than walking.ive seen many
mountain bikers riding,legs spinning round,hardly moving,whilst
walking i have also passed bikers on the mountains.ive even seen
cyclists in very low gear on the road,in too low a gear,legs going
round like mad,hardly moving,very innefficient,one turn on my gear on
a racing bike leaves them standing.i think some of them dont want to
put any hard effort into cycling.ive also seen bikers on low gear
dawdling along,no physical effort being used,they cant be benifiting
physicaly in fitness riding that slow.god forbid if they ended up on a
hill on a cycle track.



You've mixed up lots of things that have nothing to do with efficiency
and some that do and you have the wrong way round. For example spinning
quickly is more, not less, efficient than your "one turn on my gear".
Speed has nothing to do with efficiency unless you are starting to go
fast enough to introduce air resistance. Those fast spinning cyclists
you deride are probably getting up that hill far more efficiently than
your wasteful technique.

I think that when the gear becomes really low, the effort of rotating
the legs many times over a short distance becomes significant. Whereas
with walking, the stride length is not decreased very much.

Julian Gallop