More distance per Calorie: Walk vrs Granny Gear Uphill?

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

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 would think that cycling up would be less efficient.
In both cases, you need to get the same weight up the same
height/distance.
The cycle will not be 100% efficient in transferring power to the
wheels.However, there may be a slight advantage with the very low
rolling resistance, compared to friction of the feet/tarmac interface.
Maybe not.
The legs walking up will be a lot more efficient in tranferring the
power to make forward progress, so I'd assume walking would be the most
energy efficient way.
Over to the physicists.
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

Artemisia wrote in
:

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...


Cycling is a more efficient way of moving than walking so cycling up will
use less energy

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven wrote:

Cycling is a more efficient way of moving than walking so cycling up will
use less energy

Is cycling more efficient than walking under all circumstances? Are you
speaking from experience?

EFR
Ile de France

Artemisia wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

Cycling is a more efficient way of moving than walking so cycling up
will use less energy

Is cycling more efficient than walking under all circumstances? Are you
speaking from experience?

Just a quick guess here, but is cycling up a 45degree
slope similarly efficient to running up a 45 degree flight
of stairs at the same speed?
(for a weightless bike).

Martin.

Martin Dann wrote:
:: Artemisia wrote:
::: Tony Raven wrote:
:::
:::: Cycling is a more efficient way of moving than walking so cycling
:::: up will use less energy
:::
::: Is cycling more efficient than walking under all circumstances? Are
::: you speaking from experience?
::
:: Just a quick guess here, but is cycling up a 45degree
:: slope similarly efficient to running up a 45 degree flight
:: of stairs at the same speed?
:: (for a weightless bike).
::
:: Martin.

Can one cycle up a 45 degree slope? Isn't that 100% grade?

Artemisia wrote in
:

Tony Raven wrote:

Cycling is a more efficient way of moving than walking so cycling up
will use less energy

Is cycling more efficient than walking under all circumstances? Are
you speaking from experience?


No I'm speaking from the research evidence. Walking takes about 40% more
calories per mile than cycling for commuting and the difference can be much
more. If you had a really heavy bike it might equal things out a bit on a
hill but it would have to be really heavy.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.fall...eb.projects/J%
20Krizek/humanpower%20page%203.html

--
Tony

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

On 7 sep, 00:28, Martin Dann wrote:

Just a quick guess here, but is cycling up a 45degree
slope similarly efficient to running up a 45 degree flight
of stairs at the same speed?
(for a weightless bike).

Why running?

EFR
Ile de France

On 7 sep, 02:17, "Roger Zoul" wrote:

Can one cycle up a 45 degree slope? Isn't that 100% grade?

Well if it can't even be done, then it can't be as efficient, can it?

EFR
Ile de France

On Sep 7, 2:38 pm, Tony Raven wrote:
Artemisia wrote :

Tony Raven wrote:

Cycling is a more efficient way of moving than walking so cycling up
will use less energy

Is cycling more efficient than walking under all circumstances? Are
you speaking from experience?

No I'm speaking from the research evidence. Walking takes about 40% more
calories per mile than cycling for commuting and the difference can be much
more. If you had a really heavy bike it might equal things out a bit on a
hill but it would have to be really heavy.http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.fall...eb.projects/J%
20Krizek/humanpower%20page%203.html

But you are assuming that the "research evidence" about general
cycling (including level and downhill riding) also applies to the
specific case of cycling up a steep hill. Clearly there are such large
and fundamental differences in the physics that this hypothesis is at
best...a hypothesis. It's not an implausible null hypothesis when the
slope is reasonably shallow and the surface firm, but I don't see any
reasonable basis for it in steep and soft conditions (and anecdotal
evidence suggests it is wrong).

In soft mud (or sand, see below) there is no question that cycling can
be harder work, even on the level. Again, that is exactly as expected
from simple physical principles.

http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=2585

James