Bikers win!

>>1014691
That graph is retarded. Not only is it based on completely arbitrary numbers for "efficiency", but it's also blatantly biased. The Boeing 727 was effectively retired in the early 2000's and is nowhere near as efficient as current commercial aircraft

>>1014691

I can't believe how much trains suck desu

I thought they were environmentalists wet dreams

But that efficiency is at the cost of calories. You'd be fat riding bikes if it were to be highly efficient.

>>1014711
>arbitrary numbers
>J/(passenger*km)

Don't seem too arbitrary. What would you suggest as a better measure of efficiency?

>>1014717
Something practical, like cost per mile or something. Comparing efficiency between human-powered transportation and vehicular (internal combustion, electric, etc) transportation is like comparing apples and oranges, though.

>>1014717
Doesn't compare speed which is HUGE factor in transportation.

>>1014691
>Bikers win!
>How does this make you feel /n/?
Feeling nothing.

Want point out mistake:
Passengers of lorries stupid concept.
Forgetting speed.
Where Uber?

HTH

>>1014691
don't mind the haters OP I think thats a really nice graphic

>>1014714
>>1014716

t. Misread the graph

>>1014734
So would you be happy with
Joule-per-passenger-kilometer-per-hour ?

>>1014691
I'm surprised how efficient buses are compared to light rail considering how trucks are far less efficient than trains.

What could be the reason for this?

>>1014809
Trucks are MUCH smaller than freight trains, trams not so much in scale compared to trains

>>1014813
Oh I see. How important is the reduced friction on rails? I guess it doesn't matter at the low speeds buses and light trains travel at.

Maybe light rail is better on very flat surfaces while buses are better on gradients and future cities have to take this into account.

>>1014691
>boeing 722
They don't even use those anymore
How about some real airplanes?

File: 1360739276209.jpg (239KB, 1200x710px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1200x710px

>>1014691
Feels like I still got wings.

File: der-raddampfer-freya-am-12052013-35179.jpg (441KB, 1200x899px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1200x899px

I guess ships are intentionally left out.
Naval transport easily wins this efficiency game .

>>1014809
>>1014813
>>1014817
I don't even know why trucks are on that list. All the modes of transportation are rated using a passenger metric, which trucks are not used for.

>>1014716
Per distance traveled, yes, but you burn more calories over a given period of time while cycling.

>>1014764
How? Food energy can be measured in joules.
1 food calorie (kilocalorie) = 4,184 joules

>>1014785
Yes

>>1014950
but humans are not as nearly capable of transforming the food energy in kinetic energy like internal combustion engines.

what this graphs left out:
>speed
>exact amount of passengers in each vehicle (cars can carry from one to even 6 or 7 passengers, trains can carry some dozens to hundreds)
>what type of car are whe talking about (diesel? hybrid? electric?)
>energy transformation speed (what i said earlier)

also: how the fuck are taxies so much inneficient if they are just cars?

>>1015079
Cars are less efficient in city traffic than they are when driven at steady speeds, and taxis are cars that are practically always in city traffic.

>>1015079
I think because at a lot of taxis wait around at idle near airports and stuff.

>>1015079
IIRC humans and ICE are about the same in chemical to kinetic efficient, hovering around 20%.

That doesn't account for the cost of production though or power. The thing is a gallon of gas 120MJ. A 1lb box of dry pasta has 7MJ.

>>1015086
that's not what i said. i talked about speed. supposing both a man and a car have the same energy to spend, cars can spend it much faster than humans

File: bmw_isetta_open.jpg (46KB, 400x356px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x356px

>>1015088
That's like saying Usain Bolt can run faster than me.

Also you don't seriously think the train bar represents moving an entire train for one person do you? It's per passenger you idiot.

>>1015088
and how many passangers does a train move exactly, because according to that, trains can carry only one specific amount of passangers and who knows what is that supposed to be in this graph

>>1015096
It's based on average occupancy you dunce

>>1015097
and wich is that average? trains can be very long or very short, can be long distance or short distance, can support only sitting people or sitting and standing people. trains are very varied

>>1015100
An average based on a report by transit authorities and experts.

>>1015079
>also: how the fuck are taxies so much inneficient if they are just cars?

a lot of time idling or deadheading

>>1015079
the main thing that makes bikes more efficient isn't replacing a engine with a human, the efficiency of a person's metabolism isn't much better than burning petrol

the efficiency improvement comes from the fact that a bike weighs 20lbs and a car weighs 2 tonnes

File: why2.jpg (22KB, 510x264px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 510x264px

>>1014691
>comparing motorized means of transport to non-motorized
yeah I'm surely going to take a bike to ride 20km up a hill, or 200km to another city

>>1015197
>ride 20km up a hill or 200km to another city
this board is for people who do such things for fun
you appear to have gotten lost on your way to >>>/o/

>>1015197

And yet tons of idiots will take a car to travel a couple km on flat ground.

File: Figure_8.8.jpg (49KB, 511x382px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 511x382px

This chart is better.

>>1015214
>no typical and maximum loading bars for a moped
Whoever made this chart has never been to a country where mopeds are used as transportation

>>1014748
>Where Uber?

Taxis are there right at the bottom mate

>>1015198
>what is public transit
every. fucking. time.

>>1015217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4IRUDjT8WU

>>1015086

I always find it amazing when I pick up a gallon jug, look at it and think

>This amount of gasoline can move a 4,000lbs object 20 miles

>>1014691

This graph is interesting.

But

>Lorry
>Passengers

>>1014691
>The Conversation
Good, thanks for the image, I found the article.

>>1014729
But isn't the picture arguing for the environment? Sure, things can be cheap, but less efficient.

>>1014691
>only win by energy
there are much more factors. for example time time per distance

>>1015811
All average pretty much the same for inner city traffic. Bikes are usually the fastest. Buses, cars and trams about the same. All around the 20km/h average mark, plus or minus a handful.

>>1014872
Maybe sailboats

>>1014691
Look at the bottom
Bikes are on the most efficient side
They are the best
I feel happy

>>1015346
Praise physics.
Praise chemistry.
Praise engineering.

>>1015346
Because I'm better than you, whenever *I* hold up a gallon jug I think
>dayum, this amount of uranium could break California off the continental U.S. and drag it over the Pacific to go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come too.

>>1016238
Ever sailed alone? Even if you've done that shit for years it takes a lot of effort