>They are the most energy efficient form of transportation.
...On flat smooth surfaces. On any natural environment or terrain they are nowhere near as efficient as walking.
...On flat smooth surfaces. On any natural environment or terrain they are nowhere near as efficient as walking.
Modern fat bikes will be more efficient than walking in the scrub desert where I live, in grasslands, in not too dense woodlands, on any kind of open dirt/sand.
Obviously at some point there's a line, where you can't ride a bike, but for most roads and trails, the bike is going to win.
I wonder how many calories MacAskill burns. He makes it seem pretty effortless.
But yeah, in some natural environments, with some kinds of bikes, you can beat walking. The Burning Man festival is a great example, but it is also a terrible place to live.
That's why in most cases, without smooth roads, bikes are not practical.
- Fat bikes are more efficient than snowshoeing or breaking trail on XC skis.
- CX bikes are more efficient than walking in mud.
- Fatter tire gravel bikes are more efficient than hiking through sand.
- A bike with a 51T cog and 28T ring will be more efficient than hiking up steep grades until balance at low speed becomes an issue.
A smooth and flat road, while not necessary, is better and does make things a lot more efficient. The same is true for any wheeled vehicle but cyclists appreciate it a lot more than motorists.