Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bicycling is a pain in the neck!

  1. Aug 20, 2005 #1

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Any bicycling enthusiasts here? I used to bike to work some years ago, then stopped and was biking only on the weekends for a while; with a hybrid with extension bars. A few years went by and I started having incredible neck pains whenever I was crouching over the extension bars and looking ahead at the same time. That forced me to stop biking altogether.

    Recently someone claimed that working with weights should take care of the neck problem.

    Then there is the recumbent option -- I practically grew up on an upright bicycle so I am not sure whether I'd feel the same thrill.

    Any thoughts or advice?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 20, 2005 #2

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Why not just sit upright? It'll slow you down a bit, but if you're riding a bike rather than driving, speed doesn't seem to be the point.
     
  4. Aug 20, 2005 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Uhm, get rid of the extension bars?
     
  5. Aug 20, 2005 #4
    I knew there was a reason I never learned how to ride a bike. :tongue:
     
  6. Aug 20, 2005 #5
    Riding a bike to work is often faster than driving, so speed is often the point.
     
  7. Aug 20, 2005 #6
    First thing I would do is have someone take a look at your riding position. Most decent bike shops have people that would probably be happy to help you out with that.

    Most riding related pain usually ends up being caused by poor riding position, which is something that can be fairly easily fixed.
     
  8. Aug 20, 2005 #7

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'm trying to imagine under what circumstances it would be faster to ride a bike than drive. The last job I can think of that I held where that might have been the case was at the LA County Museum of Natural History. It was a 20-mile commute, and took me a little over an hour to get there usually (traffic on the I-5 and I-10 in Los Angeles is consistently ridiculous). I can probably maintain a speed of 20 MPH on a bicycle for an hour or so without too much difficulty, but I would be dripping in sweat by the time I got to work. Then again, as I'd be stopped by traffic lights every several hundred feet, being physically capable of maintaining that speed doesn't mean I'd actually be able to do it. So seriously, under what circumstances is the average commuter going to cut down on commute time by bicycling?
     
  9. Aug 20, 2005 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unless it's intra-city, I can't imagine it being faster. That's an incredibly small percent of commute traffic.

    I live 19 miles from my office and I can go 70mph for 17 of those miles, it's against rush hour traffic, so no congestion.
     
  10. Aug 21, 2005 #9

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Thanks for all responses. I think I'll follow up on the advice to get ergonomic counseling.

    I could get almost as fast as a car commute going downhill to work; but I had to go much slower (and endure more pain) on the way back. I thought about getting an electric-aided bike and use the battery power on the way back, but never got around to actually buying one.

    Is it anatomically possible to sit completely upright on a bicycle, if it's not a recumbent?
     
  11. Aug 21, 2005 #10
    There is a bolt connecting the gooseneck holding your handlebars to your front-wheel fork. If you loosen that bolt, you will be able to remove your gooseneck with you, handlebars attached to it, and replace them with any other gooseneck/handlebars, including ones that can give you a completely upright riding posture.

    [​IMG]

    You can also change your gooseneck or handlebars individually. What kind of bike do you have? If you have a mountain bike, you might have a gooseneck on it right now that extends forward several inches. Yes? If you replace that with a gooseneck that extend forward a shorter distance, you will sit more upright when riding.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2005
  12. Aug 21, 2005 #11

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Compared to public transportation the bicycle easily can be faster, compared to the car only in rush hour.

    On the bicycle I go from one side of Amsterdam to the other in 25 minutes, by public transportation it would be 40 minutes (incl. waiting for tram), by car I don't know, it would probably take 15 minutes in easy traffic (using the city ring, not through downtown), BUT in morning and evening rush hour you are better off on a bicycle (might even be faster).

    Other example is the bus, it goes from the train station to right in front of my house in 10 minutes. I always used to take my bicycle, the bus and me would leave at the same time, I always got home a few minutes before the bus came past my house.
     
  13. Aug 21, 2005 #12

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What kind of bike is it? Road, mountain or "hybrid" (another word for "neither."). By "extension bars" do you mean the time-trial aero-position bars (formerly known as "triathlete bars")? If it is the latter, you probably don't need them since they don't start saving you time until you hit 18 mph.
     
  14. Aug 21, 2005 #13
    A breakdown of some car vs bike commuting-speed items

    Ivan Illich calculated that the average car driver — counting time as money and the monetary cost of vehicle ownership divided into working hours per the commuter's earning power, plus the time that goes into ownership duties such as taking care of maintenance, repair, paperwork, and research multiplied by the commuter's earning power — goes about 5 MPH. If you go 5 MPH in your car, it may not be too hard to go faster on your bicycle. If you have large earning power and/or do not place any value in exercise and/or pay someone else to take care of your ownership responsibilities, it may be faster to drive a car.

    Saving of time is often the key reason for given instances of bicycle commuting.
     
  15. Aug 21, 2005 #14

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :uhh: Most of the rest of us mean faster as in the time it takes to get from point A to point B, or the average speed. The rest of that calculation is just nonsense. He sure must have been going out of his way to make some ridiculous point in an argument to have gone to all that trouble as it has nothing to do with reality. You can't just translate earnings into miles per hour. How absurd.
     
  16. Aug 21, 2005 #15

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I figured it would mostly be in small cities with dense populations and narrow roads. The only places in the US remotely like that are Manhattan and San Francisco.
     
  17. Aug 21, 2005 #16

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    No kidding, huh? This reminds me of an argument I once had with a girl over her contention that she rode a bike everywhere to save energy. I pulled up all the tables from my old chemistry textbooks, performed the calculations, and demonstrated that, at her weight and fitness level, her body consumed more joules per commute than a small, fuel-efficient car would have, and she would also spend more on food to fuel her body than she would have on gasoline. Predictably, she said that I had missed the point.
     
  18. Aug 21, 2005 #17

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    With the caveat that a bicyclist can probably go somewhat faster than a car in cities due to the lax enforcement of rules of the road for bicyclists. In other words, while a car has to go the extra block or two to avoid a one-way street and has to stop for every traffic light and must stay on the right side of the road, bicyclists who break the law by running red lights, cycling around cars on the wrong side of the road, or taking one-way streets the wrong way can probably shave off considerable time. This is all illegal for them to do, but the rules of the road are rarely enforced for bicyclists. This remains limited to travel within cities; no bicyclist is going to get to work faster than a car if a stretch of the trip involves a highway where the cars can drive 60 or 70 mph.
     
  19. Aug 21, 2005 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: I might have just smacked you with the chemistry book for being a wise-guy. :tongue:

    Of course comparing cost-effectiveness rather than speed might have made more sense. But, in that case, I would have flipped the argument the other way around regarding "time is money" and determined for every minute extra I'm on public transportation or a bicycle instead of at my destination, that's time I could be working and am not, so I'm losing money. But even that is a largely irrelevant calculation unless you're paid an hourly wage. I could also argue that my free time outside of work is more valuable to me than the time I spend in work, thus wasting any of my time outside work in the process of getting from place A to B rather than being at my destination doing what I want to be doing is very costly.

    (Now who around here was saying GD posts were getting boring? :rofl:)
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2005
  20. Aug 21, 2005 #19
    Fuel calories of bicyclists vs those of economy cars

    score.kings.k12.ca.us/lessons/calories/calorieburn.html

    --
    calories burned per pound per minute
    [...]
    Bicycling (25 mph): .139 calories
    --


    120 lb girl = 16.68 calories per minute = 1,000.8 calories per hour = 40.032 calories per mile.

    "A gallon of gasoline (about 4 liters) contains about 31000 calories."
    google.com/search?q=gallon+gasoline+calories


    A 60-MPH, 60-MPG economy car burns fuel calories at 31 times the rate of a typical 25-MPH, 120-lb bicyclist; and burns 12.9 times the fuel calories per mile.
     
  21. Aug 21, 2005 #20

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow! That's a pretty generous estimate of a 60 MPG car! Where can I get one of those?! :biggrin:

    Though, one catch, but I don't know how much it would alter the outcome (I don't think it would change it enough to change the conclusion, especially since you already biased the calculation toward far better fuel economy for the car than what's on the market), is that if loseyourname was calculating cost of food vs cost of gasoline, humans are far from 100% efficient at using the energy in foods, so they need to consume more calories than they actually are using (the unused calories are returned to the environment, so you wouldn't factor it into energy usage, but you still have to pay for the food you're not utilizing). The comparative cost estimate (as opposed to just the energy consumption estimate) would also depend on the cost of gas and the cost of food at the time. Right now a lot of calculations would have to be adjusted for much higher gas prices than a few years ago.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bicycling is a pain in the neck!
  1. Cure for stiff neck (Replies: 36)

  2. Neck cracking (Replies: 12)

  3. I have a neck thing (Replies: 35)

Loading...