Why can a person cycle more in a day than they can walk or run?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter saddlestone-man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cycle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the reasons why a person can cycle further in a day compared to walking or running. It touches on the physics of movement, energy expenditure, and the mechanics involved in cycling versus other forms of locomotion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the average person can cycle significantly further than they can walk or run, citing world records as examples.
  • One participant questions whether the total work needed is greater on a bike due to the weight of the bike and rider.
  • Another participant suggests that the efficiency of cycling is related to the mechanics of the wheel, which reduces friction and conserves momentum.
  • It is proposed that cycling requires less energy for maintaining speed on flat surfaces compared to walking or running, which involves lifting the center of mass against gravity.
  • Some participants discuss the role of the human leg structure in supporting weight during walking and running, which may make cycling more efficient.
  • There is mention of the impact energy lost during walking and running, which does not occur in cycling, allowing for coasting.
  • Comparisons are made between cycling and other activities like skating, highlighting the differences in energy expenditure and momentum maintenance.
  • One participant challenges the idea that kinetic energy is fully regained while cycling downhill, arguing that wind resistance dissipates most of it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views on the mechanics and efficiency of cycling versus walking and running. Participants express differing opinions on the role of energy expenditure, the impact of weight, and the effects of momentum, indicating that consensus has not been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about energy expenditure, the definitions of work in physics, and the conditions under which comparisons are made (e.g., surface type for cycling). These factors may influence the conclusions drawn.

  • #31
A.T. said:
But walking and running also involves lifting the center of mass, even on level ground.
Very little raising and lowering is necessary with the right technique but that technique can be very tiring. russian dance (wait for the ads)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
sophiecentaur said:
Very little raising and lowering is necessary with the right technique but that technique can be very tiring. russian dance (wait for the ads)
Yes, the straight leg acting as an inverted pendulum raises the CoM in normal walking, but is still more efficient than bending the leg to keep the CoM on constant height, because then muscles need more force to stabilize the bent joints.
 
  • #34
A.T. said:
Yes, the straight leg acting as an inverted pendulum raises the CoM in normal walking, but is still more efficient than bending the leg to keep the CoM on constant height, because then muscles need more force to stabilize the bent joints.
The muscles 'waste' a lot of energy, just holding a load up and doing no actual work on the load. Fibres keep tensing up and relaxing, which uses significant energy just to stay still. A Bike frame uses no energy just staying rigid and the rider is sitting there, doing no work apart from pedalling etc. when necessary. Far more efficient.
There is a certain amount of energy storage in the leg tendons (same for horses too) which gets returned to the system but that's not as good as you get from a wheel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
32K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K