Save an ounce of fuel - use the bike!
NervexProf
Posts: 4,202
Some dodgy maths here, albeit a polemic article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 662159.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 662159.ece
Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom
0
Comments
-
It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
-
Roastie wrote:It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.0
-
JonGinge wrote:Roastie wrote:It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.
Yup, I expect the author knows full well that what he's written is a load of cobblers. However, he'll also be well aware that a significant chunk of the Times readership will lap it up and take it as cast-iron fact (i.e the sort who see any curbs on their freedom to drive what they want, where they want, at the cheapest possible price as a contravention of their human rights (i.e. the sort who genuinely think Jeremy Clarkson would make a good PM (i.e. cretins))). He's right of course, just look at some of the comments - 'I've got a Merc SL' - well whoopee-f**king-doo.0 -
Ha. They stuck my comment up.
8)0 -
ChrisInBicester wrote:Ha. They stuck my comment up.
8)
+1
I am really proud of ommisions re emmisions.
Probably the best bit of work I have done all dayNone of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
JonGinge wrote:Roastie wrote:It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
The most ridiculously made up and unbalanced argument I've ever seen, a clear case of deciding the resultand making the 'facts' fit it.
SimonCurrently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
Sigh. What a load of cobblers. As previously commented, it's there to serve those who would rather not make changes to their lifestyle.
I'm sure the arguments will be comprehensively dismantled. On the one hand, he calculate the 'cost' of making the bike. On the other, the car just materialises out of nowhere.
The guy talks about the ecological cost his food, as if he wouldn't need to eat food if he didn't cycle. But what about the petrol? The cost of drilling, extracting, transporting, refining, storage, distribution, etc. And that's before he even drives to the petrol station.
It's a pity that it's masquerading as a genuine piece of science. I'm sure it will be used in citation, somewhere, just as this piece of rubbish is:
http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5c.htm
This would probably fail a GCSE science project, but some people take it seriously. In it, they compare the efficiency of a diesel engine to that of an electric car. However, they include all the generation and losses of the electrical power, but compare it with a car which, magically, arrives with a a tank of diesel out of thin air.0 -
ChrisInBicester wrote:Ha. They stuck my comment up.
8)
Chris,
Well done for commenting, but there's no need to worry about your CO2 emissions from heavy breathing!
The CO2 emissions from breathing can be largely disregarded. They're part of short-term carbon cycle. You eat stuff, which has consumed carbon, and you breath, which returns carbon. When you breath out, you are replacing the carbon dioxide that the plants took from the atmosphere. The equation is balanced. As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.
Burning fossil fuels is a direct emission - at some point, the carbon had been locked away (e.g. in coal or oil) but is now being burnt and leads to a net increase in CO2. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are returning carbon which has not been recently taken from the atmosphere.
So keep on breathing!!0 -
I'm not worried about breathing, heavily or any other sort. Was just making the point that we breathe anyway so breathing a bit more has a minuscule effect compared to the energy involved in shifting a ton or so of car around with one person on board, compared to cycling 21 miles in 1h 5m. I reckon it's more to do with solar activity and natural cycles, and anything that we do is pretty much irrelevant by now anyway.0
-
ChrisInBicester wrote:I'm not worried about breathing, heavily or any other sort. Was just making the point that we breathe anyway so breathing a bit more has a minuscule effect compared to the energy involved in shifting a ton or so of car around with one person on board, compared to cycling 21 miles in 1h 5m. I reckon it's more to do with solar activity and natural cycles, and anything that we do is pretty much irrelevant by now anyway.
Ah I see. It's just that I've heard the 'heavy breathing' argument used against cyclists. Carry on!0 -
jinnan_tonnix wrote:ChrisInBicester wrote:Ha. They stuck my comment up.
8)
Chris,
Well done for commenting, but there's no need to worry about your CO2 emissions from heavy breathing!
The CO2 emissions from breathing can be largely disregarded. They're part of short-term carbon cycle. You eat stuff, which has consumed carbon, and you breath, which returns carbon. When you breath out, you are replacing the carbon dioxide that the plants took from the atmosphere. The equation is balanced. As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.
Burning fossil fuels is a direct emission - at some point, the carbon had been locked away (e.g. in coal or oil) but is now being burnt and leads to a net increase in CO2. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are returning carbon which has not been recently taken from the atmosphere.
So keep on breathing!!
+1
Terrible article. The life cycle carbon of a car and a litre of petrol would make the 'maths' involved tell a very different story. :roll:0 -
This New Scientist story seems to be doing something similar:Empty seats
Cars emitted more than any other form of transport with the notable exception of off-peak buses, which often carry few passengers. The researchers found that travelling 1 kilometre on a nearly empty bus during off-peak hours emits eight times more per person than taking the same bus at rush hour – suggesting peak-time commuters may suffer, but they do less harm to the environment.
The occupation level of a vehicle is an important but often-overlooked factor, says Chester. "Although mass transit is often touted as more energy efficient than cars, this is not always the case." Buses turned out to be the most sensitive to how full they were – those with only five passengers were less efficient than cars; even large SUVs and pick-up trucks.
So a bus with fewer passengers than an SUV can carry is less fuel-efficient per passenger-km?
Wow,
How efficient would a bus with no passengers be?
This is a brilliant example of stating the obvious, as all it means is that busses are heavy, and the extra weight of passengers doesn't affect their fuel economy muck.
In the first paragraph an off-peak bus with 8-passengers would be almost twice as fuel-efficient as one with four.
I am alos ineterested in the supporting infrastructure for airports compared to trains.0 -
The consideration that the car comes free, the bike is an extra is indeed pandering to the perceptions of readers, who no doubt would see a £10,000 car as both necessary and cheap, but a £500 bike as being unnecessary and expensive.
Personally I see my fleet of bicycles as being well worth the money and very CO2 neutral...except maybe the folder, haven't had a fraction of the use I thought I'd get out of it.
The road bikes though, current cumulative ODO readings at 21,000 miles and counting, I think the CO2 not generated compared to a car, with the added health benefit, more than outweighs any energy cost in their production.'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
I read it and assumed that he had his tongue firmly in his cheek; was I just being too easy on him??0
-
jinnan_tonnix wrote:[As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.0
-
Always Tyred wrote:jinnan_tonnix wrote:[As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.
Looxury!0