Cost per mile

daveski12

Just done a quick calculation (based on what I can remember buying, and I am a beginner so have bought lots of stuff recently) including the cost of my bike and including 11 PPM on food I come out at 38PPM over 2652 miles.

alan_sherman

I'm still using the bike I bought in 1992. There have been some new parts but it has by most depreciation measures hit zero value. That is good, it is only the consumables (tyres, chains, brake blocks, handlebar tape, tyres, tubes) plus clothing and recharging the battery for the rear blinky (front is a dynamo).

veronese68

When I started riding to work recently I started eating an extra sandwich every day. Bought from the sandwich wagon that pulls up in the car park that would cost £12.50 a week.
Prior to that I used to ride a motorbike. Petrol was costing about £12 a week. So it was roughly break even on fuel costs. Or, it would be if my wife didn't make my sarnies.

6654henry

Difference in attitude after cycling to work rather than public transport or vehicle? Priceless.

daviesee

6654henry wrote:

Difference in attitude after cycling to work rather than public transport or vehicle? Priceless.

* infinity

godders1

wyadvd wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

Do Drivers not eat?

They do but the average male driver who commutes 20 miles a day needs to eat 2200 calories to cover their base metabolic rate plus the calories required to sit at a computer all day. A cyclist uses at least an extra 1000+ kcals on top of this base calories. Cycling uses 50 calories per mile roughly over and above base metabolic rate.

I cycle between 100 and 150 miles a week and need to eat around 4000 calories or I start to loose weight and there's nothing of me as it is!

Have a look at this links and YouTube this guy:
http://www.messarchives.com/messville/FOODTAX.HTM

I don't doubt the numbers but I suspect very few people eat the bare minimum in calories anyway so the "fuel costs" for a cyclist will be much smaller in reality.

For example since I started cycling to work my additional consumption has been a banana (shortly after I arrive at work) and a glass of chocolate milk (when I get home) at a combined cost of about 40p per day. At 32 miles a day that's 1 and a quarter pence per mile (I think ).

I don't tend to go very fast, I assume that's another factor.

wyadvd

Godders1 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

Do Drivers not eat?

They do but the average male driver who commutes 20 miles a day needs to eat 2200 calories to cover their base metabolic rate plus the calories required to sit at a computer all day. A cyclist uses at least an extra 1000+ kcals on top of this base calories. Cycling uses 50 calories per mile roughly over and above base metabolic rate.

I cycle between 100 and 150 miles a week and need to eat around 4000 calories or I start to loose weight and there's nothing of me as it is!

Have a look at this links and YouTube this guy:
http://www.messarchives.com/messville/FOODTAX.HTM

I don't doubt the numbers but I suspect very few people eat the bare minimum in calories anyway so the "fuel costs" for a cyclist will be much smaller in reality.

For example since I started cycling to work my additional consumption has been a banana (shortly after I arrive at work) and a glass of chocolate milk (when I get home) at a combined cost of about 40p per day. At 32 miles a day that's 1 and a quarter pence per mile (I think ).

I don't tend to go very fast, I assume that's another factor.

If you ate more calories than you needed before you cycled, then you would have a bit of adipose tissue (the calories dont just dissapear). Effectively what you are saying is that the cycling you are doing now is being fueled by the excess calories you consumed all those years ago. In the scheme of things the equation equals out eventually as over 60% of the energy for cycling comes directly from fat reserves, but it all has to come from somewhere (even if the food from which it was derived was purchased 5 years ago!) Me, I am skin and bone and have to eat like a horse to maintain my 69-72 kilos (depending on how recently the kids got dropped off at the pool) when I am cycling, not having significant reserves of food I ate years ago about my person. It takes around 140 miles of cycling to shift one kilo of fat by the way (7000 calories)

The Rookie

I've tracked all my costs in terms of purchases etc, also my commuting mileage and the amount saved on not running my car (at known cost), I haven't allowed for extra food which I reckon costs me about an extra 75p/day (13.4 mile round trip).

So far I have commuted 2971.6 miles, saving £926.49 and have spent a total of £429.20 on bike parts (both bikes home built), tools etc not accounted for as they are used on all the family bikes (all 9).

I use the 'profit' to pay for my mountain bike - I'll get my coat.

godders1

wyadvd wrote:

Godders1 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

Do Drivers not eat?

They do but the average male driver who commutes 20 miles a day needs to eat 2200 calories to cover their base metabolic rate plus the calories required to sit at a computer all day. A cyclist uses at least an extra 1000+ kcals on top of this base calories. Cycling uses 50 calories per mile roughly over and above base metabolic rate.

I cycle between 100 and 150 miles a week and need to eat around 4000 calories or I start to loose weight and there's nothing of me as it is!

Have a look at this links and YouTube this guy:
http://www.messarchives.com/messville/FOODTAX.HTM

I don't doubt the numbers but I suspect very few people eat the bare minimum in calories anyway so the "fuel costs" for a cyclist will be much smaller in reality.

For example since I started cycling to work my additional consumption has been a banana (shortly after I arrive at work) and a glass of chocolate milk (when I get home) at a combined cost of about 40p per day. At 32 miles a day that's 1 and a quarter pence per mile (I think ).

I don't tend to go very fast, I assume that's another factor.

If you ate more calories than you needed before you cycled, then you would have a bit of adipose tissue (the calories dont just dissapear). Effectively what you are saying is that the cycling you are doing now is being fueled by the excess calories you consumed all those years ago. In the scheme of things the equation equals out eventually as over 60% of the energy for cycling comes directly from fat reserves, but it all has to come from somewhere (even if the food from which it was derived was purchased 5 years ago!) Me, I am skin and bone and have to eat like a horse to maintain my 69-72 kilos (depending on how recently the kids got dropped off at the pool) when I am cycling, not having significant reserves of food I ate years ago about my person. It takes around 140 miles of cycling to shift one kilo of fat by the way (7000 calories)

I don’t think I was very clear.

Yes, previously I was overeating, that’s a part of the point I was making.

I suspect quite a few people consume more calories than they need to and so when going from driving to work to cycling to work they won’t suddenly find they are spending £18 per week extra on food (the cost to me according to the figures you mentioned earlier). They will simply be in better shape with minimal additional outlay on food.

CJ Bill

I regard the calories I burn as a naturally occurring by-product of the beer and wine I consume anyway and hence "free".

meanredspider

After buying the Volagi & fitting Di2, I'd rather not work out the cost per mile so far this year..... :shock:

The Garmin 800 seems to be pretty accurate as far as calories are concerned (about half what my Garmin 305 Forerunner was saying for the same ride) - around 50kcal per mile at circa 17-18mph. Since power (rate of calorie burn) is the square of speed, speed is really important in the calculation. That said, 30 miles on the MTB on ice spikers at 14mph and I'm far more tired than the same distance at 19mph on the V.

daviesee wrote:

Dieting without exercise doesn't work.

Just for you? For the population in general, diet is by far the most important factor - besides, it's far easier to eat 600kcals than it is to burn it off (one of the reasons why people who use exercise to lose weight tend to add weight).

samsbike

Hmm there is also the extra washing costs

wyadvd

The point I am trying to make is that if you were over eating before you started to cycle, then without being aware if it at the time, you were spending too much on your food and as a result you were putting on weight. The 'cost' of the fuel was being spent even before you started cycling . You don't spend more when you start cycling , but the fat that you are burning cost you money at the time that it was laid down. The calories that produced that fat were not free when you ate them were they?
I was a skinny b@stard when I started cycling and I still am , so. When I started cycling I got massively hungry and started spending about 20 quid more a week on food . I did not overheat when I drove to work so I was not spending that money already. Therefore my extra spend was incurred at that time rather than at any time in the past when I may or may not have become a bloater (which I never have been!) Some fat lazy people have MASsive food bills don't they? Some people's hunger response is much better attuned to their energy output.

If you cannot understand this concept ill give up. It's not that important really! I'm not saying I'm disagreeing with you , but when you are burning fat, you are burning foods that cost money at the time the fat was laid down, rather than the day before you cycle. You could use a financial analogy for the food if you like . While you are busy driving to work, eating too much and getting fat, it's like you are putting money in the savings bank by getting fat. Your earnt that money, it's real money but you saved it (by getting fat). The reason you do notfeel like cycling is costing you any extra for is because right now you are drawing on savings so your daily budget is not affected!

godders1

I see your point and I don't disagree (and I like the "fat bank" analogy ).

I guess another aspect is that most people don't see food purely as "fuel". I enjoy eating and the vast majority of my calorie intake is good food (not necessarily nutritionally "good" but good quality, well cooked etc). So in that sense it has a qualitative "value" that vehicle fuel doesn't.

wyadvd

You obviously have not read what I wrote in the previous post. The energy you are using now for cycling still cost money, it's just that you are not spending it now, you spent the money on that energy while you were over eating and not cycling. This thread's purpose is to quantify the cost per mile of cycling. Energy is a very big part of that. Just because you happen to be cycling on energy that you ate last year doesn't mean it didn't cost you something when you ate it! Every calorie you use for cycling costs money and should be accounted for properly and accurately if you are going to be geeky and accurate about the cost of cycling. I think the problem is that most people's sensibilities will not accept that the cost of the energy you use for cycling is about the same as the diesel you would put into a small car for the same mileage: about 11p per mile. That's a fact. I know it hurts but it's true I'm afraid.

wyadvd

I love my food too and probably spend an awful lot more than the 11p a mile I quote. Mainly because I raid the hospital canteen at lunch and totally pig out a a cost of about a fiver a day. My figures come from the average British spend per day (£5) on 2200 calories of food and the standard 50 kcal per mile figure.

godders1

wyadvd wrote:

You obviously have not read what I wrote in the previous post. The energy you are using now for cycling still cost money, it's just that you are not spending it now, you spent the money on that energy while you were over eating and not cycling. This thread's purpose is to quantify the cost per mile of cycling. Energy is a very big part of that. Just because you happen to be cycling on energy that you ate last year doesn't mean it didn't cost you something when you ate it! Every calorie you use for cycling costs money and should be accounted for properly and accurately if you are going to be geeky and accurate about the cost of cycling. I think the problem is that most people's sensibilities will not accept that the cost of the energy you use for cycling is about the same as the diesel you would put into a small car for the same mileage: about 11p per mile. That's a fact. I know it hurts but it's true I'm afraid.

I don't understand how me saying "I see your point and I don't disagree" indicates that I haven't read what you've been saying. :? I accept your point re. previously being overweight and now using that fat (which cost at the time) to fuel current activity.

Yes, you are quantifying the cost of cycling hence my second, separate point being that you are not considering qualitative factors. When you put petrol in a car you get nothing other than the fact that it makes your car move, food is a lot more to us than just "fuel".

If you're only concerned about what the numbers say then of course this isn't an issue for you anyway but I think it's worth a mention.

daviesee

meanredspider wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Dieting without exercise doesn't work.

Just for you? For the population in general, diet is by far the most important factor - besides, it's far easier to eat 600kcals than it is to burn it off (one of the reasons why people who use exercise to lose weight tend to add weight).

Sorry, not been on for a while. Yes, I meant personally.
I enjoy fine dining and quality quaffing too much to contemplate a serious diet. I need exercise, especially with a desk bound job.

daviesee

Double post. :oops:

jimmypippa

meanredspider wrote:

After buying the Volagi & fitting Di2, I'd rather not work out the cost per mile so far this year..... :shock:

The Garmin 800 seems to be pretty accurate as far as calories are concerned (about half what my Garmin 305 Forerunner was saying for the same ride) - around 50kcal per mile at circa 17-18mph. Since power (rate of calorie burn) is the square of speed, speed is really important in the calculation. That said, 30 miles on the MTB on ice spikers at 14mph and I'm far more tired than the same distance at 19mph on the V.

daviesee wrote:

Dieting without exercise doesn't work.

Just for you? For the population in general, diet is by far the most important factor - besides, it's far easier to eat 600kcals than it is to burn it off (one of the reasons why people who use exercise to lose weight tend to add weight).

I suspect that you are putting in similar amounts of effort per unit time in both cases, just that in one you are travelling 14/19 times the distance in that time, so have to work for longer.

wyadvd

Godders1 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

You obviously have not read what I wrote in the previous post. The energy you are using now for cycling still cost money, it's just that you are not spending it now, you spent the money on that energy while you were over eating and not cycling. This thread's purpose is to quantify the cost per mile of cycling. Energy is a very big part of that. Just because you happen to be cycling on energy that you ate last year doesn't mean it didn't cost you something when you ate it! Every calorie you use for cycling costs money and should be accounted for properly and accurately if you are going to be geeky and accurate about the cost of cycling. I think the problem is that most people's sensibilities will not accept that the cost of the energy you use for cycling is about the same as the diesel you would put into a small car for the same mileage: about 11p per mile. That's a fact. I know it hurts but it's true I'm afraid.

I don't understand how me saying "I see your point and I don't disagree" indicates that I haven't read what you've been saying. :? I accept your point re. previously being overweight and now using that fat (which cost at the time) to fuel current activity.

Yes, you are quantifying the cost of cycling hence my second, separate point being that you are not considering qualitative factors. When you put petrol in a car you get nothing other than the fact that it makes your car move, food is a lot more to us than just "fuel".

If you're only concerned about what the numbers say then of course this isn't an issue for you anyway but I think it's worth a mention.

my sincere apologies.no offence intended. I think we were both typing our responses at the same time. I'm just too much of a pedant with these things to let anyone else have the last word I suppose. Fault of mine. Sorry

godders1

No worries.

EKE_38BPM

I haven't read all of this thread, so I may be going over old ground, but I have a theory (or is it a hypothosos?).
Anyway, perhaps fat people are more efficient at extracting nutrition from food? Give me a pie containing x calories and I may extract (x . 0.5) calories whereas a more efficient extractor (also known as a fattie) may extract (x . 0.7) calories.
We've both eaten the same but fattie has taken more from the pie just because nature likes to play games.
I always feel hungry but fattie says "I only have to look at a pie to put on weight".

Not edited for political correctness.

dhope

3am posts... RLJ, advocating riding in the gutter and fat people... Have you been drinking EKE? Is there something you want to tell us about a receptionist?

wyadvd

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I haven't read all of this thread, so I may be going over old ground, but I have a theory (or is it a hypothosos?).
Anyway, perhaps fat people are more efficient at extracting nutrition from food? Give me a pie containing x calories and I may extract (x . 0.5) calories whereas a more efficient extractor (also known as a fattie) may extract (x . 0.7) calories.
We've both eaten the same but fattie has taken more from the pie just because nature likes to play games.
I always feel hungry but fattie says "I only have to look at a pie to put on weight".

Not edited for political correctness.

Mmmmmm, scratches beard sagely .......mmmm

You might be right there.....

michaelappleton

Very interesting PorlyWorly, I think I may starting logging this myself.

SimonAH

I started to do the numbers, came to a horrible figure per mile, and then thought 'hang on, major mathematical misconception at work here".

We are all factoring in the cost of bicycles and gear - NOT the cost of consumeables and (pedant alert :-) ) additional food. Which is all that you should count.

When working out my car costs do I include trousers that I may wear when driving?
Do I include the cost of my car (apart from depreciation)?
Do I include a nice insulated coffee mug for those early morning commutes?

No, no and no.

If you just take into account consumables, food and depreciation then I submit that you'll struggle to get past about tuppence a mile.

meanredspider

I think my numbers are something like

£3 a day in extra food, about 20p a mile in depreciation (assuming the bike and gear lose about 50% in a couple of years). Consumables are inconsequential - so about 30p a mile I reckon.

EKE_38BPM

dhope wrote:

3am posts... RLJ, advocating riding in the gutter and fat people... Have you been drinking EKE? Is there something you want to tell us about a receptionist?

No receptionist action.
Gutter riding was sarcastic.
My fat people post may be correct.

Yes, I had been drinking.

wyadvd

SimonAH wrote:

I started to do the numbers, came to a horrible figure per mile, and then thought 'hang on, major mathematical misconception at work here".

We are all factoring in the cost of bicycles and gear - NOT the cost of consumeables and (pedant alert :-) ) additional food. Which is all that you should count.

When working out my car costs do I include trousers that I may wear when driving?
Do I include the cost of my car (apart from depreciation)?
Do I include a nice insulated coffee mug for those early morning commutes?

No, no and no.

If you just take into account consumables, food and depreciation then I submit that you'll struggle to get past about tuppence a mile.

It's around 11p a mile in food costs alone, as I have said