<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bike versus Biodiesel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://odograph.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334</link>
	<description>Odograph - n. an instrument recording distance traveled, especially by a pedestrian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:40:49 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: odograph</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-111985</link>
		<dc:creator>odograph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-111985</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s true.  I was taught the capitalization rule back when I got my old chem degree.  I guess I&#039;m lazy now and just use &quot;calorie&quot; in what I think is the public sense.  I say &quot;calorie&quot; for what is on a food packaging label.

My thought at the time was that the audience would relate to food calories and that would simplify things.

Reading your post now, I see that I could have said food Calories and made more people happy ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s true.  I was taught the capitalization rule back when I got my old chem degree.  I guess I&#8217;m lazy now and just use &#8220;calorie&#8221; in what I think is the public sense.  I say &#8220;calorie&#8221; for what is on a food packaging label.</p>
<p>My thought at the time was that the audience would relate to food calories and that would simplify things.</p>
<p>Reading your post now, I see that I could have said food Calories and made more people happy ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Goddard</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-111957</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Goddard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-111957</guid>
		<description>Just a heads up:  calories are gram calories, Calories are kilocalories

so a gallon of gasoline has 31,000,000 calories

and 31,000 Calories</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a heads up:  calories are gram calories, Calories are kilocalories</p>
<p>so a gallon of gasoline has 31,000,000 calories</p>
<p>and 31,000 Calories</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Castor Oil Biodiesel</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-98289</link>
		<dc:creator>Castor Oil Biodiesel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-98289</guid>
		<description>Hi!

Dropped in quite accidentally, while searching for information on biodiesel yields!! Yet liked the discussion in the blog article...let me take time to &quot;drink&quot; your argument - oil is oil whether used as food or as diesel....hmmm

Thoughts from http://www.castoroil.in</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>Dropped in quite accidentally, while searching for information on biodiesel yields!! Yet liked the discussion in the blog article&#8230;let me take time to &#8220;drink&#8221; your argument &#8211; oil is oil whether used as food or as diesel&#8230;.hmmm</p>
<p>Thoughts from <a href="http://www.castoroil.in" rel="nofollow">http://www.castoroil.in</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: odograph</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-50806</link>
		<dc:creator>odograph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-50806</guid>
		<description>Sorry to be slow on the comment approval ... since I haven&#039;t been posting I haven&#039;t been checking the queue either.

As far as which to compare with which, I think it&#039;s all just numeric play.  As I ride my bike I mentally compare with the people I see in a larve SUV (one person, no observable cargo, on a beautiful road not &#039;requiring&#039; a truck).

I left out the whole speed thing because I was thinking, in the speed domain a bicycle can easily achieve, how does a car compare?  I kind of left it that machines can certainly more energy faster than a human on a bicycle ever could.  I&#039;m sure a dragster burns more in 5 sec than a bicyclist all day.  And so on.

Best wishes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry to be slow on the comment approval &#8230; since I haven&#8217;t been posting I haven&#8217;t been checking the queue either.</p>
<p>As far as which to compare with which, I think it&#8217;s all just numeric play.  As I ride my bike I mentally compare with the people I see in a larve SUV (one person, no observable cargo, on a beautiful road not &#8216;requiring&#8217; a truck).</p>
<p>I left out the whole speed thing because I was thinking, in the speed domain a bicycle can easily achieve, how does a car compare?  I kind of left it that machines can certainly more energy faster than a human on a bicycle ever could.  I&#8217;m sure a dragster burns more in 5 sec than a bicyclist all day.  And so on.</p>
<p>Best wishes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kjmclark</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-50697</link>
		<dc:creator>kjmclark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-50697</guid>
		<description>Terribly sorry, the first sentence of the second to last paragraph should say &quot;... to move one or more people,...&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Terribly sorry, the first sentence of the second to last paragraph should say &#8220;&#8230; to move one or more people,&#8230;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kjmclark</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-50696</link>
		<dc:creator>kjmclark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-50696</guid>
		<description>Figures from Bicycling Science 2nd ed., Whitt and Wilson, MIT Press 1994, p186:

Note that figures for human-powered transportation are in incremental consumption above the resting level.

Road bicycle plus rider
4mph    8.4 kcal/km  2440mpg
10mph  15.6 kcal/km  1310mpg
15mph  24.4 kcal/km  840mpg

Auto plus one rider
30mph  539kcal/km 38mpg
60mph  820kcal/km 25mpg

That calculator doesn&#039;t seem to work very well.  It determines that it takes more energy to travel on a bike at 5mph than at 18mph, but the wind resistance drag increases with the square of the speed, and wind resistance is the limiting force for cyclists on a flat road.  You might ask them for their calculations so you can make better ones.  Bicycling Science goes through the studies and calculations it uses to get to those results.  Worth a read.

A more important point, which isn&#039;t really a quibble with your result, is that if the purpose of a car is to one or more people, what is the point of comparing the mass moved?  Put another way, your figures demonstrate that we can move one person 32 miles with 1440 calories by bike or the same person 32 miles with 30800 calories (or more than 21 times as much) by car.  

To be complete, you should compare a 1/5 loaded passenger train WRT kcal/passenger/mile.  Bicycling Science lists the loaded train as 183mpg @ 30mph and the 5 passenger car as 170mpg @ 30mph.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Figures from Bicycling Science 2nd ed., Whitt and Wilson, MIT Press 1994, p186:</p>
<p>Note that figures for human-powered transportation are in incremental consumption above the resting level.</p>
<p>Road bicycle plus rider<br />
4mph    8.4 kcal/km  2440mpg<br />
10mph  15.6 kcal/km  1310mpg<br />
15mph  24.4 kcal/km  840mpg</p>
<p>Auto plus one rider<br />
30mph  539kcal/km 38mpg<br />
60mph  820kcal/km 25mpg</p>
<p>That calculator doesn&#8217;t seem to work very well.  It determines that it takes more energy to travel on a bike at 5mph than at 18mph, but the wind resistance drag increases with the square of the speed, and wind resistance is the limiting force for cyclists on a flat road.  You might ask them for their calculations so you can make better ones.  Bicycling Science goes through the studies and calculations it uses to get to those results.  Worth a read.</p>
<p>A more important point, which isn&#8217;t really a quibble with your result, is that if the purpose of a car is to one or more people, what is the point of comparing the mass moved?  Put another way, your figures demonstrate that we can move one person 32 miles with 1440 calories by bike or the same person 32 miles with 30800 calories (or more than 21 times as much) by car.  </p>
<p>To be complete, you should compare a 1/5 loaded passenger train WRT kcal/passenger/mile.  Bicycling Science lists the loaded train as 183mpg @ 30mph and the 5 passenger car as 170mpg @ 30mph.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: odograph</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-43126</link>
		<dc:creator>odograph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-43126</guid>
		<description>A newer, related, article appers &lt;a href=&quot;http://odograph.com/?p=412&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A newer, related, article appers <a href="http://odograph.com/?p=412">here</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Miles</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-33851</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Miles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-33851</guid>
		<description>A fair comparison would be an engine hauling only itself and fuel, vs a man on a bike, which is in essence, an engine and fuel.  But then, the bottom line is the bottom line....cost.  If I spent no more per month on groceries than I do now, and was able to ride my bike to and from work instead of a car, then for me, that might equate to a savings of 40.00 a month in gasoline (320 miles a month, 25 mpg, 2.75$ a gal).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A fair comparison would be an engine hauling only itself and fuel, vs a man on a bike, which is in essence, an engine and fuel.  But then, the bottom line is the bottom line&#8230;.cost.  If I spent no more per month on groceries than I do now, and was able to ride my bike to and from work instead of a car, then for me, that might equate to a savings of 40.00 a month in gasoline (320 miles a month, 25 mpg, 2.75$ a gal).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Schwab</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-29998</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Schwab</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-29998</guid>
		<description>I did a similar calculation for a cycling newslist.  However, I used the cargo capacity instead of total weight to factor in the efficiency of the design of the vehicle.  I use your bicycle numbers.  The semi weights I have seen on vehicles.  The semi mileage I remember from an email from a tucking company dispatcher.  The VW Jetta info I got from http://www.vw.com/vwcom/content/objects/pdf/vw_jetta_specs.pdf

Bicycle 190 - 30 = 160 * 684 miles per gallon = 109,440 cargo pound miles.
VW Jetta Diesel 4,302 - 3,197 = 1,105 * 30 mpg = 33,150 cpm.
Semi 80,000 - 32,000 = 50,000 * 7 mpg = 350,000 cpm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did a similar calculation for a cycling newslist.  However, I used the cargo capacity instead of total weight to factor in the efficiency of the design of the vehicle.  I use your bicycle numbers.  The semi weights I have seen on vehicles.  The semi mileage I remember from an email from a tucking company dispatcher.  The VW Jetta info I got from <a href="http://www.vw.com/vwcom/content/objects/pdf/vw_jetta_specs.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.vw.com/vwcom/content/objects/pdf/vw_jetta_specs.pdf</a></p>
<p>Bicycle 190 &#8211; 30 = 160 * 684 miles per gallon = 109,440 cargo pound miles.<br />
VW Jetta Diesel 4,302 &#8211; 3,197 = 1,105 * 30 mpg = 33,150 cpm.<br />
Semi 80,000 &#8211; 32,000 = 50,000 * 7 mpg = 350,000 cpm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: odograph</title>
		<link>http://odograph.com/?p=334&#038;cpage=1#comment-29778</link>
		<dc:creator>odograph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://odograph.com/?p=334#comment-29778</guid>
		<description>FWIW, this site rates driving as &quot;very light&quot;, one step up from resting ;-).

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

We don&#039;t know of course, but I assume the bikemetro calories are the increase over normal, non-strenuous activities like driving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FWIW, this site rates driving as &#8220;very light&#8221;, one step up from resting ;-).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html</a></p>
<p>We don&#8217;t know of course, but I assume the bikemetro calories are the increase over normal, non-strenuous activities like driving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
