Fuelling a bicycle

fred246

I have been using myfitnesspal recently to lose a bit of weight. When I cycle to work it takes about 80 minutes. So the calories burned mean I can basically eat another meal in that day. As this is a money saving site it struck me that the cost of a meal is probably more than the cost of petrol if I had driven. Most people overeat anyway so the bicycle just helps keep weight off. However, if my weight was perfect in theory fuelling a bicycle could be quite expensive. Maybe I should eat cheaper food!

JP08

Think you've overestimated your calories burned. Reckon that 80mins closer to 2 Mars bars ...

Nasqueron

Are you getting your calories total from something like a bike gps with heart rate monitor and accurate measurements of your height, weight, HR zones etc

For me a 70 minute ride doing 18 miles is about 748 calories burned - a bit less than 3 mars bars, really need to be doing a couple of good hours to get close to a full meal - a recent longer rid I did of 65.5m over 4 3/4 hours with over 6000 feet of elevation gain burned 2964

Any which way ensure you are properly hydrated during the ride and have a recovery energy bar after, something with carbs and protein, I like clif bars personally. Start the ride with some fuel as well, be it porridge, toast or whatever. Before my 7m commute I just have coffee

Scrimps

Youve forgotten to factor in the cost of running a cars consumerables that are more expensive than running a bike. Brakes, tyres, servicing, as well as insurance, tax, mot etc - all cheaper to do for the bike if there is a cost at all.
As you get lighter it will take less calories to propel yourself. Savings on gym memberships also by just keeping yourself fit from daily life.
Burn fat, not oil. Even lean people carry many, many miles worth of body fat to fuel cycling

[Deleted User]

I used to burn about 360 kcal per hour. At 12mph and £1.09 per 1000kcal that's about 3.3p/mile.

brat

Scrimps wrote: »

Youve forgotten to factor in the cost of running a cars consumerables that are more expensive than running a bike. Brakes, tyres, servicing, as well as insurance, tax, mot etc - all cheaper to do for the bike if there is a cost at all.
As you get lighter it will take less calories to propel yourself. Savings on gym memberships also by just keeping yourself fit from daily life.
Burn fat, not oil. Even lean people carry many, many miles worth of body fat to fuel cycling

I'm not sure cycling is cheaper than driving. I spend about £1500 per year on bikes and about £500 on kit and £500 on maintenance. I've never worked out what I spend on fuel, but this year I will ride 8,000 miles in about 450 hours of riding, so at 800 kcals/hour and roughly £2 per 1000 kcals that's about £800 of fuel. All in all that's abiout £70 per week!

Worth every penny!

Scrimps

brat wrote: »

I'm not sure cycling is cheaper than driving. I spend about £1500 per year on bikes and about £500 on kit and £500 on maintenance. I've never worked out what I spend on fuel, but this year I will ride 8,000 miles in about 450 hours of riding, so at 800 kcals/hour and roughly £2 per 1000 kcals that's about £800 of fuel. All in all that's abiout £70 per week!

Worth every penny!

You spend on bikes what it costs me to run my car for the year - all in :eek:

Is the ideal number of bikes N+1 (Where N = number of bikes you currently have?)

If you were just using a bike to replace a car for commuting and travel etc, the typical user would not spend as much as you surely?

In the 3 years since we moved (when I started using my bike more) Ive probably spent about £700 on kit (mostly bike lights, lid and decent lock) and repairs. That said, I trying to be quite minimalist (read: tight) with outgoings and buying stuff I have to find a place to put..

I dont cycle nearly as much as you though, if it were that embedded in my whole life, I would happily spend as much.

Truth be told, I dont even like cycling that much - I really wish I did. I did recently get a new saddle thats made a massive difference which means I dislike it less , but then I crashed/injured before I could go on any long bike rides to properly test it out.

Nasqueron

Scrimps wrote: »

You spend on bikes what it costs me to run my car for the year - all in :eek:

Is the ideal number of bikes N+1 (Where N = number of bikes you currently have?)

If you were just using a bike to replace a car for commuting and travel etc, the typical user would not spend as much as you surely?

In the 3 years since we moved (when I started using my bike more) Ive probably spent about £700 on kit (mostly bike lights, lid and decent lock) and repairs. That said, I trying to be quite minimalist (read: tight) with outgoings and buying stuff I have to find a place to put..

I dont cycle nearly as much as you though, if it were that embedded in my whole life, I would happily spend as much.

Truth be told, I dont even like cycling that much - I really wish I did. I did recently get a new saddle thats made a massive difference which means I dislike it less , but then I crashed/injured before I could go on any long bike rides to properly test it out.

The ideal number is N+1 < S-1

That is to say the ideal number is one more than you currently have, but 1 less than would cause your partner to leave you

I should really work out what I spend on gear, food etc but for me cycling to work 3 days out of 5 saves 42 miles of stop start crawl traffic which is worse for the engine and wear and tear plus keeps me fitter so can't complain too much

[Deleted User]

brat wrote: »

I'm not sure cycling is cheaper than driving.

About 10 years ago I compared the costs of walking, cycling, motoring and rail. I've lost it now, but I recall it wasn't as clear cut as it might seem. I included everything: clothes, maintenance, food, fuel etc., but it's quite difficult, as it depends on what assumptions you make. For example, how far are you going? If it's long distance the cost of accommodation jacks up the price of walking and cycling.

People whine that motoring is expensive, but travel is cheaper than it's ever been. Nowadays you can drive 100m for the price of a few hours average wage, not so long ago it would have cost a week's lost wages and a week's food & accommodation.

PasturesNew

fred246 wrote: »

.... it struck me that the cost of a meal is probably more than the cost of petrol if I had driven....

Most can't/won't see this part of the equation

You're right. I could lose weight by two methods:

1] Exercise. Buy suitable clothes and shoes. Possibly join a gym. Possibly drive to that gym and have to pay for parking. Then you have to "eat better food" that costs more .... and you can eat more, so you do eat more....

2] Eat less.

I eat less. It's cheaper when you view it holistically

It's like "cheap meals" where they have the oven on for 2 hours
That 2 hours of running time is more costly than any meal I could've eaten!

Angry_Bear

PasturesNew wrote: »

Most can't/won't see this part of the equation

You're right. I could lose weight by two methods:

1] Exercise. Buy suitable clothes and shoes. Possibly join a gym. Possibly drive to that gym and have to pay for parking. Then you have to "eat better food" that costs more .... and you can eat more, so you do eat more....

2] Eat less.

I eat less. It's cheaper when you view it holistically

It's like "cheap meals" where they have the oven on for 2 hours
That 2 hours of running time is more costly than any meal I could've eaten!

Hmm, but "getting healthier" is not the same as "losing weight" and I'd wager that someone who controlled their weight mostly through exercise is likely to be significantly healthier than someone who controls their weight mainly through food.*

* Please note I said likely, and there are a number of assumptions I can't be bothered to put down. Please don't bother starting to point out the risks in extreme sports and so on, as we all know that's not what I'm getting at