• Arkthos@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Couldn’t really find any sources, but honestly it sounds reasonable enough. Engines are way more specialized for their single mechanical task than our legs are.

    Of course you also move around way, way more weight most of the time. The mass/payload ratio is way worse with cars than with bikes so the comparable thermal efficiency would need to be greater to make up for that.

    Beyond being a curiosity it is a moot point anyways. Humans need exercise to be healthy, and as you said, there are other environmental factors like car construction, gas refinement, etc. That I imagine mostly favour bikes too.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Thermal efficiency is purely a measurement of how much of the energy you put in, goes to actual work, and how much is wasted through heat.

      Mass only plays a part in that thermal efficiency might change depending on the load the work is performed on.

      I can’t think of a single engine that have better thermal efficiency than an electric one. (Not taking into account how the electricity was produced)

      You’re right about it being a moot point. There are far more important aspects than simply thermal efficiency. I just wanted to set the record straight. Because saying humans have better thermal efficiency than cars is just not true. Not even close.

      We evolved sweat for a reason. Our thermal efficiency is so bad we had to develop external cooling or we would overheat.