Ok, so i am not a native speaker of english, so excuse my questions....
Whats an acoustic bike?
And if an E-bike runs with electricity, the acoustic bike runs when i scream at it?
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
48 points (84.3% liked)
Fuck Cars
9500 readers
31 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
An acoustic bike is a joke term for a regular bike; think of the comparison between an acoustic guitar and an electric guitar
That’s a joke? How about analog bike or maybe manual bike.
But those are are normal terms for a regular bike. Acoustic bike is a joke because it is wordplay.
It usually works out pretty well with native speakers not familiar with the term. They usually have a moment with a blank stare thinking "what the hell is an acoustic bike?" and then realize all at once with a smirk.
As for your second question, acoustic becomes a good classification when talking to a group where electric bikes are the default, just like electric becomes a good classification where pure pedal bikes are the default. In a group where ebikes are the default they might assume you're talking about throttle type if you say analog, or a pedal assist bike if you said manual. It started as a joke and became a useful term.
I'm a native speaker and my first thought was "wtf is an acoustic bike?" "Analog bike" would make a bit more sense.
Analog is the opposite of digital, which doesn't describe an electric bike.
It's a lot closer than acoustic.
Those also work, yes.
Analog is the opposite of digital, which doesn't describe an electric bike.
"Analog" has been used to say "the older, pre-computer version" since for decades now. It's fine.
AAAAAAAAAAA!!! MOVE DAMMIT!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Oh, so cars are acoustic too! At least in traffic jams
Another term for a non electric bike. Like electric guitar and acoustic guitar. No idea why you would call it that, but it's only used in a smal circle of enthusiasts.
sorry. Im not going to buy that someone with a horrible diet on a standard bike is going to be less environmentally friendly than an e-bike. This is just a smell test thing. I will accept that e-bikes could beat out public trans or such and that some folks might do an e-bike where they won't do a standard one. Including those with bad diets who might not be able to handle to much of a workout and even great in shape folks can go farther or go to places and arrive in a condition appropriate to what they are going to with an e-bike.
Given the immense footprint of certain foods I can believe it.
yeah but you have to take into account relative effect in how much more of that bad footprint food they will eat vs what they will eat anyway. The difference is minimal.
Diet is a huge component of most people's footprint. If you start biking 12 hours more a week (how much I would need to if I wanted to switch from my ebike to my acoustic for commuting*), you are going to eat a lot more. If a significant amount of those calories is coming from the standard beef you'd get at a US supermarket, its no surprise you'd be better off using a coal-charged ebike at similar speeds**. So much fossil fuels go into producing that. Tomatoes are worse than chicken apparently though.
*I'm not in good enough to bike at work in under 1.25 hours multiple days in a row and still be in good enough condition to do my job, especially if there are headwinds.
That is just patently false. You will eat slightly more. The majority of everyones calories goes toward keeping your heart beating and existing. It takes an extreme amount of working out to shift that needle and two hours of cycling won't do that. If you have access to a public gym with the equipment that can track calorie burn go see how much it takes to burn 100 calories. Body builders with extreme workouts can double their calorie intake but that is way more than some extra hours cycling. This is why when I did the napkin math I found the standing desk with relaxing over lunch will burn more calories than sitting and walking vigorously during my lunch.
According to my HR monitor, I typically burn about 750-1000 calories/hr when doing cardio exercise for 1 hour. Like, a 3 hour session, I might burn 2400 calories. My basal metabolism when sitting and standing is about 120 calories/hr.
Even with an electric bike, I sometimes burn like 500 calories/hr. During actual bike rides, its more like 700 calories each way.
Dude man. I think your monitor is off. Burning 1000 extra calories a day is killer. Also intense cardio is way more of a workout than commuting cycling which is more on the level of a brisk walk if that. EDITED - I have been thinking about it and you may be. I will tell you that the typical person will not usual do more than an hour of cardio so you likely may do a killer workout and those are people who work out. Riding a bike on a per mile basis will brun less than a leasurely walk but will burn more on a per time basis. My wife with her ski machine thing burns 100 calories in 20 minutes and that would be with excertion way beyond commute cycling. Likely a person using an e-bike compared to sitting in a climate controled electric car will burn more calories additionally than what they burn on an e-bike compared to a non electric bike just do to temperature, sitting more actively and upright, and exposure to the elements.
I've used two different brand chest strap monitors (actually, 3, but one was in college spin class many years ago and I don't have any of the data for that, but I used to average zone-4 heart rates with peaks over 210 bps basically every class, so it gives some comparison). With my current one, it seems responsive to everything from sedentary activity to intense cardio. That said, my average heart rate during exercise is above 150 (my most recent 1hr session, my HR rarely dropped below 160bps after the warmup), so the linear relationship between calories and HR no longer holds. So I agree I should take it with a grain of salt, but at least this calculator says at my weight I should be burning over 900 calories if my HR is 150 for 1 hour of exercise. My RHR is like 50, so its not like my HR is just always high either. Still HR-> calories still isn't an exact conversion. A power meter or an O2 exhalation lab would give better info.
Anyways, I agree intense cardio workouts are a lot more than cycling, which was mentioned in my above comment (I only burn about 700 calories/hr commuting vs 750-1000 getting exercise).
The numbers I get from my HR apps are also lower than online calculators for equivalent workouts: they estimate my commute should be 900-1200 calories for my weight and pace (I'm 200lbs/90kgs), not 700 calories. I get to ride on lots of trails, so if not many people are out walking, I don't have as much slowing down/speeding up as someone commuting by roads, and its on a carbon road bike, so that might contribute.
Also, given the length of the commute, I'm not going to go slower than normal recreational bike rides: I just try to avoid doing all-out sprints on the way to work and then the ride on the way home I regularly did all-out sprints during some segments. And even if I went at a more casual pace, the total calories actually wouldn't change that much (maybe 10-15%?). It would of course spread the remaining calories over more time, so the burn rate would be lower.
Burning 1000 extra calories a day is killer.
Which is why I stopped acoustic biking to work and switched to ebike. I would be tired during my shift even after just biking one way. I don't know if I ever biked to work two days in a row: I don't think I could have done my job if I tried that.
The arguments between the two certainly can get complex easily. In the end, either option is well ahead of cars and at least in the same ballpark as rail. And I think that's the most important takeaway, that bikes are an incredibly efficient form or transport, and at the least e-bikes are a good option for those where a normal bike would be (or perceived to be) too much effort.
I'll add the video does consider non-carbon environmental related effects to be worse with e-bikes compared to normal bikes, which makes sense because of the battery. But hopefully that will get better over time with the move away from cobalt and other rare earth minerals, and an increase in recycling of batteries.
I agree that the comparison between the two is quite complex (given the many side effects). But I was interested in this question and have done a few back-of-the-envelope calculations on the ongoing CO2 emissions:
Regular Cycling:
- The caloric consumption of cycling is approximately 2300 kcal / 100 km [1]. Or 2.7 kWh / 100 km.
- The CO2 footprint of 1 kcal is approximately 1 (vegan) to 3 (meat-heavy) gCO2/kcal [2]. The average is approximately 2 gCO2/kcal.
- This yields 2.3 kgCO2 / 100 km for a vegan diet and 4.6 kgCO2 / 100km.
- The result is in the same ballpark as the Guardian article [3] at 2.5 to 3.5 kgCO2/100km.
- The 96 kgCO2 for production [3] would correspond to 0.5 kgCO2/100km over the 19200km lifetime [3].
(Motor-only) E-bikes:
- The energy use is about 2 kWh / 100 km (3.3 kWh per 100 miles) [4].
- But pedal-assisted commuter e-bikes only use 0.7 kWh / 100km (1.1 kWh per 100 miles) [4]??
- This also seems quite high compared to the 2.7 kWh / 100 km above, given that human muscles are only about 30% efficient [6].
- With the US carbon intensity (0.368 kgCO2/kWh [5]), this yields 0.736 kgCO2/100km.
- This result is much lower than the Guardian article [3], probably because it doesn't include manufacturing.
- The 165 kgCO2 for production [3] would correspond to 0.86 kgCO2/100km over the 19200km lifetime [3].
Based on this, it seems quite plausible that an E-Bike is significantly more efficient than a regular bike, even if the rider is a vegan. But, both are way better than all types of cars and even public transport.
References
- [1] https://www.canyon.com/en-ch/blog-content/advice/calories-burned-cycling/b24062022.html
- [2] https://bitsabout.me/en/the-carbon-footprint-of-your-diet/
- [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/sep/23/why-arent-more-big-bike-firms-tracking-their-environmental-impact
- [4] https://sites.google.com/view/ebikestudy/results
- [5] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?country=~USA
- [6] https://www.germanjournalsportsmedicine.com/fileadmin/content/archiv2017/Heft_9/Standard_EN_Boening_Wirkungsgrad_Muskelarbeit_9-2017.pdf
Remember, you can offset carbon emissions by buying more carbon fiber bikes :)
Just don't crash them, bump them in the wrong spot... Or really, peer at them too intently lol
Yee-yee, aluminum frame gang (with carbon fork).
Steel gang checking in
Yeah, I've heard a lot about the fragility, but I've been happy, and the only real scratches are on the (carbon) wheels.
A torque wrench is mandatory though, unlike a steel bike where gorilla strength is probably ok!
Only thing I've broken on my acoustic carbon bike was my shoulder. Oh, and I snapped a pretty new chain once trying to pedal when the light turned green (which I think also messed up one of the teeth on the crankset).
But what if those vegans eat a lot of beans? Those methane farts are killing us!
CCS will save us.
Also, the answers are all in the Arch Linux wiki.
Glad we cleared that up.
As a non native English speaker, why is it "acoustic" bikes? What does acoustic have to do with bicycles?
its a play on words of the 2 main types of guitars (electric and acoustic) Basically a joke implying that if one type of bike is electric, the other must inherently be acoustic.
It's e-coustic, actually.
A lot of us native English speaking cyclists wonder the same thing.
My buddy calls them "naughty" bikes, as in "not e". I think it's cuter than acoustic.
Yeah, the i hate the title so much for a very informative video, but i guess it's the kind of title that will lure the uninformed one and potentially change their mind.
But you have to trust they would actually watch the video and not just read the title.
I knew it would go over poorly if I left the original title here (and rightly so) but maybe it is a good fit on YT to reach more people. Know your audience and all of that.