Why on earth is this animated?
Plus why does cost of transport have inconsistent spacing between lines and inconsistent scale movement? The scale is neither linear nor log. It sometimes doubles, and then sometimes just adds 0.2, 2, or 20. And also still a scale that’s flipped from (at least my) expectation would be with more efficient towards the top and less efficient towards the bottom. Sometimes there’s a minor grid line, sometimes there isn’t. And sometimes the minor grid line isn’t even at the half mark
At least the body weight keeps to a consistent log scale
Is there a data is ugly community?
The uneven spacing is common in log scales when you want to show lines between powers of 10. You can’t divide a log scale evenly.
It might make more sense if it was shown with thicker lines for each power of 10, and then thinner lines in between:
0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 1
2 4 6 8 10
20 40 60 80 100
It’s a log scale with linearly spaced gridlines.
What on earth is a velomobile?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velomobile
Tl;dr: An enclosed bicycle designed to have as little air resistance as possible. Banned in the Tour de France because amateurs in a velomobile are quicker than pros on a racing bicycle.
And how can that be lighter than a bicycle, since it is a bicycle with extra stuff?
Not lighter, it has much less air resistance because of aerodynamic design.
The human torso on a regular bicycle is basically a wall. If you’ve ever ridden a bicycle on a windy day, you should know the agony. It’s like continuously riding up a slope.
It is much lighter in the graph though! And this is even on a log scale
Yeah, I didn’t think of the graph when responding.
Though I believe it’s wrong.
How is a bicycle supposed to weigh 100 kg with a rider? The average bike is certainly less than 20 kg so the rider would have to weigh 80 kg or more - which seems like a lot for the average human. I mean, it’s overweight even for the average man.
According to the German Wikipedia page, velomobiles weigh between 20 to 40 kg. And the former seems to be only achievable with a full carbon fiber build. That’s definitely more than your average bicycle.
Yes, I also believe it’s wrong. Doesn’t make me trust in the rest the graph is showing…
You’re talking about efficiency, but in the chart the velomobile is marked as lighter than a bicycle. Why?
It’s denoted as being only slightly lighter, which I guess might be doable if you’re optimal about the construction. It is indeed a bit weird though, on average a bicycle should be possible to build lighter than a velomobile
Anyone else read the entire wiki article? TIL about velomobiles. So cool.
What about a salmon on a bicycle?
or a horse with jet engines
I wish they had put snake on there for comparison purposes. They seem to have a certain economy of motion compared to legged animals, though friction could be an issue?
I am really surprised salmon beat jellyfish. “Efficient” is meter per joule? I’m still surprised. Heck, I’d have bet a Greenland Shark, or a Whale Shark to beat salmon.
Also: a jet plane is more efficient þan a glider? Þe title is “Most efficient,” not “efficiency of a random sampling.”
I don’t see jellyfish in the graph?
“The most efficient” implies þat þe most efficient are, indeed, somewhere in þe graph. Jellyfish not being in þe graph implies þey are not among þe most efficient.
If that were true, this would mean no fish or other swimming animal is among the most efficient. Except for salmon. I doubt this is true, so I also doubt we can really make this statement. It seems more likely to me that the creator made some choices what animals to show based on personal preference.
Heck, I’d have bet a Greenland Shark, or a Whale Shark to beat salmon.
They’re only considering “land” travellers. Though they include birds and fish that are not directly propelling themselves using the land, so take from that what you will.
Salmon are land travellers?
First look, I thought the purple area said Batman.
