I editorialised the title as the original was clickbait, but the video itself is quite good. Interestingly, e-bikes are claimed to have lower emissions than acoustic bikes, although it likely depends on diet (the author didn’t specifically compare a vegan diet between the two types but did indicate that vegan + electric is the most carbon efficient form).

  • vormadikter@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      An acoustic bike is a joke term for a regular bike; think of the comparison between an acoustic guitar and an electric guitar

        • toadyody@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • boatswain@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m a native speaker and my first thought was “wtf is an acoustic bike?” “Analog bike” would make a bit more sense.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Analog is the opposite of digital, which doesn’t describe an electric bike.

          • Tvkan@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            “Analog” has been used to say “the older, pre-computer version” since for decades now. It’s fine.

    • Jako301@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

            • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

          • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Reading through some sites, 0.5kcal/h seems to be average that when biking leisurely on a normal bike.

            700cal/h would mean that you could cycle for 300h with 500ml of coca cola.

            • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              USA uses cal and kcal interchangeably because being confusing with units is our specialty. Guess I should say “Cal” instead of “cal”, but no one but chemists care about the difference here. My mistr.

    • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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).

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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).

  • Annoyed_🦀 🏅@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • waitmarks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.