Originally Posted by CdCf
Yep.
Efficiency is the ratio of input to (useful) output.
If you had a three-wheeled bike, but otherwise as efficient as a two-wheeler, balance would no longer be an issue.
That leaves the pedalling.
Let's aim for a cadence of 80, a combined weight of 100 kg and a power of 0.33 kW (a reasonable maximum effort, and apply this to a 100 %, or 45-degree, "perfect" slope. That gives a speed uphill of around 0.85 km/h, or 0.53 mph.
It would require a reversed 56-11 gear, with an additional 2:1 converter somewhere, giving 2.4 gear inches.
But I'm positive that the bike would be more efficient at climbing the hill than walking it would be.
You give some conversion factors here, but I see nothing to compare the efficiency of biking to walking. The actual comparison in wattage output for both would be helpfull, if anyone knows it. However, no matter how efficient a bike might be going up hill, there comes a point when it's just imposible to ride up a hill. And in my mind, THAT is truly when walking is more "efficient". Sure the required wattage output on a bike
might always be less, but how efficient are you in reality when you fall backwards on your rear, or spin your tires out?
