Return to Answer

VO2max, or the maximum possible volume of oxygen that we can consume, is the maximum power your aerobic system can generate (we burn O2 to generate energy). It can be expressed in absolute terms of liters of O2 per minute, or it can be divided by body weight (usually called relative VO2max, think of it like W/kg).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, the VO2maxes of a sample of racehorses ranged from 123-172 mL O2/min kg. The maximum values we've measured in humans are in the 90s. Moreover, horses are a lot bigger than humans, so their total power is a lot greater.

It seems likely to me that the VO2maxes of draft horses are similarly larger than the VO2maxes of average humans, and that their power relative to bodyweight at a sustainable sub-maximum effort is similarly larger than humans. Unless the walking/running economy for horses is a lot worse than for cycling humans (e.g. what % of that energy is converted to forward motion, the balance being wasted as heat and sound), then I would assume that horses would be able to cover long distances faster than human cyclists - on the Worldbuilding post, someone commented about the man v horse marathon. This is the point they were trying to make but with distance running, not cycling.

In addition, bicycles were first introduced in the 19th century, so at least 100 years ahead of the period mentioned. Bicycles technology developed considerably since invention, whereas technology related to horses was stable because we had horses for a long, long time. The point here is that a bicycle made in the 1700s might be less capable than the first bicycles. Hence, at the time of the story, horses may have the technological advantage over bikes - it's just that bikes will develop faster later on.

One particular issue that I'd want to know about is steel quality. Yes, we have had steel for quite some time before the 1500s. However, in the 1500-1700s, I don't know if we had the ability to mass produce high-quality steel. We might not have been able to remove all the impurities, and steel might not have been as homogeneous as today (i.e. you could get some parts of a block that have lower carbon content and are weaker). Bicycle chains take a lot of force. People have built wooden bicycles in the modern era, but the chain is a critical link in the system.

Because of these two issues, you might not be able to build a bicycle to survive rough terrain in the 1700s, and it would likely be inferior to horses for transport.

VO₂max, or the maximum possible volume of oxygen that we can consume, is the maximum power your aerobic system can generate (we burn O₂ to generate energy). It can be expressed in absolute terms of liters of O₂ per minute, or it can be divided by body weight (usually called relative VO₂max; think of it like W/kg).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, the VO₂maxes of a sample of racehorses ranged from 123-172 ml O₂/min kg. The maximum values we've measured in humans are in the 90s. Moreover, horses are a lot bigger than humans, so their total power is a lot greater.

It seems likely to me that the VO₂maxes of draft horses are similarly larger than the VO₂maxes of average humans, and that their power relative to bodyweight at a sustainable sub-maximum effort is similarly larger than humans. Unless the walking/running economy for horses is a lot worse than for cycling humans (e.g. what % of that energy is converted to forward motion, the balance being wasted as heat and sound), then I would assume that horses would be able to cover long distances faster than human cyclists - on the Worldbuilding post, someone commented about the man v horse marathon. This is the point they were trying to make but with distance running, not cycling.

In addition, bicycles were first introduced in the 19th century, so at least 100 years ahead of the period mentioned. Bicycle technology developed considerably since invention, whereas technology related to horses was stable because we had horses for a long, long time. The point here is that a bicycle made in the 1700s might be less capable than the first bicycles. Hence, at the time of the story, horses may have the technological advantage over bikes - it's just that bikes will develop faster later on.

One particular issue that I'd want to know about is steel quality. Yes, we have had steel for quite some time before the 1500s. However, in the 1500-1700s, I don't know if we had the ability to mass produce high-quality steel. We might not have been able to remove all the impurities, and steel might not have been as homogeneous as today (i.e. you could get some parts of a block that have lower carbon content and are weaker). Bicycle chains take a lot of force. People have built wooden bicycles in the modern era, but the chain is a critical link in the system.

Because of these two issues, you might not be able to build a bicycle to survive rough terrain in the 1700s, and it would likely be inferior to horses for transport.

VO2max, or the maximum possible volume of oxygen that we can consume, is the maximum power your aerobic system can generate (we burn O2 to generate energy). It can be expressed in absolute terms of liters of O2 per minute, or it can be divided by body weight (usually called relative VO2max, think of it like W/kg).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, the VO2maxes of a sample of racehorses ranged from 123-172 mL O2/min kg. The maximum values we've measured in humans are in the 90s. Moreover, horses are a lot bigger than humans, so their total power is a lot greater.

It seems likely to me that the VO2maxes of draft horses are similarly larger than the VO2maxes of average humans, and that their power relative to bodyweight at a sustainable sub-maximum effort is similarly larger than humans. Unless the walking/running economy for horses is a lot worse than for cycling humans (e.g. what % of that energy is converted to forward motion, the balance being wasted as heat and sound), then I would assume that horses would be able to cover long distances faster than human cyclists - on the Worldbuilding post, someone commented about the man v horse marathon. This is the point they were trying to make but with distance running, not cycling.

In addition, bicycles were first introduced in the 19th century, so at least 100 years ahead of the period mentioned. Bicycles technology developed considerably since invention, whereas technology related to horses was stable because we had horses for a long, long time. The point here is that a bicycle made in the 1700s might be less capable than the first bicycles. Hence, at the time of the story, horses may have the technological advantage over bikes - it's just that bikes will develop faster later on.

Because of these two issues, you might not be able to build a bicycle to survive rough terrain in the 1700s, and it would likely be inferior to horses for transport.

VO2max, or the maximum possible volume of oxygen that we can consume, is the maximum power your aerobic system can generate (we burn O2 to generate energy). It can be expressed in absolute terms of liters of O2 per minute, or it can be divided by body weight (usually called relative VO2max, think of it like W/kg).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, the VO2maxes of a sample of racehorses ranged from 123-172 mL O2/min kg. The maximum values we've measured in humans are in the 90s. Moreover, horses are a lot bigger than humans, so their total power is a lot greater.

It seems likely to me that the VO2maxes of draft horses are similarly larger than the VO2maxes of average humans, and that their power relative to bodyweight at a sustainable sub-maximum effort is similarly larger than humans. Unless the walking/running economy for horses is a lot worse than for cycling humans (e.g. what % of that energy is converted to forward motion, the balance being wasted as heat and sound), then I would assume that horses would be able to cover long distances faster than human cyclists - on the Worldbuilding post, someone commented about the man v horse marathon. This is the point they were trying to make but with distance running, not cycling.

In addition, bicycles were first introduced in the 19th century, so at least 100 years ahead of the period mentioned. Bicycles technology developed considerably since invention, whereas technology related to horses was stable because we had horses for a long, long time. The point here is that a bicycle made in the 1700s might be less capable than the first bicycles. Hence, at the time of the story, horses may have the technological advantage over bikes - it's just that bikes will develop faster later on.

One particular issue that I'd want to know about is steel quality. Yes, we have had steel for quite some time before the 1500s. However, in the 1500-1700s, I don't know if we had the ability to mass produce high-quality steel. We might not have been able to remove all the impurities, and steel might not have been as homogeneous as today (i.e. you could get some parts of a block that have lower carbon content and are weaker). Bicycle chains take a lot of force. People have built wooden bicycles in the modern era, but the chain is a critical link in the system.

Because of these two issues, you might not be able to build a bicycle to survive rough terrain in the 1700s, and it would likely be inferior to horses for transport.

VO2max, or the maximum possible volume of oxygen that we can consume, is the maximum power your aerobic system can generate (we burn O2 to generate energy). It can be expressed in absolute terms of liters of O2 per minute, or it can be divided by body weight (usually called relative VO2max, think of it like W/kg).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, the VO2maxes of a sample of racehorses ranged from 123-172 mL O2/min kg. The maximum values we've measured in humans are in the 90s. Moreover, horses are a lot bigger than humans, so their total power is a lot greater.

It seems likely to me that the VO2maxes of draft horses are similarly larger than the VO2maxes of average humans, and that their power relative to bodyweight at a sustainable sub-maximum effort is similarly larger than humans. Unless the walking/running economy for horses is a lot worse than for cycling humans (e.g. what % of that energy is converted to forward motion, the balance being wasted as heat and sound), then I would assume that horses would be able to cover long distances faster than human cyclists - on the Worldbuilding post, someone commented about the man v horse marathon. This is the point they were trying to make but with distance running, not cycling.

In addition, bicycles were first introduced in the 19th century, so at least 100 years ahead of the period mentioned. Bicycles technology developed considerably since invention, whereas technology related to horses was stable because we had horses for a long, long time. The point here is that a bicycle made in the 1700s might be less capable than the first bicycles. Hence, at the time of the story, horses may have the technological advantage over bikes - it's just that bikes will develop faster later on.

VO2max, or the maximum possible volume of oxygen that we can consume, is the maximum power your aerobic system can generate (we burn O2 to generate energy). It can be expressed in absolute terms of liters of O2 per minute, or it can be divided by body weight (usually called relative VO2max, think of it like W/kg).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, the VO2maxes of a sample of racehorses ranged from 123-172 mL O2/min kg. The maximum values we've measured in humans are in the 90s. Moreover, horses are a lot bigger than humans, so their total power is a lot greater.

It seems likely to me that the VO2maxes of draft horses are similarly larger than the VO2maxes of average humans, and that their power relative to bodyweight at a sustainable sub-maximum effort is similarly larger than humans. Unless the walking/running economy for horses is a lot worse than for cycling humans (e.g. what % of that energy is converted to forward motion, the balance being wasted as heat and sound), then I would assume that horses would be able to cover long distances faster than human cyclists - on the Worldbuilding post, someone commented about the man v horse marathon. This is the point they were trying to make but with distance running, not cycling.

In addition, bicycles were first introduced in the 19th century, so at least 100 years ahead of the period mentioned. Bicycles technology developed considerably since invention, whereas technology related to horses was stable because we had horses for a long, long time. The point here is that a bicycle made in the 1700s might be less capable than the first bicycles. Hence, at the time of the story, horses may have the technological advantage over bikes - it's just that bikes will develop faster later on.

Because of these two issues, you might not be able to build a bicycle to survive rough terrain in the 1700s, and it would likely be inferior to horses for transport.