"What is the most efficient transportation mode we have using oil?"

I have no numbers to offer, but intuition suggests that the most efficient transportation application for oil is on the bicycle chain.

Our family fleet:

Two military style bicycles, one travel/city bike. Combined annual mileage 10,000km. Oil usage: half a can of lubricant per annum.

No toeclips? You’re wasting a whole bunch of efficiency there. By using your upstroke you can gain much more power. I don’t believe safety is an issue - I’ve used them for over forty years on the streets of Chicago and can get out of them very quickly. I won’t, however, use clipless pedals such as Looks on the street. Difficult to get used to, require special shoes (try waling a long way in them when you have a flat), and in one instance I found them gone when I came out to ride my bike back home. Nice fleet. Wish my digital camera hadn’t crapped out a couple of months back I could post mine.

No toeclips? You’re wasting a whole bunch of efficiency there. By using your upstroke you can gain much more power.

Power, maybe. Efficiency, no. You use energy when pulling the pedal up with your leg, energy you wouldn't otherwise use if you were just coasting with it on the up swing. Not knowing anything about anatomy and muscular dynamics, but it might actually be less efficient since the muscles in the human leg aren't meant to pull up loads other than its own weight under any evolutionary circumstances.

Anyway I use the heavy military bicycles to offset my otherwise sedentary lifestyle, so maximizing efficiency would mean I wouldn't get the same exercise as before. In fact I don't understand some cyclists with their over thousand euro super bikes with gazillion gears and carbon fiber frames. Surely if you want to get fit and be 'sporty' you should pick the heaviest bicycle you can possible peddle with? And the speeds they reach begin to be quite dangerous, at least to other cyclists. And if they want efficiency they should stick with speeds under 25km/h since above that you actually waste most of your pedaling effort into forcing air out of your way.

I didn't buy my bike to get fit. I bought it as a cheap and relatively environmentally friendly mode of transport (which also allows me to drink a couple more beers than if I was driving). For me, getting fit is just a welcome side effect.

Not that I have some sort of super bike - mine cost me £40 and has a steel frame.

Where you gain efficiency is in a smoother stroke, enabling you to maintain a spin in the 80 - 100 rpm range, very difficult to do with a free pedal. This is why the Biopace gears went out of favor, they destroyed smoothness. I used to be a gear pusher way back and experienced hurt knees, muscle imbalances, etc. This is also the reason for multiple gears to stay in an .efficient rpm range. I do have a single speed fixed gear bike when I’m in the mood to punish myself. I’m sorry, I just don’t get the mentality of a heavier bike, especially if I’m coming back from a tip against an unexpected headwind. Whatever rocks your boat. Everybody makes love to their old lady (man) different.

I haven't seen the likes of the military style bikes. I presume they have traded off weight and efficiency for robustness and reliability. It looks like they have 1.5 to 2 times as many sokes, so I suppose you could carry a very heavy load without damaging the bicycle.

Toe clips do help, the amount of extra muscles recruited are at the discretion of the rider. I used to do tons of mountain biking, on ridiculously rocky terrain, I never was unable to get out of clips when falling off. But not being clipped in, and you are likely to lose control as your feet are bounced off the peddels. At high output levels, toe clips allow you to generate more power, or less leg strain at a fixed power level. Clipins are slightly more effcient than clips, but I never mastered getting out of them -especially if I tried to stay upright until the last possible half second.

The hard core "trials riders" didn't use clips, but instead used platform pedals. They could do amazing things with their undersized bicycles. But trials setups would be horribly inefficient to ride for any sort of distance.

the most efficient transportation mode

I have an old book about bicycles (no idea why someone tries to sell it at Ebay Poland ..).
There's a graph in that book comparing energy efficiency of different animals/vehicles. The question was how much energy is needed to move 1kg of body weight 1 kilometre far.

Top energy consumers are small animals who need more food a day than they weigh themself, such as some mice or humming birds. Then, the middle class: Humans walking, airplanes, cars, most other animals.

The top class: Seagulls, on top of them the Albatros. But he's not the winner. The most energy efficient animal on earth is: the Salmon. And then there's a large gap. And then comes: The human on a bicycle. On a bicycle humans have achieved to overcome evolution.

There's a graph in that book comparing energy efficiency of different animals/vehicles.

Any chance you could scan/photograph that in here?

Any chance you could scan/photograph that in here?

There is a PDF-article called "Abenteuer Fahrrad" (adventure bicycle) on the web page of the German TV program "Quarks & Co." where you can find the graphic on page 17 (Adobe Reader page 9; there are always two pages in landscape orientation.)

BTW My quote from memory was not correct in regard of humming birds. And the text on the right says that railways at low speed use even less energy than a cyclist. If you're interested in more details from that document write me an email (dunno if you read German.)

Part of the efficiency of the average human depend upon the food the human has eaten and how "efficiently" (or, along another line of thinking, how many fossil fuel inputs) were involved in it?

If you're eating that locally grown organic food, your big picture energy efficiency is higher than if you eat an industrialized agriculture diet, with strawberries from 8000 miles away, etc.

Over a meal after an event here in San Francisco a couple years back, Richard Heinberg brought this up, saying that all things considered (the average diet) an electric bicycle actually was more "efficient" (right now) than a human powered bicycle.

This was not in any way an "endorsement" of electric bikes or condemnation of human bikes, just a statement about efficiencies in the world as it is set up.

If you're eating that locally grown organic food, your big picture energy efficiency is higher than if you eat an industrialized agriculture diet, with strawberries from 8000 miles away, etc.

I've thought about this as well. It would be hard to understand the total energy use of a vehicle if one needed to account for the fuel (food in the case of a bike), and the energy to obtain the fuel etc. Do we count the energy inputs in the food fed to an oil worker in the EROEI of oil? It becomes very circular.

There's an almost infinite amount of inputs we could calculate. But as we go further and further down the chain the effects of those inputs become more and more marginal. Eventually they become so small that we just ignore them.

Keeping in mind the oil needed to mine, smelt, create, distribute and maintain our bicycle chains... And then the rubber in our tires. There is no human power to contribute to the chain without a backddrop of oil.

Which is why I already have a lifetimes worth of IDENTICAL or COMPATIBLE bike spares - think ahead: "oh those - no they went bust years ago.."
Keep the tyres dark and cool. Choose your chainrings with old man muscles in mind, 1 steel one per decade of future cycling, and plenty non-indexed shifters.

I would start collecting soon, because I was buying cards of red rubber brake blocks and spare Suntour jockey wheels when they were made 25 years ago..