>human powered form of transportation
>can easily move faster than a running human
>requires very little energy spent for the amount of distance traveled
>easy repairs, parts found literally everywhere
>falling off or crashing won't kill you
>silent
>lightweight portable
>can bring offroad
why does no one in say, the walking dead, use these? yeah, we see rick ride a bike in ep 1. but that's it. it's literally the most convenient and efficient method of getting around we have an no one seems to think of it. maybe they just don't look cool enough?
Rule of cool. Cyclists look like huge gays.
Not if they're on a BMX bike doing tricks and grinds like Matt Hoffman
bmx is pussy's motocross.
>Rule of cool. Cyclists look like huge gays.
As a cyclist is cant disagree
based, can't believe you didn't draw some of these homosexuals out
Bicycles give women the ick
Do they really? What if you don't use a helmet and bike like kind of a nut? isn't that 'dangerous' and thus cool or is it the fact that you're a weaker/ prey species on the road that ruins it
They hate all cyclists.
Nah. They only put out for motorcycles, if that.
you could get away with it by being a college student that bikes for exercise while also being ripped. that's literally the only way. she's still going to frick some dude with a car though.
If youre actually a chad it's irrelevant how you get around. The car=pussy mentality is for ugly low value men. A car is just a tool and tying up your identity in it is beta female behavior
>If youre actually a chad it's irrelevant how you get around
yeah that's the point you dumb Black person, the only way to get away with having a bicycle be your sole means of transportation is by being someone women would frick in a cardboard box.
Usable paths are full of stranded cars, rubble, and eventually overgrown vegetation and or a billion potholes
Mountain/trail bikes make this a non-issue. You'd want one of those to carry more gear anyway.
You can carry or walk a bike, unlike any other vehicle or mode of transport.
>this tool is so useful I can push it everywhere
Yeah, real useful
Potholes are an over stated worry, the primary cause of them is cars driving
Why didn't people in the Great Depression jack up the back wheels of their jalopies and became cannibal raider warlords like in the movies?
>implying they didn't
The Dust Bowl was used to cover up the rampant warlord cannibalism that happened.
>We will ride eternal on Route 66, all the way to the Big Rock Candy Mountain
>Tonight we dine in the lake of stew
WITNESS
these
Fricking hell.
>WITNESS ME
>*sprays mouth with a root beer float*
i thought about this once when brain storming how to survive a zombie apocalypse.
Ideally you would have a bicycle with a milk crate basket on the back, filled with 2L of water, 3 days worth of food, tire pump, tire patches, a rain jacket, knife, half-sized crowbar etc etc.
I'd have it covered by a tarp 50metres from my house and ready to go.
3 days worth of food but only 2 liters of water?
2 litres is actually fine to last 3 days as well. A lot of these survivalist sites over-estimate it.
I would fricking gladly lose out on one day of food to get more water. You're going to be actively doing shit. Water is much more important than food. I drink 2 liters in a day as is
lmao. you get more hydration from the food you eat, (good food that is)
Also your hope your water is loaded with minerals otherwise you are flushing your system of essential minerals and dehydrating yourself.
Which food?
Watermelon
This. I'm a big hairy construction worker. On 90-100+F days with near 100% humidity I'm sucking down a liter of water every hour and a half or so.
Kinda depends on the season, location and how much work you're putting in during the day.
2 liters is too small, at least half a gallon.
2 liters is more than half a gallon
You used to be able to get half a gallon for two pennies. This is back when pennies had pictures of bumble bees on em. Two gallons for a bee, you'd say.
that's what they want you to think
This is how i know youre moronic. 2l of water when you are active is frick all. You would want an absolute minimum of ten litres for three days.
weight, my man. 2L will last 24 hours.
>2 litres is actually fine to last 3 days as well.
Yeah sure, but by the end of those 3 days, you will be very dehydrated.
There's a difference between surviving on 2 litres and being physically fit and well.
If you sit on your ass all day, 2 litres goes a long way. Once you start walking, even with a small backpack, you're going to burn through alot of water.
Nobody saying this won't be enough has ever even been camping. Water is a lot easier to procure than food. It might not last 3 days but you just need to be able to store 2 litres at a time
Its usually easier to find/make clean water than it is to find food.
Even dirty water... Just filter/boil it and you're good to go.
Based. Replace the crowbar with pic-related.
>poorly cast chinese garbage
>immediately breaks
I bet you also have a pair of roller blades and a hockey stick in your bugout bag
>hey, lets put a tool that uses leverage as its greatest asset on something thats about as long as your forearm
youre a fricking moron bro
the answer is always THE SPEAR
i think he's talking about crowbars etc for actual crowbar things, like breaking through doors, prying open shop roller-doors, smashing glass and then smearing the glass edges away from a surface so you can step over it without snagging etc.
I chug that much water in one work shift. You're dead of dumb day -100 of zombie apocalypse
Even canteen would be enough, just buy a nice canadian filter and you can drink from any swamp or puddle.
why don't they use shark suits and swat gear anyway?
Kek this. In the walking dead they wore full on swat gear in the first season then they threw it away like nothing just to wear some dogshit skimpy ass protection like 7 seasons later
Swat gear is too clunky.
Shark suits literally make zombies irrelevant.
>>can easily move faster than a running human
depends on the terrain
very little energy spent for the amount of distance traveled
It consumes more calories than walking the same distance
The real question is why in these types of shows they don't use beasts of burden more
>It consumes more calories than walking the same distance
Bullshit. How are they measuring it? By comparing some Tour De France homosexual with a regular walker?
>It consumes more calories than walking the same distance
A quick google search says otherwise
>The average walking speed of 5 km/h (3 mph) makes the average person burn approximately 232 kcal per hour.
>Cycling at a moderate speed of 20 km/h (12 mph) burns approximately 563 kcal per hour.
So cycling consumes more than twice as many calories per hour, but it's 4 times faster.
Burning twice the calories for one quarter of the duration Anon.
>ride a bike for an hour
>cover 12 miles
>only use 563 calories
>walk for four hours
>cover 12 miles
>4*232 = 928 calories used
>ride 12 miles downhill
>as many calories as you’d usually use at rest
Exactly.
But the opposite is also true
>ride 12 miles uphill
>tree trunk thighs after doing this just once
Bullshit. I'm fat and I don't exercise much, but if I walk to my nearest shopping centre I'm sweating and breathing heavy when I arrive, but if I cycle to it then I'm fine. That seems to me a pretty clear example of which one is taking more effort.
Not if you're going down a hill.
And the best part is that when you hit a hill you have to go up you can just hop off the bike and fricking walk. Now you've got an easier time walking up the hill because you can put your backpack and thus the weight on your bike, which takes less energy to drag up the hill than if you'd had the weight on your back.
People who push themselves into a heart attack by trying to bike up a steep hill instead of just walking the bike up are fricking stupid.
You have to take speed into account. Adjusting for speed, cycling is an order of magnitude more energy efficient than walking or running
It's the most efficient transportation mode in the world in terms of energy used, the other guy is a moron
>It consumes more calories than walking the same distance
I'll grant you that cycling is a bit more exhausting except if done at a very leisurely pace but even a slow cyclist is easily three times faster than an average walker. No way three hours of moderate exercise is not more calories than one hour of slightly more intensive moderate exercise.
>they don't use beasts of burden
How many people have access to these, and how many people know how to look after them? Pair that with "all the animals are dying" usually being a big part of apocalypse stories and there you go
>It consumes more calories than walking the same distance
Not buying that lol.
>level ground
>pedal a bit and coast
>downhill
>literally zero effort at max speed
>uphill
>dismount and have wheels to rest all your shit on while you hike uphill.
lol lmao no it doesn't.
maybe when ascending steep windy roads but for pretty much every other situation cycling is much more efficient.
Its shown in TWD zombies eat animals like Rick's horse, or the rabbit Dale shot/trapped. It makes more sense as well if zombies were a real thing with only the instinct to feed driving them, why would they exclude anything not human?
and it's shown in World War Z that zombies can magically tell if you have gay AIDs or have recently consumed Coca Cola products, and ignore you. Your point is?
zombies would surely ignore you anon
they asked why people in these shows don't use animals, I gave an example.
>zombies can magically tell if you have recently consumed Coca Cola products
that is not what that scene showed at all
>The real question is why in these types of shows they don't use beasts of burden more
Using horses on the production is a huge hassle.
Now I know you're moronic
im pretty sure beasts of burden use more calories than biking
>put on denim shirt
>jeans
>thick shoes
>gloves
>helmet
>neck gaiter
you are now immune to zombie bites
>22lr with a suppressor and subsonic ammuniton
You can now easily carry 1000+ silent bullets, only reloading every 50-100 shots, ammo is plentiful and easy to find. It is basically impossible for the sound of your weapon to attract more zombies than you can easily kill with it.
>a mace or some kind of one handed warhammer for a melee weapon
everything beyond that is typical survivalism
zombies are pretty trivial in a zombie apocalypse
also I wanted to post the template of this image but I lost it does anyone have it?
what kinda vehicle is that?
a gaymobile
With guns, the more important things are durability, ease of repair, and bullet economics.
>>put on denim shirt
I can bite through a denim shirt and have on several occasions.
yeah denim is no good. motorbike leathers would be the best bet imo.
Go big or go home.
>~50lbs evenly spread across body
>utterly impenetrable to teeth, nails and any rudimentary weapon zombie could have
>wear the helm with visor open or just an open face design since zombies are stupid and can't shoot arrows into faces
>could go full chad movie knight and forgo helm entirely
Armed with a lightweight rifle in 5.56 or even a pistol caliber, spear/poleaxe/longsword and a dagger/pistol combo a small squad of modern knights, preferably from Cub/Boy Scouts type stock, would be unstoppable against the hordes of undead.
Your move, peasant
This is a good post
I feel like you're kinda vulnerable on a bike, if someone manages to push you over you could get tangled up in it and then you're zombie chow
You're safe from the straight and male zombies, but undead lesbians will bite right through.
>have on several occasions
Why?
Don't worry about why.
A warpick would be fricking useless against zombies they dont wear armor. It would be slower and less useful than a sword. I know swords are over-represented in fiction, but this is a situation where theyd be way better.
A couple of times in the walking dead, there are dead swat cops and army guys with full armor.
Theres 11 seasons, I just fi ished it last week. Most anything you can think up they did.
A sword would be useless. You need to pierce or bludgeon their skulls, not just slice them up.
You can pierce a skull easily with a sword, or just decapitate them
Contrary to cartoons, skulls aren't made of cheese, and heads don't fall off at the slightest breeze.
This is where the walking dead is hilarious also, sometimes the zombies have hulk strength others rip apart like paper. They also can climb in the first season and run, and examples are when rick is around the tank and when him and glen run from them, one even climbs a fence. Then magically the rest of the show until the last episode they can't climb anymore.
Contrary to whatever bullshit is going on in your brain, swords do in fact turn skulls into cheese and they have much more force than a slight breeze.
Heads are made of meat and knives cut through meat perfectly fine. Zombies are also decomposing. Shut up you psuedo-inellectual homosexual you don't know shit.
>Heads are made of meat
maybe yours is meathead, but the rest of us have skulls
anon what do you think happens when the force of a sword is transferred to a completely unprotected skull
do you think it just gets lodged in the surface of the bone and nothing happens to the brain?
Of course there's going to be some jostling going on, but the odds of a fatal blow are going to be much much lower than if you used a warpick or a mace.
>the odds of a fatal blow are going to be much much lower
The frick they are. Unless you're using some really lightweight mall katana you're going to be delivering the same amount of concussive force to the brain, turning it into jelly just like if you hit it with a mace. A mace doesn't have some kind of magic +10 to brain damage power. The only thing that matters is that a rounded mace wouldn't risk getting stuck in a skull as much as a warpick or sword, but you'd make it harder to aim.
You're one of those guys who think knights wore helmets so that they could tank blows to the head and not feel a thing, aren't you?
>you're going to be delivering the same amount of concussive force to the brain
This is the main thing the moron seems to be misunderstanding. A sword is a heavy, steel stick. The amount of concussion force it'd be capable of dealing would be more than enough to break open a fragile skull. But then it also happens to be a sharp blade on top of that.
>A sword is a heavy
They're really not, usually only a couple pounds. People greatly overestimate swords weight, but even massive claymores and zweihanders were around 5 pounds.
Yes, but they're heavy enough to frick your brain up if someone swings one at your head. It doesn't have to slice your head off to kill you, because it's heavier than a wooden stick the same size.
>but you'd make it harder to aim
nta, but the larger the head of a weapon is the easier its to aim, you moron
youre a dipshit too if you think sharpness is anything to praise, sharp things get dull and become useless, most especially after cutting into a head even once. no, blunt weapons are the way to go
>most especially after cutting into a head even once
So wrong, you might be moronic.
Let me ask you something anon. Why would the second most prolific weapon in human history be something that's immediately dulled against flesh?
spears arent used for cutting, frickwit. sharpness<pointiness
>second most
Under spears, you mongoloid. Swords are the weapons of empires. They've been used against flesh and bone for centuries. Steel doesn't just dull the instant it touches something it's designed to cut. You're a fricking moron and have no idea what you're talking about.
only moron here is you, friendo
top prolific weapon- the club
second- the spear
you goddamn weeaboos sicken the frick out of me, you really do
same with you. its like niether of you ever held a weapon in your lives that wasnt some fricking replica of the internet. youd have to be a slobbering moron to NOT hit your mark with the head, its where all the fricking weight is
>youd have to be a slobbering moron to NOT hit your mark with the head, its where all the fricking weight is
Yeah, after all no one ever overshoots or undershoots when using an axe. Nope, never happens. Especially not against moving logs. Because of course everyone trains to hit moving cantaloupes from childhood and so knows exactly how to time their strikes right when one lunges at them.
the frick makes you think you could land a sword strike, what with its cutting area only a few millimeters across vs a large blunt head of a mace? or even a staff? christ almighty, but good on you for at least acknowledging an axe as a blunt weapon
clubs are prehistory? the frick do you think a baseball bat is you fatherfricking shitheel? a club is anything that has mass and you can swing, be it treebranch or manufactured bat
secondly, whats behind the flesh you dumbfrick? i have bones behind mine, which tend to chip sharp blades. oh but i forgot, youre also carrying around a portable smithy to reforge your equipment after every dustup
i need you to know and understand what a moron you are and how ashamed your entire family is of you
We're not talking about missing the head entirely by swinging too high, you dumbass. We're talking about mistiming the swing so that instead of hitting the head with the macehead the zombie has lunged a foot forward so now you're hitting it with the handle instead, risking breaking the handle if it's too weak because the heavy head will want to keep moving when the handle stops. With a sword that's literally no problem at all because you've still got the same surface all along the blade instead of focused into the tip, with no fear of it breaking because of the heavy end making the handle bend. The only thing that makes a sword worse than the mace is the fact that it's more likely to get wedged in some bone and leave you open to another attack, and that's all that's needed to make a mace superior to a sword.
my brother in christ, a sword's usefulness is directly proportionate to its sharpness. SWORDS, not foils or epees which depend upon their points, swords. and theyre fricking useless without an edge, an edge that has to be honed every time you cut into bone, which you will be doing since nobody not even zombies are made up of just meat
i cant fathom NOT hitting someone with the head of a bat or proper mace, youd have to actively try hitting them with the neck or handle. and just to be clear, maces are not flails which have the heads attached to the necks via chain or rope or whatever, which would make your argument more logical
shit, you could punch or bash a zombies head in with your bare hands, which are blunt weapons. people do that all the time in the modern age and thats against an attacker actively fighting for its life rather than attacking on instinct that should be proof enough of blunt's superiority
>an edge that has to be honed every time you cut into bone
No it fricking doesn't. Why do you keep making this claim? Do you honestly believe medieval swords were sharpened to a razor's edge? You know how fricking annoying it would be to constantly sharpened a blade back then? Think of a sharp chisel. That's what an average sword would be at. And it would be more than enough to cut through bone.
>baseball bat
A toy for playing games. You are beyond brain damaged at this point.
>bones tend to chip blades
How many zombies are you killing? If it gets to the point that your steel sword has become useless, you'd be dead from exhaustion anyway.
I'll repeat it again for your infantile brain: swords have been weapons of war for centuries. They're designed to cut through bone while holding their shape. You are a fricking monkey and have no argument.
Swords are designed to have upkeep or be periodically switched out. It's fine to use one in a context were you have supporting logistics and industry (as in, you have a place with blacksmiths and he can get iron in his hands), but a zombie apocalypse forfeits even that.
Yes, a zombie apocalypse is worse than classical antiquity in terms of reliability of supplies. Swords are worse in such context, unless you treat them as trump cards.
>Swords are designed to have upkeep or be periodically switched out
Source: Trust me
>a place with blacksmiths and he can get iron in his hands
No, that's what you need if you intend to create more swords. Unless you've broken it in half, a blacksmith so beyond anything you'd need.
Look, I'll admit that a club or mace would have much more durability than a sword - but we're talking several hundred bodies by the time you notice that difference. If you're getting into a melee with that many zombies, you're doing something wrong.
A melee weapon should be a last resort in a desperate situation. And in those situations, a sword is the superior weapon. If you're legitimately going on an industrial-scale murder spree, get a fricking gun. Or at least just a spear. A mace or a sword would be moronic.
>Source: Trust me
Well, swords becoming rusty, worn out or just straight up breaking are a common issue in militares. Granted it's a bigger issue if you're clashing swords or hitting armor.
>No, that's what you need if you intend to create more swords.
Yes, which you'll need regardless, but specifically you'll need it much sooner if you can't maintain your sword.
>but we're talking several hundred bodies by the time you notice that difference.
This is where I think you're overestimating the sword durability. I'd put it at 100-200 kills. First off, you have to consider that a lot of damage would come in the form of rust. Unless you can oil and clean your sword often, all that gore in the sword will quickly rust it away, thus the upkeep. Second, microscopic cracks can do a lot more damage than you expect, because they act as seeds for fractures - so damage to a sword can make it less resistant to future impact even without visibly breaking it. Third, because corrosion greatly amplifies the second effect.
In short, unless you can maintain your sword, the harder the stuff you hit the sooner your blade will fail. Granted, there's not much in the way of records of how long a sword will last unkept if all you do is kill unarmed civilians, but a sword will eventually fail like any other metallic piece, sooner rather than later if you let it get corroded. And corrosion is not just a matter of use, but also time spent unkept (which is hard to procure in a zombie apocalypse).
>A melee weapon should be a last resort in a desperate situation.
Zombie apocalypses are notorious because creating sound equals danger. A melee weapon should be used very often under such circumstances.
> get a fricking gun
Yeah, actually better than both, but because of it's usefulness and ammo scarcity you'll probably want to save it too
>Zombie apocalypses are notorious
Zombie apocalypses are notorious for being settings in which you want to avoid shooting*
I mean, guns are still great though
Basic maintenance will allow them to last more than long enough. You don't need to reforge them. Hardened steel can handle bone. Go smash a thousand sticks with a hardened chisel and tell me it won't cut through bone by the end of it.
>I'd put it at 100-200 kills
Well that's already an astounding amount of bodies to cut through in a melee, but I can't agree with that number. If rust is your biggest worry, then just learn basic maintenance. There are dozens of household items that can work as a a makeshift rust prevention, and can delay the corrosion process by years. I don't think rust would be an issue.
>microscopic cracks
These would get it in the end, but a proper medieval sword, sharpened to a solid 440 included angle would hold its edge extremely well. You don't need (or want) a razor sharp blade. Like I said - get a solid, freshly sharpened chisel and tell me how long you think that'd remain lethal.
>a melee weapon should be used very often
Wholly disagree. The only way a zombie can really harm you is with a bite. So exposing yourself to situations where that's even a remote possibility should be avoided at all costs.
If you truly need to remove zombies on a large scale with a melee weapon, something like a spear would be far preferable. They'd allow you to maintain a safe distance while adequately removing them.
>guns
Sound is something I can't argue over. Guns are certainly loud, but who knows how much of an effect some noise would have. As for ammunition, I can't be sure what things would be like come the apocalypse, but I'm sitting on 2000 .22 rounds, 400 .223s, ~150 30-06, ~400 9mm, and I don't know how many 12ga shells. There are only as many zombies as there are people, and my town's population is under 3000.
Kind of ruins the whole idea of a zombie apocalypse when you think about that, though. A few regular civilians could easily kill several thousand, let alone what an armed military could do.
Guess without actual data on sword durability we have to agree to disagree on this one.
As for whether you'd ever want to get into a situation where you're meleeing zombies, it's true that it's ultimately a moronic position to be in, but I was thinking more along the lines of clearing 5-6 per day on closed quarters - you'd get behind 1-2 at a time (so it's 6 spaced over a day), shank them, do what you need to do, and move on. That adds up to 100 in only 20 days, and 1000 in less than a year. Even 3 zombies per day reach over a 1000 in a year. Since supplies are bound to be in places with zombies such as buildings, you'd end up fighting them quite often even if you're not Leroy Jenkins hordes.
Regarding the spear, it's also probably better, I'm just not sure how well they'd handle inside buildings - you can easily do a Spartan style pass defense on narrow corridors, but they seem like they'd get stuck more easily. Overall, how well a melee weapon handles in closed quarter and its range are kinda opposites I guess.
Frick, a spear and a shield are probably very busted. Since you don't need to block metallic weapons, a light shield like a riot shield or something would allow a few men to clear words with a turtle formation.
> I'm sitting on 2000 .22 rounds, 400 .223s, ~150 30-06, ~400 9mm
Americans really have it easy huh
at least houses in my country are fricking fortresses so that should compensate it to some extent
>clear words with a turtle formation.
clear hordes
goddammit I even admitted to being ESL now I can't hide it
To be honest, even if I'd prefer a sword, I'd happily bust some skulls open with a mace or club. And would probably have to, because clubs are a bit more common than medieval swords.
>at least houses in my country are fricking fortresses
I do think, given enough time, a horde of zombies could eventually chew their way through one of our shitty drywall houses.
>the club
That's pre-history. Sword and spear have dominated since the bronze age.
But no you're right, swords don't work against flesh, everyone for the past 5000 years has been wrong.
Incidentally, knives are also a useless tool.
>weeaboo
We're not talking about katanas, you dumb homosexual. Real swords - dual-edged, heavy, solid-steel, with enough mass to crack a skull even of they were dull. It's infinitely superior to a club against fleshy, unarmored zombies. You have no argument.
With a mace you have to hit with the head. If you overshoot and hit with the handle you're fricked because the handle isn't going to deliver the crushing power needed. With a sword the entire length of the blade will frick a zombie up unless it's so close that you're basically hitting it with the pommel.
How strong do you think skulls are? A sword is a hunk of steel. Even a blunt stick of wood would crack open a skull. But a steel blade coming down onto a skull with the force of your swing? If it didn't chop through it completely, it'd lodge well into the brain.
>a warpick or mace
This is beyond stupid. These are weapons designed for use against metal armor. A skull is not metal.
To be fair, a mace with the right design(not one with lots of spikes) would probably be the best option. I've seen historical ones that would be really good, because they were designed to knock people on the head with and not to pierce through armour. But a warpick is quite possible the most moronic choice you could possibly make, except for something like a spear.
I don't agree with that, Hitler-trips. A sword is more compact/easier to carry than a mace, it's easier to wield/swing, it's more versatile (poking, slashing and in worst case - bonking), and the most important factor is the slice - a mace is really only useful against the head, to destroy the brain. A sword is capable of cutting limbs, stabbing through flesh/bone, etc. and it can do so with very little force. Whereas a mace will always need a decent swing to actually do its damage.
I don't really see a situation where a mace is better.
>a mace is really only useful against the head, to destroy the brain.
*laughs in mace to the knee*
Which would certainly disable a man, and realistically even a walking corpse. But this is zombie magic, so who knows how far you need to go. No matter how stupid and unrealistic the particular zombie lore is, a limb will always stop working if it's no longer attached
Oh okay. Guess this hammer is harmless against you then, since it's designed around nails.
The point is that you don't fricking need them to deal with a skull, you nitwit. The only thing a warpick is going to do is get lodged in the skull and then you die to your second zombie, all because you wanted to feel special using a warpick instead of a baseball bat.
Then make a better argument instead of le skull no metal
The guy did make a better argument, you moron. You just ignored the part where he explained how a sword is a big hunk of steel, because you felt like you had a "gotcha" that would make you look clever.
He did not.
Just like you're ignoring the greatest downside of swords. Which is getting it stuck in whatever you're chopping at.
For one - a warpick is infinitely more vulnerable to that issue than a sword. Secondly, a sword could only get stuck if you stabbed with it. If thats your worry, then stick to swinging. Finally a sword is bladed on both ends. If it's stuck in flesh and bone, then all it needs to do is slice its way out.
Oh yeah sure, focus solely on le warpick and ignore the other options for blunt trauma.
>all that babble
You've never swung a sword in your entire life I see.
>Oh yeah sure, focus solely on le warpick
We're focusing on the warpick because this discussion started with a picture where a guy chose a warpick for his weapon and then the warpick kept being defended as a choice over and over again. Maybe you should read the thread before butting in?
Wrong. Mace was specifically mentioned in his counter-argument.
Maybe you should learn to read or get those memory-issues checked.
god you're desperate for a debate club style win
Sorry that you can't "win" by omitting parts of the argument.
I addressed the mace already.
>babble
Not an argument. And sadly I have not had the pleasure of shoving a sword into flesh or bone, but thankfully millions of people before me have so there's plenty of data out there.
>Just like you're ignoring the greatest downside of swords.
No, I've been bringing it up as their downside all along. A downside they share with warpicks, making the sword superior anyway.
My point was, an armor piercing 5.56 round is not gonna be any more lethal than a hollow point 5.56.
That is where you are wrong anon. Think of it like the shell of an uncooked egg. Pretty strong until enough force is used to break it. An acquaintance of mine once witnessed a murder with a cricket bat and when he was having a drunken freak out about it was ranting at someone that "a bat goes through your head like butter".
It's pretty funny to think that to the majority of our ancestors a simple baseball or cricket bat would be a prized implement of war that gets passed down generations, just because it's so perfectly shaped to crush skulls and bones without being too light or heavy, or breaking too easily. They'd look at a rack of them in a store and think it's the armoury of a really successful tribe.
Also important to keep in mind that a pick like that could easily get jammed into a body part and require a difficult motion to pull it out.
what the frick are you going to do with a sword you think you're going to bleed them to death or chop their heads off?
you're gonna swing a lot like a moron and get tired or poke it in and get it stuck
what gun is that
I'd choose mp5 as a not gunsexual
how are you going to fill that vehicle's tank a few month in
Looks like an stm-9
what about the handgun?
Ruger mk IV .22lr
Basically this. A 10/22 with a handful of 30 round mags and few thousand rounds could wipe out a hoard. Then a solid full size pistol in case of human robbers.
I'd rather have a tube fed if I'm going in with a shotgun. Just much quicker and easier to load in a panicked and dangerous situation
why the frick would need a starfort, do you expect the zombies to bring culverins?
In The Stand miniseries Nick and Tom Cullen rode bicycles. Most other characters rode motorcycles.
Because Americans can't ride bikes.
>americans
>cycling
They're literally brainwashed from birth to hate bicycles and worship car makers
Can't help it. Our cyclists actively want to die and test those limits every time they go on the road. All car owners are just there to help ferry them to the other side.
>why does no one in say, the walking dead, use these?
Because The Walking Dead got a huge pay-off for doing car commercials. That's why you have so many scenes where they're looking at a map on the hood of a car, with everyone standing awkwardly on each side of the car so nobody obscures the hood ornament. They even had cars that were released after the apocalypse happened. No bicycle company is going to pay a tv show for product placement.
never forget the infamous 2011 hyundai tucson of the walking dead. because of the nature of their contracts w the car companies, any time you saw a character inside this hyundai, you knew they were safe.
It's not cinematic. In a real world scenario they would be heavily used.
mulechad checking in
>been used since forever
>even poor people could have them since they weren't insanely needy and didn't require a lot of attention like horses
>can carry virtually anything
>zombies wouldn't eat them
>relatively small
>can go anywhere, even through rubble and rough terrain
>if worst comes to worst you can just eat them
yeah but then you got to breed more mules which you will need a donkey and horse
Mules live for decades
>zombies wouldn't eat them
because?
also they are loud and would attract attention
>creatures that eat human flesh wouldn't eat something that isn't human
crazy concept
lmao
Just because the Dawn of the Dead remake made this stupid rule doesn't mean it's the generally accepted rule across the zombo-verse.
>ravenous undead who crave flesh of the living only desire living humans, live animal flesh is icky
ya, sure, you betcha
ROTLD zombies want specifically brains, i don't remember them going after animals at all and that was 85
If you're in a ROTLD scenario then your choice of pack animal is completely moot. All you should do is find a way to completely destroy your body without a trace before it's too late. It's the only chance you have of escaping eternal pain.
There is the other choice anon....The one far more likely to occur anyway. And is it really so bad? You say only way to escape eternal pain but BRAINS solve that problem. Plenty of those around, and it's not like most people use theirs anyway.
And really consider it, long term. An eternal and forever driven army. No need for food or water. No need for rest and no fear of the elements. Once we run out of BRAINS, conquering the stars suddenly makes so much more sense then it ever did. Think of all the BRAINS that could be out there in that void. Our bodies would be ready for it, at that point. What else is there to do?
You talk about destroying yourself, but why not unlive forever? You're worried about pain, you feel that everyday. But now, you have a natural way to get rid of it. Fear is stilling your step to the possibilities.
Give it some Thought.
Brainless
>zombies wouldn't eat them
I'm not eating Stannis
idk this joke
Yet that reason is arbitrary as I've demonstrated
more likely that
is the true reason they are not depicted
its not arbitrary its in keeping with the cannon the story is designed around. Sure the real reason is that working with animals on set sucks, the story reason is the core of the discussion here imo.
But they basically have horses all the time in the walking dead. They find wild ones all the time and tbey die a lot.
Just because zombies would eat them doesn't mean they could. If the only way you had to take down a wild horse was to bite it, how well do you think you would do? I stopped watching twd a long time ago I only remember they went apeshit for his horse then he had to jump in the tank. I bet they would be effective but they would still be a potential meal. Its all a wash anyway because the "rules" for a zombie apocalypse are all over the place
it is fiction and thus arbitrary either way
the variables you can control for are the real life ones, of which I have listed many
the overwhelming majority of fictional ghouls tend to eat human flesh only, and thus you can safely assume that generally, if you were to be in these fictional worlds, that they would not eat your mule
I'm not eating my mulebro
Don't forget, with a donkey you don't need a woman.
with a donkey you can go wherever you want
Yeah I saw that TikTok too
It looks lame .
>mad max villain arrives
>traveling at a breakneck 35 mph
>a team of six roided up slave cyclists on stripped down scheming, foaming at the mouth, leads the rusted out body of a golden firebird, holding a grotesquely shredded warlord with a massive eagle headdress, zapping them in the buttocks with a cattle prod
It doesn’t matter how you dress it up, it’s just too slow and too casual.
>bite into his arm with all your hunger and strength
>does fricking nothing
how do you respond without sounding mad?
I haven’t read the source material but if it was changed it probably has a lot to do with cost and the skill of the film crew. These days most of Hollywood can’t even properly film a running scene, bikes would be even more difficult. Cars can be easier as there are convenient mounting points for cameras, you can more easily disguise the use of stuntmen and stand-ins, and as others have mentioned there’s a fat product placement check that comes with them.
there's that webm of a basketball american who tries to ride a bike past the cops and gets tackled immediately. Bicycles are very unstable at low speeds, and are relatively slow to accelerate. If you were looting a store or something and had to make a break for it you probably couldn't get on a bike and get it up to speed fast enough to escape being mobbed.
that's why you gotta do that sick ass trick where you jog with it, swing a leg over, hop on, wink at the ladies and wait for it to all blow over
so what are you going to do in your hypothetical situation?
a contrived scenario where you put yourself in a position of risking getting mobbed, you're making a break for it and what?
arriving on a bike is a bad idea as opposed to what?
1. It's a Black person on a bike.
2. It's a racing-bike.
3. Learn to ride a bike before you start spouting bullshit like this.
yes raising your center of gravity and reducing the size and maneuverability of your contact patch is always good for stability. Obviously the bike has a higher top speed, but from a standing start even track riders would just barely beat a sprinter over 100m. Average speed for an experienced rider on a road bike is 16mph over mixed terrain, if you think you're going faster on a mountain bike, you're the one who needs to learn to ride.
the sprinter would be ahead for the first ~40m
It depends on the terrain and all that, but one reason could be the increased risk of injury. A simple broken bone could become fatal if you don't have medical help or supplies.
They use bikes in the last season of the walking dead, also they have horses throughout.
There's dead people and shit everywhere
You still need trails and roads for bikes. Even mountain bikes and BMX bikes still need a fairly flat surface or else they aren't going to be any better than walking. Nature is pretty much not flat unless its barren or a swamp. Most existing trails are for sightseeing and don't go anywhere useful. If roads are clear then you might as well use cars.
They would still be very useful but depending on the scenario might not be as useful as you think.
Yeah, but in an apocalyptic scenario, wouldn't you mostly stay near human-built environments anyway? Trekking through mountain ranges and whatnot is not that good an idea when your resources are already scarce.
Fuel runs out, so cars probably won't be working anymore or are extremely valuable. Also the noise.
For traversing a post-zombie world I don't see how bikes can be outcompeted.
Yeah and this is why they had horse, but if you didn't watch up until they got to Alexandria in like season 4 or 5 you wouldn't know how much they use horses throught the show after that. It's their main way of travel because gas is always running out, vehicles breaking down, except daryl and his motorcycle.
I'm talking more general, haven't seen that show.
>It's finally here, the zombie apocalypse
>derailleur is index
>tires are slimed
>usb headlight is charged
>wearing my edgelord equipment
>milk crate on the back with everything I need
>ride around looking for a new safehouse
>run over a huge nail
>can't leave inside tire because ting noise
>pull nail out
>to big for slime
>pull out the tire levers
>get tire off
>head opened up like a bag of chips from behind and eaten by zombies
The same company that makes that slime shit, makes little repair kits with plastic plugs if the hole is too large.
The ones that take a week to get to you from across the world? Yeah.. Yeah..
No they sell those repair packs in sneed and feed type shops and walmarts etc.
SLIME-1034-A-Tire-Plug-Kit-for-Car-Truck-Tires-8-piece-Rubber-Cement-Plug-Kit
Did you just google "bike repair problems" for the shitpost or have you just not looked at all the slime stuff for sale in the bike aisle at Walmart?
I'm an experienced cyclist and think it's hilarious you guys think a bike is viable in the apocalypse after 2 years, no experience fixing bikes, thinking you'll be silent and can fix problems quickly in a world with zombies that want to eat you. The indexing of your derailleur goes out and you're making noise everywhere you go and chain skipping when you need to escape. Not to mention all the leftover shit in the road without my man the street sweeper! Dudes in actual vehicles will finally live out their fantasy of running your ass over if they see you and if you break down in transit you're not fixing that shit easily/noiselessly and you'll have to carry all your shit on foot.
>bike parts everywhere
have fun wasting valuable sunlight and calories fixing a bike so it can break within the same day.
>Dudes in actual vehicles will finally live out their fantasy of running your ass over
That'd be me
well yea didn't take into account random zombie spawning just offscreen
>falling off or crashing won't kill you
Except flying into the pavement can definitely kill you or at least seriously injure you
Bicycles was used in World War Z for a scene if I remember correctly.
Having a dog was really useful for Daryl, peronal alarm system.
They used bikes in this
god that girl was so pretty
>Fast
>Runs off grass
>Repairs itself
>You can frick it when lonely
>Repairs itself
They don't.
Horses are some of the weakest animals when it comes to recovery.
I'd rather ride a cow.
>cow
>milk, transport and mule all in one
Cow wins.
Also they can detect danger
you can also cut little chunks out of it if you get hungry
sharpened spetsnaz shovel is what you should be carrying
multifunctional, no moving parts, handle is field-replaceable
attempting to dig with a sword or a mace/bat/whatever is a fricking fool's game and in a pinch you can chop wood with the shovel
>the walking dead
>why are they walking tho
if zombie goo is gonna be splashing up against my coverings i'd rather avoid melee altogether
because bicycle companies don't pay for product placement, ya dingus!
Why no one in the zombie post-apocalypse media get any other infections other than the zombie virus? Like they smear rotting flesh all over their bodies, how come they don't get hepatitis B but if I walk into the gym's shower without flipflops I get fungus?
Couple of the mains used bikes in The Stand miniseries.
The guy selling radioactive water in Beyond Thunderdome had a trike cart.
The humble bicycle is my main vehicle in every iteration of DayZ. Keep your hummers and hinds. There was no scarier noise in Chernarus than my bike bell.
>*dingding* *dingding*
>*dingding* *dingding*
Bikegays BTFO, brand new Hyundais are the post-apocalyptic vehicle of choice
Behold the best post apocalyptic vehicle
>blocks your path
you*re
yore**
WOW are you so moron..
>Zombie infects you through a bite, therefore the illness is transferred by saliva
>Getting zombie blood all over you and in your mouth does not infect you
Bite is poisonous and only change after you die. At least I think that's the general throwaway explanation for most zombie media.
if covid taught me anything humanity would be dead in weak apocalypse scenario. Zombie one would be overkill.
Just watched some goofy zombie anime on the Netflix and the characters used bikes plenty.
>Americans
>exercise
>not getting pogo stilts
Because bikes look lame
>wear bite proof armor
>get stuck under a pile of zombies and starve to death anyway
Good job moron
Because it looks silly and non dramatic
To survive a zombie apocalypse you only need a few layers of cardboard and tape
But that doesn't look cool either
Can PrepHolegays and /n/iggers come to a truce that the real enemy are e-bikes and e-scooters? No exercise benefit of a pedal bike, no speed/protection of a vehicle and yet they just succ electricity for lazy people to fr fr around. Why are we in a war against each other when its the battery companies and insurance companies that are the real enemy?
A trike would be more stable, only pro mountain bikers or bmx fans could make it
Trikes are way more prone to tipping. If youve ever ridden a bike you would understand this
Namely because you don't have billions of dollars of oil and auto israelite money going into advertising bicycles. If bikes generated nearly as many paypigs as the modern automobile you would see them in every movie.
Where do they get gasoline in these shows? It's never mentioned and producing biodiesel would be hugely resource intensive when you could be growing food. Even solar powered battery vehicles will have a short life without maintenance. Keeping a car running in the apocalypse after 5 years would be close to impossible
magic gasoline
It's so moronic. Even worse, 99% of the roads would be impassable for a car. There would be miles and miles of burnt out cars and many roads would get washed out and destroyed very quickly without upkeep
not to mention the cars they end up using are even bigger gasoline hogs
I can't even keep a house plant alive. I'm pretty sure if I tried farming for survival post-apocalypse I'd be dead before harvesting a single crop.