Someone might find intersting... Nat
National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) June 21, 2002 Friday Ontario Edition SECTION: Special Report: Driver's Edge; Road Rant; Pg. DO2 LENGTH: 569 words HEADLINE: A measure only engineers could love SOURCE: National Post BYLINE: David Menzies BODY: In the three-year history of Road Rant, your humble ink-stained wretch has vented on subjects ranging from impaired drivers to left-lane bandits. But nothing has generated more reader response than my tirade two weeks ago regarding the way fuel consumption is measured. (To recap: I lamented the death of the old miles per gallon standard, which was long ago replaced by the ghastly L/100 km benchmark.) With the exception of my engineer neighbour Kornel Farkas, I have yet to come across someone who speaks of their vehicle's fuel consumption using the less-is-more measurement standard of L/100 km. Why not stay true to the metric system by measuring fuel consumption via kilometres per litre (kpl)? Without further ado, here is a sampling of the feedback: - "You wrote: 'Aside from the authors of the Fuel Consumption Guide, does anyone out there actually refer to their car's gas consumption using the L/100 km benchmark?' I'll answer: Posted on my fridge is my Golf TDI's mileage record. I wrote, 'Car mileage record: 1,105 km/49 litres = 4.43 litres/100 km.' We're talking about fuel consumption. If you burn less to go the same distance, then a smaller number makes perfect sense." Mike Seibert - "I agree with you that the logic behind the way fuel economy is presented in metric is difficult to accept ... Using the current metric logic, one could express the speed limit as 1.1 hours/100 km, which is 90 km an hour, or 0.9 hours/100 km, which is about 110 km. Would that make sense?" John D. Holmes - "Regarding the article on kpl versus L/100 km: Finally, a voice of reason! L/100 km is ridiculous. No one has a good feel for that number. Do you think the same idiots will decide to change the km/h to hours/100 km on our speedometers?" Robert MacKenzie - "Your pleas for yet another change in the vehicle fuel consumption values would only confuse consumers further. Wouldn't it be simpler to leave things as they are and do as I have been doing since 1962 -- convert using the simple formula: 282.5 divided by litres per 100 km = mpg. Or, 282.5/mpg = litres per 100 km." Allan Taylor - "When we consider fuel economy, the only time we consider a higher number to be better is when we are thinking in terms of the old miles per gallon standard. Otherwise, in our speech, greater numbers indicate worse fuel economy. A gas-guzzler is one that takes a lot of fuel; an efficient car takes less fuel. Logically, our measure should reflect the way we otherwise think, not the other way around." Jeremiah Shapiro - Finally, Mr. Farkas took issue with my desire for the "illogical" kpl benchmark. "Instead of saying, 'My diet is 800 calories a day,' David would say, 'I can maintain my metabolism for 108 seconds on one calorie of food energy.' Instead of saying, 'Subway fare is $2.25,' David would say, 'I can take 44% of my route on the subway for $1.' By the way, do you think the price of the 78-page Friday issue of the National Post was appropriately marked as 25 cents, or should the front page have stated: 'Every 3.12 pages you do not completely read is a wasted penny?' " Bottom line: All those in favour of L/100 km are apparently engineers (those fun-loving folk who look upon pocket protectors as fashion accessories). Everyone else loathes the L/100 km standard. Oh, well. At least we have a measurement system that is adored by 0.000000001% of the world's population. LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2002
