Write in all our names a decent mail to that stupid idiot! x L/100 km is perfect!
mpg ist ghastly NOT L/100 km what a fool and retarded person ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:47 PM Subject: [USMA:20622] L/100 km > 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 > >
