that guy is a joke! 100 km is absolutely convenient!
those reactions are typical for early metricated countries, in 20 years they won't be there! I see no benefit of mpg! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:11 PM Subject: [USMA:20624] RE: L/100 km > Not to add insult to injury, but here's his orginal column from 2 weeks > earlier... > > Nat > > -------------------- > > National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) > > June 7, 2002 Friday Ontario Edition > SECTION: Special Report: Driver's Edge; Road Rant; Pg. DO2 > LENGTH: 589 words > HEADLINE: Let's measure our fuel in kilometres per litre > SOURCE: National Post > BYLINE: David Menzies > > BODY: > Recently, I asked my neighbour Kornell what sort of mileage his Toyota > Corolla was getting. Amazingly, his answer was, "About eight litres per 100 > kilometres." By way of clarification, Kornell's response is amazing not > because of the Toyota's consumption (8L per 100 km is reasonable for such a > car). Rather, the amazing part is simply that Kornell is the first person I > have come across who has stated his car's gas consumption using the L/100 km > format, as opposed to the more familiar miles per gallon. Officially, Canada > is a metric country. Yes, it has taken a couple of decades. And true, during > the evil Trudeau regime, metric compliance was forced upon us under penalty > of law. But for the most part, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have > come to accept metrication. We now know that 32 degrees means sunburn, as > opposed to frostbite weather. We also have little problem buying gas by the > litre and noting distance and speed by the kilometre. But alas, the vast > majority of us still do not accept the metric system when it comes to fuel > consumption ratings. > > In the good old days (pre-1979), a car's fuel efficiency, or lack thereof, > was measured in the time-honoured method of miles per gallon. But 23 years > ago, the federal government began releasing fuel consumption statistics > using the mind-numbing L/100 km yardstick. (Or should that be metrestick?) > Thus, overnight, the easily understandable 28 mpg became the cryptic > 8.4L/100 km. Transport Canada's 1979 Fuel Consumption Guide notes: "This > unit [L/100 km] is used internationally, and makes consumption and cost > calculations relatively simple." > > Excuse me? "Relatively simple?" > > The fact is, apart from my Hungarian engineer neighbour, Canadians have > never embraced L/100 km -- and likely never will. My theory is that this > particular measurement benchmark is just too radical. It is not so much that > Canadians are uncomfortable with litres and kilometres replacing gallons and > miles. It is just the L/100 km benchmark changes the very context of fuel > measurement. It used to be the higher the number, the better. A car getting > 9 mpg was a gas hog while 45 mpg meant it was a miser. But everything is > topsy-turvy with L/100 km: Less is more, in that, the fewer litres needed to > travel 100 km, the better the car's fuel consumption. Gasp. > > Instead of mpg, why can't we remain true to the metric system, by reporting > fuel consumption as kpl (kilometres per litre)? > > I contacted Transport Canada for an answer and was told it would be wrong to > blame Ottawa for the current fuel consumption guidelines. "This [L/100 km] > formula was the one that was adopted in Europe," a Transport Canada > spokesman noted. However, he -- and everyone else I contacted -- had no idea > why L/100 km -- as opposed to kpl emerged as the metric standard in the > first place. > > Not surprisingly, ever since the rollout of L/100 km, Transport Canada has > received nothing but negative feedback from consumers -- a point reiterated > in focus groups conducted by the department. Thus, back in 1987, the > government decided to compromise, providing fuel consumption ratings in both > L/100 km and mpg. > > Yet, why bother? Aside from the authors of the Fuel Consumption Guide (and > my neighbour Kornell), does anyone out there actually refer to their car's > gas consumption using the L/100 km benchmark? Indeed, let us lobby for the > much more understandable (and logical) kpl consumption guideline. After all, > isn't the metric system supposed to be a measurement method based on logic? > > GRAPHIC: Black & White Photo: While the Toyota Corolla is easy on gas, > columnist David Menzies was surprised when his engineer neighbour reported > its fuel efficiency in litres per 100 kilometres, rather than miles per > gallon. > > LOAD-DATE: June 7, 2002 > > N > > 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 > > > >
