2002-06-26 Wiz,
People in North America can not even do the simplest of math. They NEVER calculate any form of fuel consumption, whether it be L/100 km, km/l or mpg. They find out what the mpg rating is from some other source and when asked just repeat that same number. It makes no difference if their car doesn't get that number, or their car is older and doesn't perform as it once did. Once xxx mpg, always xxx mpg. And to calculate the fuel needed to drive 250 km, they don't care and would never do the calculation. The same is true with women's dress sizes. Once a size x, always a size x. Even if she has turned into a Buffalo. The clever dress makers, just change the size 9 to match the customer. That is the beauty of FFU. If you don't like the length of the inch, just change it to what ever you want. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wizard of OS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-06-26 06:57 Subject: [USMA:20649] Benefit of L/100 km vs. km/L > one lil' example: > > I wanna go to hamburg from berlin. I know my car consumes 9 L/100 km on > highway. Hamburg is 250 km away what's my consumption? > > 9 L x 2,5 = 22,5 L I dont need even a calculator > > ISN'T it ez? > when you use km/L it makes it completely impossive to do it without > calculator!!! > > 11,11 km/L > 250 km to go > > 250/11,11 > > some kinda impossible in mind to do > > now you maybe see the convenience of 100 km > > think about it :-D > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian J White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:51 AM > Subject: [USMA:20632] Re: Fwd: Re: L/100 km > > > > > > Problem is John...that megameters are basically unused. Distances are > > kilometers, speed limits are in kilometers per hour....therefore it makes > > perfect sense to use kilometers per liter. > > > > > > > > At 18:29 2002-06-25 -0400, kilopascal wrote: > > >2002-06-25 > > > > > >I don't see how the Europeans will face any defeat by using litres per > > >hundred kilometres, as they have been using that unit maybe over 100 > years. > > >I too would prefer litres per megametre. Maybe this unit can be > suggested > > >to the guy who wrote the article. > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "M R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Tuesday, 2002-06-25 17:52 > > >Subject: [USMA:20627] Fwd: Re: L/100 km > > > > > > > > > > Some 1 in our forum suggested > > > > L / Mm (liters / megameter) and that is a better > > > > format. > > > > > > > > Instead if the Europeans insist on weird l / 100 km, > > > > then definitely they will face the defeat. > > > > > > > > Madan > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:47:58 -0700 > > > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > From: Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Subject: [USMA:20626] Re: L/100 km > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to say....but I kinda agree with him. I > > > > > think km per liter would > > > > > have been a much better choice than liters per > > > > > 100km. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it has anything to do really with > > > > > metric vs ifp per se > > > > > really. You'd have the same problem changing to > > > > > gallons per 100 > > > > > miles. It's just not as intuitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 13:47 2002-06-25 -0400, Nat Hager III wrote: > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > >
