Dear Pat, I'm afraid you mixed things up here. It's *L* per 100 *km*, not the other way around...
And I must agree with you, if a country is used to dealing with fuel consumption *ideologically* in terms of "distance per volume of fuel consumed" it would just make sense to NOT upset such thinking and introduce the *equivalent* in SI terms. On the other hand, if a segment of the population does see usefulness in using the opposite ratio, then it would also make sense to provide them with the other ratio, but in SI (always!), as well. Changing "mentality" of thinking (for the general population, that is) is evidently much harder than changing units, I'd say... Marcus On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:33:42 Pat Naughtin wrote: >Dear Brian, Nat, and All, > >I agree with Brian that km/L is a better 'way of measuring' fuel consumption >than km/100L but for different reasons. > >My principal reason is that km/100L is not a unit of the SI. > >SI units are units; they do not include qualifying information such as, in >this example, the number 100. Secondly km/100L breaks the 'rule' that the >denominator in a unit formed by division should be a unit without a prefix >(or in this example without the number 100). > >Including the number, 100, within the 'unit' unnecessarily makes measuring >fuel consumption appear to be more complex than the 'good old miles per >gallon' and so, from a metrication point of view it is much more difficult >to make the change to metric. > >The experience in Australia is that the Metric Conversion Board recommended >the use of km/100L and we had similar protests from all over the community >especially from the motor enthusiasts. Generally the press and the motor >magazines limited references to fuel consumption or, if they did refer to >it, gave dual calculated values for km/100L, mph, and/or (sometimes) km/L. > >In short, it has been a difficult transition to metric that I suggest would >have been faster with kilometres per litre. > >Cheers, > >Pat Naughtin CAMS >Geelong, Australia > >> 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) > ><snip> > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
