On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:22:13 Bill Potts wrote: ... >You mean you haven't see fuel consumption rated in dekaliters per megameter >(daL/Mm)? <g> > >(Actually, I'm trying to decide whether or not that would be an improvement >over L/100 km. I think my preference, though, would be for L/Mm.) >... Actually you've found a very clever way for Canadian authorities to continue publishing this hideous ration (L/100 km) while avoiding the "100" crap! Way to go, Bill.
Evidently the L/Mm value would be 1 tenth of the daL/Mm amount... If you wanted my opinion I'd probably favor the former. I guess it would be asking too much from the public to adjust to two "unknown/unfamiliar" prefixes, instead of just one, M, in this case. On the other hand, if folks were to insist on having a mindset based on the L/100 km value, then daL/Mm would be the way to go. Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
