5 ms·

So, 12,8m/3,78541178l or EU standard combined: 29573,53l/100km? I wish at least sciency articles used SI.

by rue 16y ago

axod 16y ago
The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. I'm sure I'll get downmodded to hell for expressing this opinion here, but I really do prefer imperial measurements.
- jmillikin 16y ago
  It's only something you can visualise if you grew up with imperial units; "42 feet per gallon" is not inherently easier than "3.4 meters per liter", nor "125.7 gallons per mile" than "296 liters per km".
  - wtallis 16y ago
    But all of those are far more accessible than 29573.53L/100km, which most people would just round up to "a hell of a lot". Using conventional units doesn't really help when the magnitude is so high.
    - rue 16y ago
      It consumes about the same as 5500 mid-sized cars?
    - pmjordan 16y ago
      30000 litres is the same as 30 cubic metres, i.e. "small swimming pool". Easy.
  - spectre 16y ago
    The advantage to the metric system is the ease of converting between units. I can convert from metres per litre to litres per kilometre by dividing the former into 1000. In this case 1000/3.4 = 294 (Approx)
- rue 16y ago
  > The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. And they will continue to mean nothing because not even sciency articles bother to use SI. Save a concerted effort to learn, obviously. A meter is about 3 feet or one yard and a litre is about a quart, if that helps. > Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. Kind of a broad statement, no? Humans who are used to imperial units, sure. To folks not accustomed to them it seems at times that "imperialists" measure everything in football fields… > […] but I really do prefer imperial measurements. Do you prefer them in an objective comparison or out of habit? SI units are, I think, easier to use because of the decimal-basedness and simpler conversions.
- demallien 16y ago
  Where by "humans" I assume you mean "Americans"? I've lived in three countries, none of which use gallons, and only one of which used miles...
  - axod 16y ago
    I'm from the UK where we often use imperial.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- RK 16y ago
  It would have been more meaningful if rue had normalized it to 3.38 m/l. Those are human visualizable units.
  - rue 16y ago
    Quite true, but I specifically wanted to get the standard combined "fuel efficiency" figure to compare against other vehicles easily. As has been demonstrated, it is quite simple to convert to simpler figures.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. Can you tell me quickly, without getting out pen and paper, how many gallons in 42 cubic feet? I suspect I can calculate how many litres in 42 cubic meters a damn sight quicker.
- cromulent 16y ago
  OK, so that's about 50 feet per gallon, using imperial gallons instead of US gallons (assuming they used dry gallons rather than wet ones). Hmmm. Maybe it's better to say 1.5 chains to the peck to avoid confusion over the different gallons.
- jules 16y ago
  Well, he multiplied both numbers by a huge number and included far too many digits, obscuring what it means. Here comes the advantage of SI (notice that only multiplication by 10 is needed): 29573.53l/100km = 0.29573531 l/m =~ 0.3 l/m A way to visualize this is that if you put the fuel needed in a pipe along the route the vehicle rides, then the pipe has a cross section of 3 cm^2 (hey those SI units are handy!).

So, 12,8m/3,78541178l or EU standard combined: 29573,53l/100km? I wish at least sciency articles used SI.

by rue 16y ago

So, 12,8m/3,78541178l or EU standard combined: 29573,53l/100km? I wish at least sciency articles used SI.

axod 16y ago

The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. I'm sure I'll get downmodded to hell for expressing this opinion here, but I really do prefer imperial measurements.

jmillikin 16y ago
It's only something you can visualise if you grew up with imperial units; "42 feet per gallon" is not inherently easier than "3.4 meters per liter", nor "125.7 gallons per mile" than "296 liters per km".
- wtallis 16y ago
  But all of those are far more accessible than 29573.53L/100km, which most people would just round up to "a hell of a lot". Using conventional units doesn't really help when the magnitude is so high.
  - rue 16y ago
    It consumes about the same as 5500 mid-sized cars?
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    30000 litres is the same as 30 cubic metres, i.e. "small swimming pool". Easy.
- spectre 16y ago
  The advantage to the metric system is the ease of converting between units. I can convert from metres per litre to litres per kilometre by dividing the former into 1000. In this case 1000/3.4 = 294 (Approx)
rue 16y ago
> The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. And they will continue to mean nothing because not even sciency articles bother to use SI. Save a concerted effort to learn, obviously. A meter is about 3 feet or one yard and a litre is about a quart, if that helps. > Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. Kind of a broad statement, no? Humans who are used to imperial units, sure. To folks not accustomed to them it seems at times that "imperialists" measure everything in football fields… > […] but I really do prefer imperial measurements. Do you prefer them in an objective comparison or out of habit? SI units are, I think, easier to use because of the decimal-basedness and simpler conversions.
demallien 16y ago
Where by "humans" I assume you mean "Americans"? I've lived in three countries, none of which use gallons, and only one of which used miles...
- axod 16y ago
  I'm from the UK where we often use imperial.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
RK 16y ago
It would have been more meaningful if rue had normalized it to 3.38 m/l. Those are human visualizable units.
- rue 16y ago
  Quite true, but I specifically wanted to get the standard combined "fuel efficiency" figure to compare against other vehicles easily. As has been demonstrated, it is quite simple to convert to simpler figures.
cabalamat 16y ago
> The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. Can you tell me quickly, without getting out pen and paper, how many gallons in 42 cubic feet? I suspect I can calculate how many litres in 42 cubic meters a damn sight quicker.
cromulent 16y ago
OK, so that's about 50 feet per gallon, using imperial gallons instead of US gallons (assuming they used dry gallons rather than wet ones). Hmmm. Maybe it's better to say 1.5 chains to the peck to avoid confusion over the different gallons.
jules 16y ago
Well, he multiplied both numbers by a huge number and included far too many digits, obscuring what it means. Here comes the advantage of SI (notice that only multiplication by 10 is needed): 29573.53l/100km = 0.29573531 l/m =~ 0.3 l/m A way to visualize this is that if you put the fuel needed in a pipe along the route the vehicle rides, then the pipe has a cross section of 3 cm^2 (hey those SI units are handy!).