4 ms·

Personally I think it's useful to use scales & dimensions people already know & grasp. I'm having a hard time combining all the factors you're smooshing togethe

Personally I think it's useful to use scales & dimensions people already know & grasp. I'm having a hard time combining all the factors you're smooshing together. I haven't figured out- 2.3 what per 100km per passenger? I haven't run any numbers to run that have gotten me 2.3 anythings. Using my figure, if you want to get per-passenger, if we say it seats 200, we can multiply .217km/l by (1 plane/200 persons) and get 43.4 km/l / person, or, 102mpg/p, which I think most people will understand reasonably intuitively, compared to what they already know. This is indeed a rather impressive claim. It makes me wonder why they don't just call this thing the 100mpg plane, if true.

davidgay 4y ago
> Personally I think it's useful to use scales & dimensions people already know & grasp. To the best of my knowledge, most of the world reports transport efficiency in l/100km. And the poster even nicely included the US-centric mpg value for people in not-most-of-the-world.
foepys 4y ago
Some (most?) regions compare fuel efficiency by how much fuel in liters is needed to travel 100km. English speaking countries (or at least most of them) usually do it the other way around and compare the distance one can travel by fuel unit.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  distance per fuel quantity ~~ efficiency fuel quantity per distance ~~ inefficiency or cost
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  The US and UK are probably the only English-speaking countries that measure efficiency in miles per gallon (and not even the same gallon). Everywhere else uses litres per 100 km. I believe my car (2003 VW Jetta TDI diesel) gets about 4.5 L/100 km, which is quite good compared to a typical truck that gets 15+ L/100 km.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  Australia and New Zealand only use L/100km, so it's not a language thing.
robbiep 4y ago
You weren’t able to divide 1 by 43.4 and multiply by 100 to get 2.3L per 100km?

davidgay 4y ago

> Personally I think it's useful to use scales & dimensions people already know & grasp. To the best of my knowledge, most of the world reports transport efficiency in l/100km. And the poster even nicely included the US-centric mpg value for people in not-most-of-the-world.

foepys 4y ago

Some (most?) regions compare fuel efficiency by how much fuel in liters is needed to travel 100km. English speaking countries (or at least most of them) usually do it the other way around and compare the distance one can travel by fuel unit.

a9h74j 4y ago
distance per fuel quantity ~~ efficiency fuel quantity per distance ~~ inefficiency or cost
frosted-flakes 4y ago
The US and UK are probably the only English-speaking countries that measure efficiency in miles per gallon (and not even the same gallon). Everywhere else uses litres per 100 km. I believe my car (2003 VW Jetta TDI diesel) gets about 4.5 L/100 km, which is quite good compared to a typical truck that gets 15+ L/100 km.
stephen_g 4y ago
Australia and New Zealand only use L/100km, so it's not a language thing.

robbiep 4y ago

You weren’t able to divide 1 by 43.4 and multiply by 100 to get 2.3L per 100km?