It does say MPG, but I doubt (hope) it isn't right. I think it's l/100km instead - converting to mpg it reads as 22.7/44.8/33.6 - a lot healthier, not world-shaking though

 

When ARE you guys going to actually go Metric?

 

Perhaps a lot of us don't want to be part of the Euro state! After all it's only the Germans trying to get their own back for 2 world wars and 1 world cup.

The change to a single currency and the inclusion of what are basically third world peasant economies in the EU has been a singular disaster.

Nothing wrong with the imperial measurements that we have used since the Romans left their mark on this sceptered isle.

 

I think we should have gone metric years ago, about the time when Barchester Towers fell and playing cricket on the village green didn't quite cut it anymore. You know, when we lost the empire and failed to gain a purpose in the world

 

I'm also firmly in the metric camp, using the imperial system is just quite frankly silly in this day and age. The only thing I still use imperial for is driving given that all the road signs and speed limits are imperial it'd be silly to try and do that one in metric

It certainly does make much more sense to record fuel usage in litres used per hundred km (or even gallons used per hundred miles!), no idea why we ever thought miles per gallon was a good measurement really!

 

using the imperial system is just quite frankly silly in this day and age.


It certainly does make much more sense to record fuel usage in litres used per hundred km


no idea why we ever thought miles per gallon was a good measurement really![/b]

Not necessarily,

Not necessarily,

and,

Because miles and gallons are what distances and liquids were measured in for the best part of a century in the UK following the introduction of the motor car.

I quite happily and easily work in both systems - pence per litre, miles per gallon, litres per tankful, miles per tankful, miles per hour, kilometres per hour, all freely interchangeable. It works for me, and it works for millions of others. The benefits of a pre-comprehensive system education paying off in the real world.

Metric ain't all it pretends to be.
I buy my eggs in sixes, drink my beer in pints, count my hours in 24s, my days in groups of seven. But I do use A4 paper, based on a German sizing system, and we know how precise the Germans are.
That's why A4 paper measures 210 mm by 297mm (297 ?? Surely 300 would be the rational choice...).

I'm still sad that the introduction of decimal currency in 1971 meant that the funniest joke I ever heard, involving two pennies, a sixpence and a shilling, was understood by fewer and fewer as the years passed.

Don't worry, I'll probably be dead within the next 20 years, so that'll be one less dinosaur around.

 

People,
Yest he intial figures quoted in this thread are indeed 'Litres/100km'.

In real terms, they are:

22.7/19.7 mpg - City driving

44.8/42.1 mpg - Highway

33.6/30.0 mpg - Combined

These figures are taken from a new 9-5 price list brochure picked up on the lanuch date.

Cheers

DeeVee

 

It pains me to show my pedantry, and my design-work geekery, but the A-range of paper sizes are so chosen because they maintain an aspect ratio of √2 whatever size they're scaled too - makes printing easier

I'm of the generation that's ostensibly supposed to understand both imperial and metric measurements, but surely anyone can understand a system that has base ten, rather than the arbitrary distinctions made in the imperial system.

More to the point, it doesn't really matter. The UK is legally metric, although retailers can still put imperial units next to metric, and most sectors are moving over to metric to ensure international operatability. The US Customary system is moving the same way.


God, I'm boring

 

ISO 216 paper sizes are based on as trebizond correctly says the square root of 2 or as a proportion 1.4142:1

A0 paper size is 1 square metre and every other paper size is half that of the one larger - therefore A1 is half A0 folded along the long length and so on.

Mind you the old paper sizes had such wonderful names - quarto, double elephant, imperial, half imperial, which were in use when I originally trained as a graphic designer before the time of computers and Quark Express and Photoshop - we had to learn to do finished artwork for printing from by hand!

Maybe its the German races precision that makes them so bl**dy boring.

 

this thread has meandered like a drunken conversation in a country pub, interesting but strange. Double elephant ??

 

When you are old enough to remember paper sizes called double elephant meandering/rambling is a pleasant way to occupy the time............

The trouble is when I started driving petrol was 2/6 a gallon and you got Green Shield stamps too!

 

...but the A-range of paper sizes are so chosen because they maintain an aspect ratio of √2 whatever size they're scaled too -



More to the point, it doesn't really matter.[/b]

I knew that, just stirring it a bit , and I also agree, it doesn't really matter. It's just that if something works, there's no real need to stop it.



Just like the plan to stop FM radio transmissions in favour of DAB...

...which is a £300 option on the new 9-5 (back on topic - sort of) , good enough reason not to specify it.

 

I was buying petrol long before Green Shield!

But if the metric paper size is logical, don't forget the B series paper! Or the C series sizes for envelopes, so that you can fit the A series inside!!

But what's really needed is two extra symbols so that you can use base 12 and still divide by three, yet multiply by 12 by adding a 0........

 

Not necessarily,

Not necessarily,

and,

Because miles and gallons are what distances and liquids were measured in for the best part of a century in the UK following the introduction of the motor car.[/b]

Provide a working with evidence.

Provide a working with evidence.

And... yes, because we were being useless and confused by a small change. mpg is still wrong... failure to understand why makes me chuckle even though I encountered it often (and no! i don't give hints!)

 

In keeping with the spirit of this forum, and to avoid the possibility of my breaching SSc AUP, specifically but not exclusively sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, I will not be contributing further to this topic.

 

You know the French are to blame....namely the little guy who put his hand in his waistcoat a lot....

 

The French don't like us either, just because the British, the Americans and the Commonwealth saved them from having to speak German, not just once but twice!

Anyway what's wrong with a hexadecimal system?

 

Anyway what's wrong with a hexadecimal system?[/b]

Very few people have 16 fingers............. :thumbsup:

 

Very few people have 16 fingers............. :thumbsup:[/b]

There are a few strange people with the odd extra digit down here in darkest Devon..............!

 

Very few people have 16 fingers............. :thumbsup:[/b]

have you never watched the simpsons?? or been to norfolk?????

i still use MPG because to me it means something

its either 116 miles to london @ 25.2 MPG @ £5.13/gallon which equates to ... a lot

or its 186km @ 8.88 km/l @ £1.129/l which equates to ... a lot

either way i claim 40p/mile (or should it be 25p/km) which equates to ... a lot

why bother changing something that aint broke simply because of convenience for other countries and cultures?

 

have you never watched the simpsons??[/b]

I think they work in octal..........

 

I think they work in octal.......... [/b]

toes dear boy ... toes!

 

You guys crack me up. Very funny all up.

 

When ARE you guys going to actually go Metric?[/b]

I saw a program on TV the other night about QinetiQ - now they are a pretty high tech company.

I think it was the fuel tank on a Chinook they were replacing and one guy turned to the other and said up about half an inch.

If imperial is good enough for QinetiQ then its good enough for me

Vince

 

Was it referring to those Chinooks that have been mothballed for years because they couldn't do what they were supposed to do?