And PS stands for pfund sterke , IIRC, which is German for horse power. They are slightly smaller than the British ones as will be seen from the above.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
Giving fuel consumption as x litres per 100km is arbitary and awkward, because of the use of 100km.
x miles per gallon is a pure figure and the higher the figure the more economical the car is.
x litres per 100km is an arbitary figure and counter tuitive. You want a car to be more economical so the higher number should be better, but it is not.
I have no opinion on Imperial or Metric, although we should use one or the other and not both for national things like motoring. However, There should still be an allowance for small businesses so that we can continue to use pounds and ounces etc. Otherwise we will play cricket on a 22m pitch (Ugh).
sings -- there will always be an England---
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I don't agree. The use of 100km is no more arbitrary than basing the measure on one gallon of fuel. In fact, far from being counter-intuitive, it makes perfect sense. The lower the L/100km figure, the less fuel you're using. It's only because we're not used to thinking in a different scale that it seems a little odd at first. The rest of the non-Amercian world manages it and I don't see why we can't either.
I agree with HJ. The bit that really drives me nuts is that in this country we're so half-hearted about adopting the metric system. I buy fuel in litres, my dumb car displays MPG; the air line at my local filling station displays psi and the handbook for my car quotes bar for tyre pressures. This half-baked sentimentality for 'imperial' measures doesn't help anyone. It's time miles, yards, gallons ounces and the rest of them were dumped once and for all. And that means PS, too, I think. Shouldn't that be Kw?
|
Giving fuel consumption as x litres per 100km is arbitary and awkward, because of the use of 100km. x miles per gallon is a pure figure and the higher the figure the more economical the car is.
I prefer MPG only because it's what I'm used to - however I don't see why l/km is any worse. If we measured distance in km then it may start to catch on as we already buy fuel in litres.
Otherwise we will play cricket on a 22m pitch (Ugh).
BTW, that'll be 20.1m between wickets ;-)
|
|
"...but we buy our fuel by the litre,"
It's in the hope that we do not notice the diabolical price of a gallon!
|
In my case it's by the £10 note...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
It is a subjective matter. I think the older you are the less you like the changing of those measurements you are comfortable with.
I particularly dislike the imposition of the metric measurements by the EEC.
Bringing it back to motoring - I read somewhere , I think possibly Christopher Booker in the Telegraph saying that a number of towns and cities may have been in breach of the law when setting up the transfer of parking regulations to local authority control and that thousands of parking fines may have to be repaid.
The city that he mentioned in particular was Sunderland - home of the metric martyrs.
Anybody see that article?
|
Found it myself -
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005...l
Very interesting if you have been fined for parking there.
|
|
