Negative. Distance traveled on a L of fuel tells directly which is the most
fuel-efficient vehicle. The greater the distance traveled on a L of fuel
the more cost-effective the vehicle is, assuming all other things are equal.
It has nothing to do with money until you wish to determine actual cost
(money) then it can be computed with a specific price of fuel which is
variable from station to station and time to time.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'U.S. Metric Association'"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:40300] Re: convenient numerical values
I think that you are getting hung up with the concept that costs are always
measured in terms of money. Sure money is a useful comparator, but
sometimes costs are best measured in other units, in this case litres of
fuel.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of STANLEY DOORE
Sent: 29 January 2008 21:24
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:40300] Re: convenient numerical values
Trying to add an independent variable to the nominator in place of km in
km/L adds to the confusion and uncertainty since the cost of a L of fuel
varies from one fuel station to another while distance is fixed to the L.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:26 AM
Subject: [USMA:40292] Re: convenient numerical values
Is it not valid to regard fuel as a currency - if I am comparing my car with
your car, I can use £/km, you would use $/km, Han (in the Netherlands) would
use €/km but if we used L/km (or L/100 km to generate numbers that are
greater than 1), we could all compare the costs of our respective cars.
-----Original Message-----
From: STANLEY DOORE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 January 2008 22:20
To: Martin Vlietstra; 'U.S. Metric Association'
Subject: Re: [USMA:40269] Re: convenient numerical values
The fuel efficiency (km/L) is the governing factor. Prices are given in
cost/L or cost per gallon in the US. Therefore the cost per L determines
the best buy regardless of distance. Also, L is in the denominator in both
cases. The assumption that price is the same at different fuel stations is
not valid.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'U.S. Metric Association'"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:40269] Re: convenient numerical values
If one trader sells apples at $1.00/kg and another at $1.20/kg, which is
the
more expensive? The one with the larger number associated with it.
Similarly, if one car uses 5 L/100km and another uses 6 L/100km, which is
the more expensive? Again, the one with the larger number associated with
it.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of STANLEY DOORE
Sent: 28 January 2008 18:55
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:40269] Re: convenient numerical values
The use of km/L is similar to the mpg used in the US. It avoids the
need for a decimal point in L or the use of mL in the L/km expression..
If one runs out of gas and you know the distance you need to travel to
the next fuel station, it's very easy to know how many L are needed.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 7:11 AM
Subject: [USMA:40258] Re: convenient numerical values
On Sunday 27 January 2008 20:37, Ziser, Jesse wrote:
I'd like to offer another possible example of violation of the rule of
thousands. I keep seeing L/100 km in fuel efficiency contexts. I also
occasionally see km/L but it appears to be rarer. km/L is clearly more
"thousandy", and also has the debatable advantage of being "distance per
volume" just like MPG. Besides, "L/100 km" seems an awkward mouthful.
Is
this really the preferred unit?
I'm thinking about getting metric mileage bumper stickers for my friends
and family (most of whom I'm sure would enthusiastically accept and
display
them) and I was wondering if anyone had any other opinions on the km/L
versus L/100 km issue. I've been unable to find much about it online.
At least two of us agreed, the last time this came up, that the unit of
fuel
consumption should be the liter per megameter, or microliter per meter
(or
cubic millimeter per meter if you wish to avoid "liter").
As to methods of averaging, the harmonic mean is a bit more abstruse than
the
arithmetic mean, but it comes up all the time in electric circuits. Every
little kid should know some reciprocals and be able to estimate a
harmonic
mean.
Pierre
