Martin, you keep forgetting how variable driving a car is (like the 0-60 discussion). Acceleration, braking and parking on the M25 (joke - it's the worlds busiest motorway) all have effects on consumption. Obv this affects mpg also.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [USMA:40299] Re: convenient numerical valuesDate: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:48:58 +0000 Bill, I would prefer L/100 km, which, if converted to SI would be m². This would be dead easy to visualize. Assume that fuel consumption is 10^-6 m². This works out at (1 mm)². Now imagine a string of fuel snaking along the road that you are using, square in cross-section with each side of the square being 1 mm. Now imagine that you are driving along that road. As you drive along the road, the “string” of fuel will be fed into your engine and will propel your car. I have not worked out what the cross-section would really be, I merely used 10^-6 m² as an example. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill PottsSent: 28 January 2008 06:20To: U.S. Metric AssociationSubject: [USMA:40255] Re: convenient numerical values J. Ward wrote: 'As a physicist I would speak in terms of "per meter squared."' Maybe so (and we had a discussion on this list a few years ago, involving that same ultimate reduction), but it is something that neither the physicist nor the layperson can readily visualize (although the physicist can rationalize its use). _________________________________________________________________ Share what Santa brought you https://www.mycooluncool.com
