Back to MPH?

Tipsy Mac

Looks like we will be able to go back to mph now, miles have exemption now from being phased out by the EU...

EC abandons end to imperial measures

The European Commission has said it has abandoned plans to end the use of imperial measurements in the UK and Ireland.

Ton Van Lierop, spokesman for the EU's Industry Commissioner, Guenter Verheugen, said the end of an exemption allowing limited use of the pint, the mile and the troy ounce, which was due at the end of 2009, would not now be implemented.

EU-wide use of uniform metric measurements dates from 1980 - years after Britain and Ireland decided to move to the metric system for most purposes.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0911/metric.html?rss

commited

We wont go back to MPH though. Maybe this was referring to the UK and Northern Ireland?


Re your sig, was VRT only introduced in 1992?!?!?!

godtabh

Tipsy Mac wrote:

Looks like we will be able to go back to mph now, miles have exemption now from being phased out by the EU...

EC abandons end to imperial measures

The European Commission has said it has abandoned plans to end the use of imperial measurements in the UK and Ireland.

Ton Van Lierop, spokesman for the EU's Industry Commissioner, Guenter Verheugen, said the end of an exemption allowing limited use of the pint, the mile and the troy ounce, which was due at the end of 2009, would not now be implemented.

EU-wide use of uniform metric measurements dates from 1980 - years after Britain and Ireland decided to move to the metric system for most purposes.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0911/metric.html?rss

So are you saying all the road signs should be put back to miles? Or is it just related to the cars them selfs?

I much prefer it in metric.

Metric all the way

E92

One of the things people should never do with the passage of time is to go backwards.

Going to mph is exactly that. Backwards.

However, I'm delighted that the EC have made their decision in one sense, because we can still use mpg, and I don't know what litres per 100 km are. I don't even think there is a conversion,(certainly not one which can be used as an approximation; like the 5 miles = 8 km scenario) because litres per 100 km get smaller when mpg get bigger.

Perhaps carmakers will now supply fuel consumption data in mpg(nobody seems to do this anymore bar Opel and Toyota), give power in bhp(most do, but BMW for some reason don't; this I cant understand because even properly metric countries like Germany still use bhp(well PS really, but its so close to bhp that the difference is virtually non existant). I could never understand why most of them got rid of fuel consumption figures in mpg anyway(unless saving a couple of centimetres of ink per brouchure is that important)

I still think in miles and mph, I understand kilometres, I normally do speeds(of cars) in km/h because we have km/h for almost 3 years, but it would be stupid, backward and impossible to go back to mph, because cars in kilometres dont have mph on the speedo.

On the other hand, this will mean that any hope of the UK(or even NI) adopting km/h on the roads will be postponed forever perhaps, which is a nucince because of the fact our cars have km/h only now.

We really should have stuck with mph on the roads for this reason.
But just because we changed over to km/h is no reason to now go back to mph. Its certainly better for us when we're abroad to be using km/h anyway.

Basically what I'm saying is that while I don't want to/don't have to go forwards, I don't want to go backwards either:D .


And the reason that people are giving out about this decision are those who want to go Brit-bashing anyway-if Britain went metric in the morning, they'd want to use customary units, so as to be different from the Brits.

As we do most of our trade with the Brits and the US, it makes sense for us to at least understand the old fashioned system; we don't have to use it(and as 95% of the world uses metric, thats the one we most certainly should use), but we should have some kind of understanding of it.

mike65

commited wrote:

Re your sig, was VRT only introduced in 1992?!?!?!

Yes! It was excise duty before that. How old are you, can you shave yet?

Mike.

commited

Basically the same structure, just a different name?

I would have been 8 in 92, so hardly was at the tax office then...

Tipsy Mac

commited wrote:

Basically the same structure, just a different name?

I would have been 8 in 92, so hardly was at the tax office then...

Well at one stage there was a system where only cars built in Ireland could be sold here with similar Stalinist VRT style taxation, this is how Ford got into the country, I think it was Pre EU times.

peasant

As for liters/100 km

as the name says, it indicates how many liters of fuel your car will need to drive a distance of 100 km.

Now that the pumps are in liters and most speedos and odometers are in km it's actually easier to calculate than mpg ...it just doesn't mean a lot to people that are used to mpg

(same as KW means nothing to people who are used to hp)

colm_mcm

I think this ruling is more relevant to weights and volume measurements. The UK's traders have been very reluctant to get rid of pounds (weight) , feet, pints, etc.

gyppo

colm_mcm wrote:

I think this ruling is more relevant to weights and volume measurements. The UK's traders have been very reluctant to get rid of pounds (weight) , feet, pints, etc.

Maybe they have a point - look what happened when we got the Euro!!:)

E92

peasant wrote:

As for litres/100 km

as the name says, it indicates how many litres of fuel your car will need to drive a distance of 100 km.

Now that the pumps are in liters and most speedos and odometers are in km it's actually easier to calculate than mpg ...it just doesn't mean a lot to people that are used to mpg

(same as KW means nothing to people who are used to hp)

But its different for you - you come from a country that used litres per 100km for the best part of 60 years. Ye do everything metric for well over 20 years. I have old Geramn textbooks from the(early) 80s and the only old fashioned thing it said the Germans used was Pfunden(Pounds). Everything else was metres/litres etc. How many Germans would know what ''Gallonenmeilen'' are for instance, even people who are 70+? Or even any part of the old fashioned system apart from Zollen(and thats because wheel sizes are done in inches even to this day) and Pfunden? And I doubt that unless it was people in their 60s+ that they would even know what Pounds(the weight) are.

We always used miles, and naturally as follows, miles per gallon. It is definately a case of whatever one is used to. I don't understand litres/100km, because even though I know what it is, I have no idea what it is in mpg. I thought that I would have to know what it was, but now that the EU says the old fashioned system can stay indefinately, why should I bother changing? I notice that almost everyone who posts on Motors uses mpg(apart from those who say they are from a country that has used the metric system for yonks). Even 3 years after km/h, it is still very common for Irish people to use mph(myself included, though I normally try to use km/h). I would always say that the distance from A to B is X miles. Most cars are not in km anyways, its only cars after 05 and with the amounts of people importing cars from the UK, there are more than a few post 05 cars which are still in miles as a result.(and if people can't read km/h on the speedo of a car in mph they shouldn't be driving)

On the other hand, I would never talk about CO2 in anything other than g/km, why, because when CO2 ratings were introduced, they were only introduced in g/km, so there was never a need to convert, because they only ever introduced it in metric anyway.

commited

Yup, I still work in mpg. I have no idea if 5.2l/100km is good or not, but I know that when I'm getting anything over 45mpg, I'm happy!

lafors

commited wrote:

Yup, I still work in mpg. I have no idea if 5.2l/100km is good or not, but I know that when I'm getting anything over 45mpg, I'm happy!

Just think high is bad, low is good.
I'm happy with 9l/100km (approx 26/27mpg) cos I don't pay for the petrol , now say if that changed (please god no!) then I'd be looking for 7l/100km (about 34mpg) and if my wife has the car then I know I'll be getting 6l/100km (about 40mpg).

I'm lucky cos my car has a mph/kmph button which changes all the displays, so I like most of ye use mpg too, I do have an idea of what my l/100km will be though.

for reference (all approx):
5l/100km = 47mpg
6l/100km = 40mpg
7l/100km = 34mpg
8l/100km = 29mpg
9l/100km = (you're driving too fast ) 26mpg

colm_mcm

mph/kmph button eh?

Merc?

lafors

colm_mcm wrote:

mph/kmph button eh?

Merc?

Honda Civic
Only dial is rpm, all others are digital, so button will change all readings (cept rpm obviously) to miles or km. Handy for when I drive up north.

commited

My car has a mpg/l/km button but I just leave it in mpg. No one ever asks me how many l/km I'm getting, but mpg is asked

It BeeMee

There's a converter tool here

Seems you divide 235 by the l/100km to give mpg.

Damn, I always thought you divide 270.
My car is thirstier than I thought

lafors

It BeeMee wrote:

There's a converter tool here

Seems you divide 235 by the l/100km to give mpg.

Damn, I always thought you divide 270.
My car is thirstier than I thought

I always carry a calculator in the car

peasant

I know how difficult l/100 km must seem ...i still can't get my head around mpg after ten years.

but ...just out of interest ...where do ye get the gallons from ...there's only liters indicated on the pump

Rovi

I'm just glad I won't be getting any more of the funny looks I got when I went to the hardware shop looking for a 0.9144 meter brush.



I'll get my coat...

JHMEG

peasant wrote:

but ...just out of interest ...where do ye get the gallons from ...there's only liters indicated on the pump

Multiply the number of litres by 1.76, because it was written on the back of 1L milk cartons ("1L - 1.76 pints") when we were kids. Then divide by 8 to get gallons. Same as we all know that there are 454g in 1lb.

Educated by dairy produce. Sad but true.

what_car

lafors wrote:

Just think high is bad, low is good.
I'm happy with 9l/100km (approx 26/27mpg) cos I don't pay for the petrol , now say if that changed (please god no!) then I'd be looking for 7l/100km (about 34mpg) and if my wife has the car then I know I'll be getting 6l/100km (about 40mpg).

I'm lucky cos my car has a mph/kmph button which changes all the displays, so I like most of ye use mpg too, I do have an idea of what my l/100km will be though.

for reference (all approx):
5l/100km = 47mpg
6l/100km = 40mpg
7l/100km = 34mpg
8l/100km = 29mpg
9l/100km = (you're driving too fast ) 26mpg

very approx if you ask me! 5L/100km is defo not 47mpg
its more like 56.5!
to convert L/100km divide 282.5 by the L/100km to get MPG.

282.5 / 5.0L = 56.5 MPG..

Q.E.D

Royale with Cheese

Metric all the way. I have no idea what's a good mpg rating or litres per 100km so I'm ok with using litres. The only thing I'd be outraged if the EU outlawed was the pint, but pubs would still server 568ml beverages and people would still call them pints so it'd be grand.

JHMEG

Royale with Cheese wrote:

The only thing I'd be outraged if the EU outlawed was the pint,

No, you'd very soon get used to standard measures like 300ml, 500ml and 1000ml

Steve

I prefer furlongs prer quart... can't beat fpq for working out economy.

Seroiusly, I don't think I've ever bought fuel in anything other than litres in the last 15 yrs so mpg means zip to me.

blastman

How many perches are there in a rod again?

lafors

what_car wrote:

very approx if you ask me! 5L/100km is defo not 47mpg
its more like 56.5!
to convert L/100km divide 282.5 by the L/100km to get MPG.

282.5 / 5.0L = 56.5 MPG..

Q.E.D

Not according to Google convertor and 2 others I've found.
5 l/100km = 47.0429169 miles per gallon

Oh just realised where I'd say they are wrong, they are using an american gallon not a UK gallon.
US Gallon = 3.785 L
UK Gallon = 4.545 L

Feckin Amercians

Pherekydes

lafors wrote:

Not according to Google convertor and 2 others I've found.
5 l/100km = 47.0429169 miles per gallon

Oh just realised where I'd say they are wrong, they are using an american gallon not a UK gallon.
US Gallon = 3.785 L
UK Gallon = 4.545 L

Feckin Amercians

And this is why metric was introduced in the first place! It's all very well having miles and feet and pints and gallons, but if they're non-standardised then where do we stand?

As noted, the conversion is 282.351069752645/x = mpg where x is the litres/100km.

hi5

Tipsy Mac wrote:

Looks like we will be able to go back to mph now, miles have exemption now from being phased out by the EU...

EC abandons end to imperial measures

The European Commission has said it has abandoned plans to end the use of imperial measurements in the UK and Ireland.

Ton Van Lierop, spokesman for the EU's Industry Commissioner, Guenter Verheugen, said the end of an exemption allowing limited use of the pint, the mile and the troy ounce, which was due at the end of 2009, would not now be implemented.

EU-wide use of uniform metric measurements dates from 1980 - years after Britain and Ireland decided to move to the metric system for most purposes.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0911/metric.html?rss

This makes us look stupid,the government have wasted millions in euros of taxpayers money changing to kilometers when we could have held tight,more crawling up to the EU.
Most of europe continues to use a form of pounds and other non metric measurments.
http://www.bwmaonline.com/How%20Metric%20is%20Europe.htm

We can file this one along with the e-voting machines.

what_car

lafors wrote:

Not according to Google convertor and 2 others I've found.
5 l/100km = 47.0429169 miles per gallon

Oh just realised where I'd say they are wrong, they are using an american gallon not a UK gallon.
US Gallon = 3.785 L
UK Gallon = 4.545 L

Feckin Amercians

in all fairness
you are wrong!! not the americans you didnt cop that one!:D

E92

blastman wrote:

How many perches are there in a rod again?

Whats a hunderedweight? How many whatevers are in it?
Arent there bushels or something too?

Undoutedly the metric system is the way to go(the idea that a litre of water weighs a kilo) a metreXmetreXmetre= 1 m³= 1X10^6 litres is an awful lot better than trying to convert from cubic feet to gallons, but old habits die hard, so if anyone ever asks me for fuel consumption I'll always give mpg, if a car does 1 litre per 100 km or 50 it means nothing to me, whereas I know that 50 mpg is good, and 10 mpg is piss poor.

As for working out mpg - thats what trip computers are for . Anyway, people using different systems is what makes the world a different place. If we all did the same thing, then life would be very boring indeed.

If a trip computer in a car ever gives me the choice of units I want to use, I will always set it to mpg.

Why can't the metric people use kilometres per litre? As least there would be some sort of sensible(and presumably easy) conversion, just as there is for mph and km/h. I mean a gallon is about 4.5 litres, and a mile is about 1.6 km, so why cant people who use metric for fuel economy use km/l?(I've seen BMWs on youtube which have speedos in km/h and fuel economy meters in km/l, so why not?)

Steve

Slow coach wrote:

And this is why metric was introduced in the first place! It's all very well having miles and feet and pints and gallons, but if they're non-standardised then where do we stand?

I was looking at an old map recently (on the wall of a pub in west cork somewhere). I think it was from around 1800's sometime - can't be sure.

The interesting bit was the scale on the bottom had English miles and Irish miles on it - the Irish mile looked about 20% longer than the English one!
Don't think km's had beed invented yet.

Maybe we should revert to these

Steve

E92 wrote:

if a car does 1 litre per 100 km or 50 it means nothing to me, whereas I know that 50 mpg is good, and 10 mpg is piss poor.

OK the relative meaning of "1 litre per 100 km or 50" is meaningless - that's just because you aren't familiar with what figures are good and what aren't - personally if someone asked what mpg i'm getting I'd have to say I don't know - even if I did know the figures mean SFA to me.
What I do know is that I can get x amount of km's for y litres of fuel. If I'm going on a long run e.g. Dub-Cork, I know how many km's it is from the signposts and I then know how many litres of fuel to expect to use.

BTW as for l/km figures - haven't a clue what's good or bad either:D

sesswhat

E92 wrote:

Why can't the metric people use kilometres per litre? As least there would be some sort of sensible(and presumably easy) conversion, just as there is for mph and km/h. I mean a gallon is about 4.5 litres, and a mile is about 1.6 km, so why cant people who use metric for fuel economy use km/l?(I've seen BMWs on youtube which have speedos in km/h and fuel economy meters in km/l, so why not?)

It would have been just too sensible. (These people are descended from the ones who also came up with the imperial system. They had 8 fingers on one hand and 14 on the other and based their counting systems on this.)

If your fuel consumption is 16.8 you don't have to worry which scale to use;)

Pherekydes

sesswhat wrote:

If your fuel consumption is 16.8 you don't have to worry which scale to use;)

Good one!

zilog_jones

I think the conversion from MPH to km/h was justified here as Irish road signs had already been in some half-assed conversion limbo for as long as I can remember (I'm 22) having distances all in kilometres but speeds in miles.

In the UK they're still all imperial, and the cost of changing all the road signs over there would be even more ridiculous.

E92

sesswhat wrote:

If your fuel consumption is 16.8 you don't have to worry which scale to use;)

Is that because 16.8 mpg is 16.8 l/100km? I know that 10 l/100km is 10 km/l, so multiply by 4.5 and divide by 1.6 and you get 28.1 mpg. Is that correct?

And by a similar reasoning 5 l/100km = 20 km/l=56.2 mpg?

I'm lucky I'm good at Maths, so I did that in my head, but unless they are easy numbers to work with like those ones, converting is simply too complicated unless you have a calculator.

I think I'll stick to mpg for another while

MercMad

I never bother with all that................actually knowing what mpg / L-100Km you car does....doesn't improve it either way..............so I dont bother !

I couldn't take the shock !!