Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: Andy W on 01 January, 2021, 12:57:49 pm
-
Most people on this forum post upcoming rides, or rides completed in kmh rather than mph. Is it because many, including myself are audaxers where brevets etc are set in kmh. When I first participated in Audax I reset my cycle computer to km as that is how routesheets are set. My Garmin is currently set to mph as that's what I prefer.
-
I'm a child of the 80s, so I naturally think of speed in mph, and distance in kilometres. I have a cycle computer in miles and a GPS receiver in kilometres, and entertain myself on boring bike rides with mental artithmetic.
I find it slightly confusing that the BHPC's race timing software's set to work in miles. The speed column makes sense but all the distances are meaningless. Not that the other way round would be much of an improvement. :facepalm:
-
I work in km for cycling because of audax. I don’t generally post anything about average speed, but if I post a distance it’ll be in km.
-
I'm pretty much billingual when it comes to units - as I suspect most Brits are over a certain age (with the exception of people who are wilfully ignorant of one or the other).
I set my GPS to imperial for day to day rides, but switch everything to metric for Audax. Oddly I still leave it on imperial when touring overseas, despite the fact that all the signs are in km. But then that gives me the opportunity for mental arithmetic as Kim mentions.
So I'm happy with either. I'm less happy about people telling others that they're morons for using one or the other. I can guarantee this will happen in this thread :P
-
For audaxxy reasons I only viscerally understand pace in km/h but raw speed in mph.
Distance is km except during the last 10 km of a ride, because then it’s barely 6 miles.
-
I use kilometres, because it's 2021, and I'm not a backwards barbarian...
J
-
I use both. On my tandem the control panel is in km and the garmin that sits next to it is in miles. I estimate distance on landranger maps in miles, and on explorers by halving the landranger mile.
-
so I naturally think of speed in mph, and distance in kilometres.
^^^ This, plus avg speed in km/h :facepalm:
-
I should add that I don’t use either km or miles when actually riding. It’s not necessary to know those things.
-
so I naturally think of speed in mph, and distance in kilometres.
^^^ This, plus avg speed in km/h :facepalm:
Average speed in km/h when it's an audax or a race or something, but I use a fixed value of 10mph (including stops) for touring purposes, where speed is only usually of importance for working out when you've got to get moving in order to reach your destination at a reasonable time of day.
-
The first cycle computer I got was an enormously complicated thing measuring instantaneous, average and cumulative speeds, distances and cadences with and without breaks by means of several lightyears of wire. It was also white. I set it in miles because I lived in Britain and it was the 1980s. I then spent a couple of years away from my bike and mostly in countries where they use kilometres (though also briefly in countries where in practice they didn't use either km or miles). I then got another bike and shortly afterwards another cyclocomp in Poland, so naturally I set it to km. I've kept this habit up, perhaps due to audaxy influences or perhaps due to years of accustomization to post-Napoleonic measures, until a couple of weeks ago when I took the computer off the bike. I might get around to sticking it on FTAGH unless I decide it's worth something (or even that I want to use it again). The GPS is still in km but only if I look at the data summary page, I don't have that displayed normally.
-
I should add that I don’t use either km or miles when actually riding. It’s not necessary to know those things.
"How far is it to the next turning?"
"If I'm going at this speed, will I make it to the bakery before it shuts?"
"Oh I'm 20km from Utrecht, that means I've made a wrong turning somewhere"
"Hmm, my speed has dropped significantly. Have I forgotten to eat again?"
"I need to keep my average speed above X, otherwise I'm going to be late for dinner"
There are many reasons to need to know what your speed or distance is while riding.
J
-
Kilometres, of course. Mental conversions allow for medieval measurements.
While riding, I mostly rely on timings based on the average speed that I feel like I am riding at e.g. I’ll be ‘there’ in about 20 minutes. That sense is pretty well calibrated most of the time.
-
I do everything in miles. There’s 32 years of cycling records on file in this format.
For Audax I have map/heart rate/elapsed time on screen. I have in my head where the controls are and a rough schedule. Over and above that I ignore how far I have done or how far there is to go as it doesn’t help me me much mentally.
When racing I work in mph as I race imperial distances.
-
I should add that I don’t use either km or miles when actually riding. It’s not necessary to know those things.
"How far is it to the next turning?"
"If I'm going at this speed, will I make it to the bakery before it shuts?"
"Oh I'm 20km from Utrecht, that means I've made a wrong turning somewhere"
"Hmm, my speed has dropped significantly. Have I forgotten to eat again?"
"I need to keep my average speed above X, otherwise I'm going to be late for dinner"
There are many reasons to need to know what your speed or distance is while riding.
J
You might want to know those things but it’s not necessary to know them. Sure you can see distances on signs if you’ve made a wrong turn but you don’t need speed nor distance showing on your GPS.
-
I'm happy with either, mostly metric when riding (except TTs) and mostly imperial when driving (except abroad). I organise a 100 mile audax event (amongst others).
-
Secondary school and further education for me was 60s/70s so I am bilingual imperial and metric. I live in an imperial country with imperial signposts etc, so I think in miles and buy beer in pints. Unless on holiday in metric countries where I think in kilometres and buy beer in fractions of a litre. I think some people just use km because 100km at 20kph sounds so much more impressive than 64 miles at 12.5mph. ;D
-
I just use km, I can't see a good reason to use miles.
-
Surely audax distance is measured in hours and minutes? ;)
So long as the funometer is turned up to eleven I'm happy with either measure, barbaric or otherwise ...
-
Everything in miles. Kilometres aren't used in the UK (except for motorway distance posts 0.1km apart).
Using km for the length of a ride is like a tabloid using °F for heatwaves and °C for cold snaps, to make the numbers more impressive ;)
-
Distance and speed in miles/mph, though I can easily convert to Km if required.
But also
Bike weight in kg, bike size in cm, tyre diameter in inches but width in mm
??? ??? ???
-
Surely audax distance is measured in hours and minutes? ;)
Or pieces of cake and cups of tea...
-
Metric, using 8s & 5s to convert UK sign distances.
-
Using km for the length of a ride is like a tabloid using °F for heatwaves and °C for cold snaps, to make the numbers more impressive ;)
Same with people using feet for the amount of climbing. They want the numbers to sound more impressive. :P
-
I think some people just use km because 100km at 20kph sounds so much more impressive than 64 miles at 12.5mph. ;D
Rumbled ;D
-
You might want to know those things but it’s not necessary to know them. Sure you can see distances on signs if you’ve made a wrong turn but you don’t need speed nor distance showing on your GPS.
I do need to know those things. You may not want to know them. But I do. Your prescriptive phrasing quite frankly sucks.
You feel you do not need to know distances in anyway shape or form, that is for you, and only you. Your wording suggests everyone should think the same as you. This is, IMHO. Wrong. Please do not presume for others.
J
-
I use the units which give most meaning in terms of the activity I'm doing. So cycling is in Km courtesy of Audaxing, walking and car journeys are in miles, temps are in centigrade/celcius etc
-
I’m totally metric these days. I buy my shoes in European sizes, I weigh myself in kilos and even the car satnav talks to me in kilometres.
I haven’t even bought beer by the pint since the summer - only in 330ml or 500ml containers from the supermarket.
In any case, pints are also metric units according to the current official definition.
-
Not being one-dimensional I use both and, and the same for weights etc. Keeps the grey matter working.
-
With the exception of driving I have moved to km for pretty much everything and I think in km and km/h (or minutes/km for running or seconds per 100m for swimming).
Mental arithmetic using 20 or 25km/h is much easier than 12.5 or 17
-
A friend of mine measures distance on a map in thumbs.
-
In any case, pints are also metric units according to the current official definition.
568 is the best multiple in existence :thumbsup:
-
A friend of mine measures distance on a map in thumbs.
It is 3 thumbs on the map, and it is 1:50000, so 150,000 thumbs to my destination.
-
This does remind me of a long time riding partner who would give me a running commentary on how far we had done and how far we had to go. He may have been the victim of one of my occasional tetchy strops.
-
A friend of mine measures distance on a map in thumbs.
But metric or Imperial thumbs?
-
I use imperial to annoy certain people ;D
Being Dutch, it's pretty much all metric. Except for TV / monitor and pants (jeans) sizes, those are imperial. And some bicycle parts, diameter of the stem and tubes (1" top tube is standard, 1 1/8" is oversized etc).
When I'm tired / want a ride to be over I "countdown" the last 6.4km in miles. Yes, seriously.
I don't have distance or speed on the main page of the Garmin, though I have a secondary that shows various stats like average km/h, total distance (km) and distance left (km) for the current track (which is usually the next control).
-
I use imperial to annoy certain people ;D
That is a useful side-effect, yes ;D
When I was riding across some of the more boring parts of America **coughKansascough** I set my GPS to km so that I could convert between imperial and metric, for want of anything more exciting to do. I suspect I might get on well with Rob's annoying ride partner.
-
I use both. On my tandem the control panel is in km and the garmin that sits next to it is in miles. I estimate distance on landranger maps in miles, and on explorers by halving the landranger mile.
You convert a Metric map, where every single part of the map key and grid is in metric into imperial?
I get working out the metric value and then converting to imperial, but actually reading such a map in imperial just seems completely wasteful.
-
Everything in miles. Kilometres aren't used in the UK (except for motorway distance posts 0.1km apart).
Using km for the length of a ride is like a tabloid using °F for heatwaves and °C for cold snaps, to make the numbers more impressive ;)
Only the signs are in miles, highway engineering is metric.
If you want Imperial/Mixed engineering then you need the railway...
200m platform at 1mile and 6 chains
-
I use miles in countries that use miles, and kilometres in countries that use kilometres.
Same reason why I don't speak to people in Swedish when I'm in Italy.
-
In any case, pints are also metric units according to the current official definition.
568 is the best multiple in existence :thumbsup:
Definitely a lot better than 480. How are you supposed to get drunk on short measures?
On second thoughts, I might be slightly wrong about the uk pint - I think it is officially defined as 1/8 of a gallon, and it’s the gallon that is defined in metric.
-
I use miles in countries that use miles, and kilometres in countries that use kilometres.
Same reason why I don't speak to people in Swedish when I'm in Italy.
I once spent time on a train in Italy in the company of some Swedish people. We communicated in English.
-
It appears most cyclists on this forum use both, and for the same reasons. Like many here I attempt to calculate km to miles and vice versa. I'm Jan1961 born so formal learning was formerly imperial and latterly metric. When I time trialled in 1990s it was in mph. Evens (20) mph on twisty sporting course. Km for audax. When I ran in the '80s it was minutes per mile. Thanks for the interesting responses. My 27 year old son records in imperial for both running and cycling. That's England for you.
-
I use miles in countries that use miles, and kilometres in countries that use kilometres.
Same reason why I don't speak to people in Swedish when I'm in Italy.
I once spent time on a train in Italy in the company of some Swedish people. We communicated in English.
Yes, so not Swedish. ::-)
p.s. Let me guess, it was around 1990. You were Interrailing.
-
I use miles in countries that use miles, and kilometres in countries that use kilometres.
Same reason why I don't speak to people in Swedish when I'm in Italy.
I once spent time on a train in Italy in the company of some Swedish people. We communicated in English.
Swedes and Norwegians use miles. Their mile is 10km.
-
Yes, so not Swedish. ::-)
I wasn't making a point. You triggered a memory, I was being nostalgic. I'm aware that my pointless anecdote is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I might have added that what I really wanted was to communicate with them in French...
p.s. Let me guess, it was around 1990. You were Interrailing.
Close enough.
-
I use both. On my tandem the control panel is in km and the garmin that sits next to it is in miles. I estimate distance on landranger maps in miles, and on explorers by halving the landranger mile.
You convert a Metric map, where every single part of the map key and grid is in metric into imperial?
I get working out the metric value and then converting to imperial, but actually reading such a map in imperial just seems completely wasteful.
I've been told that as a rough estimate for walking, you can consider every time you cross a kilometre grid line to be a mile travelled.
-
I once spent time on a train in Italy in the company of some Swedish people. We communicated in English.
I spent an evening in a (very good) restaurant in Belgium where everybody was speaking English, but from the accents we were the only English people there.
-
Yes, so not Swedish. ::-)
I wasn't making a point. You triggered a memory, I was being nostalgic. I'm aware that my pointless anecdote is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I might have added that what I really wanted was to communicate with them in French...
p.s. Let me guess, it was around 1990. You were Interrailing.
Close enough.
Next guess....they were very drunk
-
I once spent time on a train in Italy in the company of some Swedish people. We communicated in English.
I spent an evening in a (very good) restaurant in Belgium where everybody was speaking English, but from the accents we were the only English people there.
That was just the Belgians trying to fuck with your head
-
Next guess....they were very drunk
Not even remotely. Probably just as well.
-
Jeez, that sounds boring
-
Jeez, that sounds boring
Yeah, there's a reason I didn't bother going into any further detail with the story.
-
Km. Measurements went metric on Decimal Day in 1971
They most certainly did not - the only thing that changed on Decimalisation Day was the currency.
Hence, 50 years on, our road signs still show miles and pubs still sell pints.
-
You might want to know those things but it’s not necessary to know them. Sure you can see distances on signs if you’ve made a wrong turn but you don’t need speed nor distance showing on your GPS.
I do need to know those things. You may not want to know them. But I do. Your prescriptive phrasing quite frankly sucks.
You feel you do not need to know distances in anyway shape or form, that is for you, and only you. Your wording suggests everyone should think the same as you. This is, IMHO. Wrong. Please do not presume for others.
J
No it doesn’t mean I think everyone should do it the same. Not being prescriptive at all. Saying something is necessary is bring prescriptive, saying something is a want is the opposite. You want those things that’s fine, but they are not necessary. It’s your choice to do it that way. Just as it’s my choice to do it without them.
So in your case necessary from a subjective point of view , but not necessary from an objective point of view.
-
Jeez, that sounds boring
Yeah, there's a reason I didn't bother going into any further detail with the story.
I had a great time with mine, circa 1989 on a train in Spain. I was 20, solo travelling down to get the ferry to North Africa. They appeared in my carriage somewhere near Zaragoza. We sized each other up, then the drinking started. They were fresh out of national service, decked me out in their army skiing goggles, which I may still have somewhere. Zak, who looked like the swedish chef was exuberant and noisy, until such point as he fell down under the table, legs poking up into the air and fell asleep. Great memories.
-
Metric for everything.
To convert UK signpost miles into k, I use one of these techniques:
Successive Approximation where I decompose the miles into one of a few touch-stone values I just know:
50 miles = 80k ( and simple multiples of that: 25 miles = 40k )
10 miles = 16k ( so 1 mile is 1.6k, and 100 miles is 160k )
Most conversions can be done to a good-enough accuracy that way.
If the number of miles does not decompose nicely, and I need to decompose to more than 3 components to retain the accuracy I want, then I will use the 'full calculation'.
This is to multiply by 1.6, but there's a trick to how to do this mentally.
Multiply by 16, then divide by 10.
Multiplying by 16 is simply doubling the number 4 times.
This technique is nice because you only need to have one number in your head at any point, you don't need to store previous partial calculations to add together at the end.
And the only calculation is doubling, which is one of the easier calculations to do in your head.
-
Unless it's an NCN signpost, in which case the algorithm is to think of a random number and double it.
-
Some of the ncn signs round here have times.
-
Those are an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.
-
I’ve never timed myself to check. Might do that to see next time.
-
I use both. On my tandem the control panel is in km and the garmin that sits next to it is in miles. I estimate distance on landranger maps in miles, and on explorers by halving the landranger mile.
You convert a Metric map, where every single part of the map key and grid is in metric into imperial?
I get working out the metric value and then converting to imperial, but actually reading such a map in imperial just seems completely wasteful.
I've been told that as a rough estimate for walking, you can consider every time you cross a kilometre grid line to be a mile travelled.
Fairly inefficient paths them.
Some of the ncn signs round here have times.
There's nothing quite like signing a variable as a way of demonstrating the stupidities of the NCN
If anyone can be arsed the law behind weights and measures is
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72/contents
the yard or the metre shall be the unit of measurement of length and the pound or the kilogram shall be the unit of measurement of mass by reference to which any measurement involving a measurement of length or mass shall be made in the United Kingdom; and—
(a)the yard shall be 0.9144 metre exactly;
(b)the pound shall be 0·453 592 37 kilogram exactly.
And thus all Imperial measures are facades of metric
You all use metric you just pretend you don't
-
Some of the ncn signs round here have times.
There's nothing quite like signing a variable as a way of demonstrating the stupidities of the NCN
I believe there's decent evidence that putting average walking times on signposts encourages people to walk for short journeys. Presumably the same applies to cycling.
Obviously this should be in addition to - not instead of - the actual distance, for the benefit of everyone who travels at non-average speed. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
-
I’m a child of the 70s and mostly use metric for outdoorsy things, though I can read signs in miles. I blame OS maps before audax.
-
And thus all Imperial measures are facades of metric
That’s what I was getting at earlier re pints. Obviously the same applies to all types of measures. I only mentioned pints because some people have specifically stated that pints (for beer or milk) are the only non-metric measures they use. Or miles for driving.
-
So I'm happy with either. I'm less happy about people telling others that they're morons for using one or the other. I can guarantee this will happen in this thread :P
Is ‘backwards barbarians’ close enough?
-
And thus all Imperial measures are facades of metric
That’s what I was getting at earlier re pints. Obviously the same applies to all types of measures. I only mentioned pints because some people have specifically stated that pints (for beer or milk) are the only non-metric measures they use. Or miles for driving.
Pints for beer, litres for milk. Miles for things that are signed in miles, sometimes. Psi for tyres and gear inches for gears. Yards for distances when talking to people who might expect yards rather than metres. Metres, centimetres or feeter ninches for heights of humans, depending on age of interlocutor and mood.
-
Some of the ncn signs round here have times.
A Swedish sign giving the distance (1 non-Swedish mlle) and also telling me I'm too slow.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/649/33019342652_3fecb6e14a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SiNLcf)
-
Some of the ncn signs round here have times.
Use by?
-
Some of the ncn signs round here have times.
Use by?
October.
-
I believe there's decent evidence that putting average walking times on signposts encourages people to walk for short journeys.
I think there's a risk-aversion thing going on here.
On several hiking sites I use, eg https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/ the times given seem to assume a zimmer frame is involved.
You need to do enough rides / hikes against their routes to be able to perform a regression to generate a calibration coefficient for yourself.
-
It's a bit like handedness for me. I'm notionally left-handed; I write and play racket sports (badly in both cases) with my left hand. But I play cricket (even worse) right-handed. And some things can be either way; when I occasionally have a go at air rifles or archery with my Scouts, I'm mostly right-handed but have to think about it, especially for archery, and have sometimes gone left instead.
With measures, I'm happy with either, but I think about distances and speed of travel in miles, so I'm always converting Audaxes in my head. My GPS reads in miles. Maybe it's partly because I still occasionally dabble in time trials, which are Imperial. I also think about my weight and height in Imperial, and my metric weight in particular means relatively little to me. On the other hand I did a science degree, which was obviously metric, and if measuring a piece of wood or whatever I'd normally use metric too. And abroad, I just use the metric system because signs, dashboards and everything else have that.
Cooking is like shooting; I can do it either way, and sometimes have to think about which one I'm using, although generally it's whatever the recipe says. I've still got the handwritten book with which my Mum sent me off as a student, and that's mostly Imperial, but obviously newer books tend to be metric. It helps that our kitchen scales have both.
-
I can manage both.
Makes sense to have the same units on your bike computer as are on the roadsigns you'll pass except if you are following an Audax giving metric distances in an area using Imperial units.
-
We're metric 99% of the time, except that MrsT is in an anglophone running group on FB and so runs/walks in miles unless she's doing a multiple of 5k. I tend to think and speak metric, although I'll still describe short distances such as 6" in imperial. And of course a few measurements on the bike are still in imperial - same for telescope eyepiece diameters, although the focal lengths are in mm.
I have an imperial/metric measuring tape some misguided wight gave me 30 years ago. Not only is the abominable thing confusing, the scale you want to use is always on the wrong edge.
Not being one-dimensional I use both and, and the same for weights etc. Keeps the grey matter working.
Also results in spacecraft coming to grief when trying to go into orbit around Mars.
-
We're metric 99% of the time, except that MrsT is in an anglophone running group on FB and so runs/walks in miles unless she's doing a multiple of 5k. I tend to think and speak metric, although I'll still describe short distances such as 6" in imperial. And of course a few measurements on the bike are still in imperial - same for telescope eyepiece diameters, although the focal lengths are in mm.
I have an imperial/metric measuring tape some misguided wight gave me 30 years ago. Not only is the abominable thing confusing, the scale you want to use is always on the wrong edge.
Not being one-dimensional I use both and, and the same for weights etc. Keeps the grey matter working.
Also results in spacecraft coming to grief when trying to go into orbit around Mars.
There are other reasons why spacecraft have been lost going to Mars.
And there have been errors with calculations of magnitude, not unit.
All measurements are arbitrary. To pick one lot and claim that others are inferior is not pleasant.
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
-
We're metric 99% of the time, except that MrsT is in an anglophone running group on FB and so runs/walks in miles unless she's doing a multiple of 5k. I tend to think and speak metric, although I'll still describe short distances such as 6" in imperial. And of course a few measurements on the bike are still in imperial - same for telescope eyepiece diameters, although the focal lengths are in mm.
I have an imperial/metric measuring tape some misguided wight gave me 30 years ago. Not only is the abominable thing confusing, the scale you want to use is always on the wrong edge.
Not being one-dimensional I use both and, and the same for weights etc. Keeps the grey matter working.
Also results in spacecraft coming to grief when trying to go into orbit around Mars.
There are other reasons why spacecraft have been lost going to Mars.
And there have been errors with calculations of magnitude, not unit.
All measurements are arbitrary. To pick one lot and claim that others are inferior is not pleasant.
I measure audax rides in kf (kilofurlongs).
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
OK, I’ll ask the question again. Is that ‘a’ spacecraft, or spacecraft?
-
I was replying to your last statement, referring to measurement conversions within the imperial system, not spaceship/s or conversions between imperial and metric.
http://bwma.org.uk/understanding-imperial-units/ explaining the various measurements for length or mass is just ... well, I will let you decide.
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
OK, I’ll ask the question again. Is that ‘a’ spacecraft, or spacecraft?
Is that a rhetorical question?
-
Since I moved to Germany in 2014 I have gone fully metric. I remember switching my Garmin from imperial to metric on my first day here - a kind of mental switch flipped then too. I haven’t needed imperial at all since I’ve been here except for Mum’s pancake recipe (4 plz flour, half a pint of milk, one egg).
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
OK, I’ll ask the question again. Is that ‘a’ spacecraft, or spacecraft?
Is that a rhetorical question?
No, it’s a language one.
It’s a point relating to asking statements about using exact and correct measurement, but unfortunately using inexact language to make the point. :P
-
So you are quoting me and attempting pedantry that is completely unconnected with the quote?
-
So you are quoting me and attempting pedantry that is completely unconnected with the quote?
I quoted you and asked a question, for it was unclear what your post referred to. Now you have clarified it a bit. ;D
-
I use km on a bike, miles on foot and in the car, feet/inches/metres/cm interchangeably when DIYing, and nautical miles for distance/speed, metres for visibility, feet for elevation, ºC for temperature, and hp for pressure at work - but statute miles for visibility, and inches for pressure when in the US.
-
:thumbsup:
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
OK, I’ll ask the question again. Is that ‘a’ spacecraft, or spacecraft?
There was another case, which I don't quite remember, where a lander's instruments reported its altitude in metric which the software interpreted as imperial and cut the rockets. Probably a US/EU collaboration.
-
My dad once decided to service the family Cortina the night before a holiday. He set the valve clearances but the engine wouldn't start afterwards. Finally, in the early hours, he discovered that he was attempting to set valve clearances in mm using feeler gauges in thou, so the valves weren't fully opening (and it sounded like a bag of spanners). 30 thou is about 0.75mm, which is bad if you want 0.30mm.
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Do you mean that spacecraft are lost, or a spacecraft was lost, or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
OK, I’ll ask the question again. Is that ‘a’ spacecraft, or spacecraft?
There was another case, which I don't quite remember, where a lander's instruments reported its altitude in metric which the software interpreted as imperial and cut the rockets. Probably a US/EU collaboration.
However, in the context of space disasters, it's another learning issue.
All measurement systems are arbitrary, it's probably something to do with human diversity.
-
So you are quoting me and attempting pedantry that is completely unconnected with the quote?
I quoted you and asked a question, for it was unclear what your post referred to. Now you have clarified it a bit. ;D
“... given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system...” is pretty specific. It certainly explains why imperial is inferior to metric.
-
So you are quoting me and attempting pedantry that is completely unconnected with the quote?
I quoted you and asked a question, for it was unclear what your post referred to. Now you have clarified it a bit. ;D
“... given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system...” is pretty specific. It certainly explains why imperial is inferior to metric.
What is true?
-
What is troll?
-
What is troll?
You selectively quote your own post to appear to make a point. Then call someone a troll. ;D
-
Just compare your dick sizes in digitii and cubitum and get it over and done with
-
Quote to highlight a point.
Enjoying your little game?
-
It is true though, given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system.
Obviously not any point in asking again what this refers to. ;D
-
Since I moved to Germany in 2014 I have gone fully metric. I remember switching my Garmin from imperial to metric on my first day here - a kind of mental switch flipped then too. I haven’t needed imperial at all since I’ve been here except for Mum’s pancake recipe (4 plz flour, half a pint of milk, one egg).
I did Similiar, but when arriving at ESTEC in 2005...
also 112g flour, 280ml milk, one egg.
J
-
Since I moved to Germany in 2014 I have gone fully metric. I remember switching my Garmin from imperial to metric on my first day here - a kind of mental switch flipped then too. I haven’t needed imperial at all since I’ve been here except for Mum’s pancake recipe (4 plz flour, half a pint of milk, one egg).
What is plz?
(And is it an imperial or metric egg?)
-
For a salutary lesson in what can go wrong when you confuse pounds and kilograms, Google "Gimli Glider".
-
Since I moved to Germany in 2014 I have gone fully metric. I remember switching my Garmin from imperial to metric on my first day here - a kind of mental switch flipped then too. I haven’t needed imperial at all since I’ve been here except for Mum’s pancake recipe (4 plz flour, half a pint of milk, one egg).
What is plz?
(And is it an imperial or metric egg?)
It depends whether it's from an African or European Swallow.
-
No it doesn’t mean I think everyone should do it the same. Not being prescriptive at all. Saying something is necessary is bring prescriptive, saying something is a want is the opposite. You want those things that’s fine, but they are not necessary. It’s your choice to do it that way. Just as it’s my choice to do it without them.
Then your wording is bad.
So in your case necessary from a subjective point of view , but not necessary from an objective point of view.
Well given that necessary boils down to oxygen, shelter, food, water, and company, yes, noone needs any form of measurement. Same as noone NEEDS to ride a bike. However if we assume that people ride bikes, then there are many situations where a cyclists can need to know distances, and from distances other derived information, such as speed, and estimated time of arrival.
So you are quoting me and attempting pedantry that is completely unconnected with the quote?
I quoted you and asked a question, for it was unclear what your post referred to. Now you have clarified it a bit. ;D
“... given the weird conversions between different measurements within the imperial system...” is pretty specific. It certainly explains why imperial is inferior to metric.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Equelp_XEAEGQlQ?format=jpg&name=large)
Converting between imperial units is bloody confusing, say for example you have 32oz of liquid paint, and you are putting it in a 1 cubic foot tank. How much of the tank will be filled afterwards? Or I have 1 square foot, how much is that in square yards? And it can get even more confusing when you want to convert them to sensible^Wmetric esp when you get into things like "I need a number 7 drill, in metric".
I can never understand US backpacks sold in cubic inches of volume, it's a right pain to convert that to litres. Ditto US scuba tanks that are sold as their capacity of 14.7psi air, when compressed into the tank at the operating pressure. So an 80cuft tank, what is the maximum pressure I can fill this to? Where as in the rest of the world we'd say a 12l 232bar tank. Which has an empty volume of 12l, and max operating pressure of 232 atmospheres.
It's a lot easier when everything shares the same base.
I can highly recommend everyone listen to this episode of 99% invisible:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-measures/
I can see certain elements within parliament are going to push to make the UK go back to using imperial units for everything. Which aside from the fact that UK imperial units do not match with the largest remaining user of imperial units, the US. Try fitting 8 UK pints into 1 US gallon... Is going to be a really really bad idea.
Over the last 50 years or so engineering within the UK has moved everything to being metric. The tooling is all metric (tho they probably have a draw labelled "Imperial drill bits"). Converting to imperial just to fullfil the wet dreams of a haunted Victorian coat rack, would be *REALLY* bad for UK industry.
The UK should move away from selling beer in pints. The UK should move away from having Miles on it's road signs. If the UK government is serious about "Global Britain" then we need to recognise that only the US and Myanmar use imperial units. The rest of the world use metric, and the UK needs to grow up and recognise this.
However, in the context of space disasters, it's another learning issue.
All measurement systems are arbitrary, it's probably something to do with human diversity.
Yes. They are arbitrary. The metre is defined as some division of the distance from the North Pole to Paris or the equator or some such.
The yard is defined as 3 feet, the foot is 12 inches, and an inch is 3 barley corns plump and round, laid end on end.
Both are arbitrary. However, what makes the metric more useful to use, is that if I have 1000m I have a kilometre. If I need something smaller than a meter, I can use centimetres, or millimetres, or micrometers. And if I have to mix the two, to work out say, how much volume I would need, in order to cover a square kilometre with something to a depth of 10 micrometers, I can easily do that. (1000*1000)*(0.000010) or 10m³. Now, let's say I wanted to cover a square mile to a depth of 0.250". That is a damn site more complicated maths. Esp as when you've got that in cubic whatevers (would that be cubic miles, or cubic inches?), when you go to buy the stuff, it's going to come in gallons...
Yes all measures are arbitrary. Not all measures are logical.
J
-
On several hiking sites I use, eg https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/ the times given seem to assume a zimmer frame is involved.
Aye, when using them a few club members knock off a couple of hours, though on a couple of occasions the WH times have proven to be right or even underestimates...
It's particularly bad when it's the person who's in charge of the meal that's late back.
-
Speed: mph (predominantly used for walking, commuting, driving/being driven), not displayed on cycling computer; this does make leading cycle club rides at a defined (in kmh) pace "interesting"...
Distance:
Cycling - Distance to go in km, doing mental conversions to miles to go and commutes to go depending on fatigue and teidium levels. If not following a route, no distance displayed.
Exceptions for racing:
- Standard Distance TT - distance travelled in miles
- Duration TT - distance travelled in units according to the target I've set
Driving/being driven - miles
Walking - miles (Hiking with an OS map - routes plotted in km, converted to miles)
-
I can never understand US backpacks sold in cubic inches of volume, it's a right pain to convert that to litres.
Several years ago, someone wrote to a cycling magazine (I think it was the CTC), complaining about panniers, bar bags and such like being described in litres. They didn't want to know the size in cubic inches or fluid ounces. What they wanted was some indication of shape, which is totally missing from either litres or cu. in. but rather useful when packing.
-
I can never understand US backpacks sold in cubic inches of volume, it's a right pain to convert that to litres.
Several years ago, someone wrote to a cycling magazine (I think it was the CTC), complaining about panniers, bar bags and such like being described in litres. They didn't want to know the size in cubic inches or fluid ounces. What they wanted was some indication of shape, which is totally missing from either litres or cu. in. but rather useful when packing.
A reasonable request, but pretty much impossible to standardise[1], other than by manufacturers publishing dimensional drawings of the bag in question, which they really ought to.
I suppose a magazine could usefully have a standard selection of objects and report which ones would and wouldn't fit in a given bag. I'm reminded of a friend who, while shopping for a new freezer, used jigsaw puzzle boxes as a unit of comparison.
[1] There's a circle of hell where you're made to spend eternity searching for enclosures by size on the Farnell website.
-
Given almost all panniers and bar bags are a flavour of cuboid, I think what they wanted was probably simple width x depth x height. This wouldn't work so well with saddlebags and not at all with frame bags, though it was before those returned to favour.
Ed: And "bikepacking bar bags" being cylindrical could easily be described in terms of diameter x length.
-
Given almost all panniers and bar bags are a flavour of cuboid, I think what they wanted was probably simple width x depth x height. This wouldn't work so well with saddlebags and not at all with frame bags, though it was before those returned to favour.
Yeah, that's not unreasonable, as long as it's clear which dimension is which.
-
Driving: mph (mainly ecause speed limits are given in these).
Cycling/walking: kmh (partly from audax, partly from touring abroad, partly because they look bigger).
Professionally: ms-1.
I'm bilingual between mph and kmh, so I could quite happily use either. I would have to think a bit more to convert to ms-1, but there isn't generally much overlap in application.
-
The UK should move away from selling beer in pints. The UK should move away from having Miles on it's road signs. If the UK government is serious about "Global Britain" then we need to recognise that only the US and Myanmar use imperial units. The rest of the world use metric, and the UK needs to grow up and recognise this.
If the world is serious about this pedantic nonsense, everyone should speak the same language.
-
I hate all this far-right anti-diversity shit
-
i can use both (having lived in the us and uk), but prefer everything in km. miles into km conversion is easy: miles x 1.5 and add a bit.
most cyclists i know in london (not audaxers) talk/think in km, perhaps because younger generation?
-
I mix running with cycling and use km. Most running events are in km so it all just works..
-
Thanks for correcting me on Decimal Day, Dave. I have lost track of when the changeover came, sometime between starting secondary school in 1969 using inches and leaving in 1974 by which time we were measuring in mm.
AIUI the school curriculum is a thing unto itself, and the change to metric there was unrelated to decimal currency[1] or the government's use of metric for standards (even imperial ones). Indeed, I believe that individual schools set their own curriculum until 1988.
[1] Primary exercise books were full of "New Pence" in the mid 80s. I deduced that this referred to the special plastic currency used for maths lessons, rather than the type used by adults to pay for things in shops.
-
Indeed. Back in the 60s we were taught metric measurements, just in case we should ever come across them.
Personally, I think the current confusion of systems adds colour to life. And humour (see this thread).
-
Km. Measurements went metric on Decimal Day in 1971
They most certainly did not - the only thing that changed on Decimalisation Day was the currency.
Hence, 50 years on, our road signs still show miles and pubs still sell pints.
Thanks for correcting me on Decimal Day, Dave. I have lost track of when the changeover came, sometime between starting secondary school in 1969 using inches and leaving in 1974 by which time we were measuring in mm.
After both the Chatterly Ban _and_ The Beatles first LP.
-
It is not just a preference. Metric units are a coherent set of units. Metric is also decimal. Imperial units are neither.
1 litre is 1000 cubic centimetres and a litre of water weighs 1kg. It takes one kilojoule to raise it temperature by 1 degree centigrade and to do this in one second requires 1 kilowatt of power.
How many cubic inches is a pint of water and how many pounds does it weigh ? How many horsepower do you need to raise it temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit per sec ?
I have no objection to beer being sold in pints but I would not use them to calculate fuel usage for my spaceship.
-
Km. Measurements went metric on Decimal Day in 1971
They most certainly did not - the only thing that changed on Decimalisation Day was the currency.
Hence, 50 years on, our road signs still show miles and pubs still sell pints.
Thanks for correcting me on Decimal Day, Dave. I have lost track of when the changeover came, sometime between starting secondary school in 1969 using inches and leaving in 1974 by which time we were measuring in mm.
After both the Chatterly Ban _and_ The Beatles first LP.
"Decimal Day" (15th February 1971) was after the *Beatles' last LP. We'll be celebrating its 50th anniversary next month. I think it was considered necessary in order to persuade the French that we were actually serious about wanting to join the EEC. How long until Fartrage campaigns for the return of £ s d?
Re the previous post, "A Pint of Water weighs a pound and a quarter". Surely everyone know that? Unless they are USAnians, in which case their pints are (I believe) actually 0.8 pints.
*A popular beat combo, m'lud.
-
i can use both (having lived in the us and uk), but prefer everything in km. miles into km conversion is easy: miles x 1.5 and add a bit.
most cyclists i know in london (not audaxers) talk/think in km, perhaps because younger generation?
Plus if you're cycling in kms and everyone else in miles, it means you'll be going faster than them too
-
How long until Fartrage campaigns for the return of £ s d?
I don't think it ever went away, if you know where to ask, though the Romans are more popular nowadays: MDMA.
-
How long until Fartrage campaigns for the return of £ s d?
I don't think it ever went away, if you know where to ask, though the Romans are more popular nowadays: MDMA.
The *Beatles had a song about that too.
*a popular beat combo, m'lud.
-
Km. Measurements went metric on Decimal Day in 1971
They most certainly did not - the only thing that changed on Decimalisation Day was the currency.
Hence, 50 years on, our road signs still show miles and pubs still sell pints.
Thanks for correcting me on Decimal Day, Dave. I have lost track of when the changeover came, sometime between starting secondary school in 1969 using inches and leaving in 1974 by which time we were measuring in mm.
After both the Chatterly Ban _and_ The Beatles first LP.
"Decimal Day" (15th February 1971) was after the *Beatles' last LP. We'll be celebrating its 50th anniversary next month. I think it was considered necessary in order to persuade the French that we were actually serious about wanting to join the EEC. How long until Fartrage campaigns for the return of £ s d?
Re the previous post, "A Pint of Water weighs a pound and a quarter". Surely everyone know that? Unless they are USAnians, in which case their pints are (I believe) actually 0.8 pints.
*A popular beat combo, m'lud.
Well that is what happens when you have a floating exchange rate between pounds and dollars.
-
What's the exchange rate between pounds and hashes?
-
Ah yes, universal currency needed to go alongside the universal language...
Let's standardise everything!!!!!!
-
What's the exchange rate between pounds and hashes?
A pound of hash to a gram of £sd?
-
A pound of hash has about as much connection to my real world experience as a barrel has as a measure of oil, or indeed a swimming pool to baked beans.
-
Plus if you're cycling in kms and everyone else in miles, it means you'll be going faster than them too
of course! only shame that almost everyone else is in kms too, so no advantage really..
-
I have no objection to beer being sold in pints but I would not use them to calculate fuel usage for my spaceship.
You have a spaceship? Cool!
-
AIUI the school curriculum is a thing unto itself, and the change to metric there was unrelated to decimal currency or the government's use of metric for standards (even imperial ones).
Yes, my recollection, as a pupil around that time, is that schools just taught metric for the practical reason that that's what they expected you to be using. And sometimes the pupils weighed (sorry) in. I remember my class declining to do a sum along the lines of "Vehicle A is travelling at 30mph and vehicle B is travelling 40% faster; how fast is B travelling?", on the basis that "We're metric now miss". Of course, we knew perfectly well that the units were irrelevant to that calculation, and were just having a bit of fun. I think she probably crossed out mph and wrote km/h instead.
-
Converting BEER to metric would be easy, they wouldn't even need to change the glasses as most pints poured are 0.5 litres once you discount the head. Better still, sell it by weight, no more sarky comments about whether you could fit a whisky in there...
I'm exclusively metric*, it's so much easier. I measure liquid in grams when cooking, more accurate than a jug, and a 1:1 conversion in metric. Also useful in other spheres: take a 55 litre windsurf board, you weigh 75 kg, you know you will sink it. Problem if it's in cu ft and stones.
* ok, occasionally I drive, and the numbers on the speedo have to match those on the signs. Also relative measurements with a tape measure, like hanging pictures at the same height: the number doesn't matter, but the tape measure has big numbers for inches and I can't be arsed to find my glasses.
-
Also relative measurements with a tape measure, like hanging pictures at the same height: the number doesn't matter, but the tape measure has big numbers for inches and I can't be arsed to find my glasses.
Also clothes, particularly trousers, where the number stated in inches or centimetres bears no relation to the actual dimensions of either the garment or the person it will fit.
-
Also relative measurements with a tape measure, like hanging pictures at the same height: the number doesn't matter, but the tape measure has big numbers for inches and I can't be arsed to find my glasses.
I have a terrible feeling that I'm going to end up doing that sooner or later.
(Also, I should have imported some pure-metric measuring devices before brexit. It's irksome having inches on the side of the ruler / tape measure that you actually want to use.)
-
I work in the oil industry, and am well acquainted with units-hell.
I now work in a software house within the oil industry.
Some of our modules work in traditional Oil Industry units.
Some are different, and probably better...
They work in SI units internally.
All input data is converted as necessary on input.
Outputs are converted to user-choice on output.
But within the code, we may use published equations or charts.
We will always use the original equations or charts, and convert on-the-fly as required as inputs and outputs to the charts.
We don't convert the original equations or charts to our units system.
This may seem un-necessary multiple conversions, but it allows us to cleanly state we are implementing chart FU-12 from 'Petrophysical Nonsense', Bollocks And Bollocks et All, 1957.
And this is something we need to do with some regularity.
-
Also relative measurements with a tape measure, like hanging pictures at the same height: the number doesn't matter, but the tape measure has big numbers for inches and I can't be arsed to find my glasses.
I have a terrible feeling that I'm going to end up doing that sooner or later.
(Also, I should have imported some pure-metric measuring devices before brexit. It's irksome having inches on the side of the ruler / tape measure that you actually want to use.)
Oh yeah, that winds me up no end. Inches on the top of the ruler, sensible units on the bottom, both starting from the same end. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?
-
More points of view than I could have imagined. My 15 year old daughter is pleased to tell people she's 5'10" but weighs herself in kg. Walking through flooded fields/ bridleways she tells me the water must be at least 6" deep. Apparently all the kids at her school use both imperial and metric, not just listening to me using both. Hitchin Nomads still have their Briercliffe 10. That's miles folks.
-
^^Sounds like my son and his friends (16/17). They'll say they use metric, but if you listen, they use a mixture. Because "it's sense, everyone does that" or something similar.
-
I use metric for everything *except* distance, for which I still use miles. I did try to convert to kilometres for a while, but gave up and went back to miles. I should probably try again, as metric is just so much neater.
Bizarrely, I recall being taught pre- and post-decimal currency conversions at school. I didn't start school until the mid-1980s, so this was of limited use. ???
-
^^Sounds like my son and his friends (16/17). They'll say they use metric, but if you listen, they use a mixture. Because "it's sense, everyone does that" or something similar.
The measurements are all arbitrary, so they all have relevance and weight. Except length, which has no weight. Just relevance. ;)
A mixture is good. We want our young people to grow up being able to cope with different and difficult situations. Don't we...?
Or do you want them to go off to foreign lands, shouting (slowly) that xxxx measurement is best? You want them to grow up understanding that people are different and live in different ways; and that if the differences are merely about some arbitrary physical measurement, that there is a way to deal with that.
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
Who the hell made 10 the best number anyway? Blake Edwards?
-
That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can.
All of them (those extra decimal places) usually pretty useless.
-
^^Sounds like my son and his friends (16/17). They'll say they use metric, but if you listen, they use a mixture. Because "it's sense, everyone does that" or something similar.
The measurements are all arbitrary, so they all have relevance and weight. Except length, which has no weight. Just relevance. ;)
A mixture is good. We want our young people to grow up being able to cope with different and difficult situations. Don't we...?
Or do you want them to go off to foreign lands, shouting (slowly) that xxxx measurement is best? You want them to grow up understanding that people are different and live in different ways; and that if the differences are merely about some arbitrary physical measurement, that there is a way to deal with that.
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
Who the hell made 10 the best number anyway? Blake Edwards?
Sometimes 10 isn't good enough. Ask Nigel Tufnel
-
Hitchin Nomads still have their Briercliffe 10. That's miles folks.
Speaking as a member of that club, we have a Briercliffe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Briercliffe) 10 because nearly all UK time trialling is done in miles. Even the current British Cycling series on Zwift. All the records are in miles as well. There's the odd 100km event, but it is an oddity. I reckon time trials will go metric about the time when we get metric seconds.
-
What is your view on imperial vs metric, from the point of view of an economist?
-
If i were an economist, would my DECIMAL point of view carry any weight?
-
Yes, as they say in France, it would 'avoir du poids'
-
Hitchin Nomads still have their Briercliffe 10. That's miles folks.
Speaking as a member of that club, we have a Briercliffe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Briercliffe) 10 because nearly all UK time trialling is done in miles. Even the current British Cycling series on Zwift. All the records are in miles as well. There's the odd 100km event, but it is an oddity. I reckon time trials will go metric about the time when we get metric seconds.
Seconds are metric. It's hours and minutes which aren't.
-
I worked for a company whose clock cards (we had a punch-in and out on card system) ran in 1/100 of an hour.
-
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
One of the riders on my audax asked if I could supply a route sheet with the distance in miles rather than km. My initial response was to roll my eyes... But actually it was easy to do - I just pasted the route sheet into Excel and ran a conversion formula on the distances column.
-
I a country with roadsigns in miles, and with kms not used for distances, it makes literally no sense to provide a routesheet in kms.
Yes, I know audax is validared in kms, but that is just the nominal distance. A 200k audax is almost never 200k anyway.
-
According to my former neighbour (Aussie airline pilot), he thinks in nautical miles - universal at sea and in the air - and we should all be standardised on that measure. And for the beyond (very big) bit of the universe, that'll be light years I guess?
Years ago, when metres first replaced feet in the building trade, a friend went to Travesty Perkins to order some wood. He was corrected at every turn with his imperial measurements, even though a 'standard' 1.22m x 4.22 sheet of ply is still a 4' x 8' one. He was finally quoted a price in pence per square foot!
Many standardised metric formats are just conversions from imperial or whatever, eg the standard half-length portait size known as Kit-Cat, (after Kit Catling, C18th Gentlemen's dining club founder) is 28 x 36 inches, but now quoted in cms. JIS threads per inch? Etc ...
-
I a country with roadsigns in miles, and with kms not used for distances, it makes literally no sense to provide a routesheet in kms.
Yes, I know audax is validared in kms, but that is just the nominal distance. A 200k audax is almost never 200k anyway.
I like a sanity check for which turn off, in case of driveways and tracks that could be roads. So I'd rather have a routesheet in the same units as my computer at a reasonable level of precision. Miles and yards (or fractions) would not be that, for me at least.
-
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
One of the riders on my audax asked if I could supply a route sheet with the distance in miles rather than km. My initial response was to roll my eyes... But actually it was easy to do - I just pasted the route sheet into Excel and ran a conversion formula on the distances column.
Still using miles and still using a routesheet? Doubly old-skool! I hope he turned up on a Pashley, wearing cricket whites?
-
I a country with roadsigns in miles, and with kms not used for distances, it makes literally no sense to provide a routesheet in kms.
Yes, I know audax is validared in kms, but that is just the nominal distance. A 200k audax is almost never 200k anyway.
Personally, I don’t often find distance on road signs useful or relevant for audax navigation (except to use for info controls). But YMMV. Or should that be YKMMV?
Anyway, I guess my point was that it’s no big deal providing the routesheet in both miles and km. I’ll stick to km as the default option, because that’s how I roll, but if you prefer miles, I’m not going to obstinately tell you you’re wrong. That would be silly.
The eye-rolling was just at the prospect of having to do more work, but then it turned out to be hardly any work at all, so all good.
-
Personally, I don’t often find distance on road signs useful or relevant for audax navigation. But YMMV. Or should that be YKMMV?
Is that because you use a gps? In which case a routesheet isn't useful or relevant. ;D
Not so much for non-gps users, maybe.
-
Is that because you use a gps?
No. I’ve always preferred my routesheets in km, even in the days before I had a gps.
Weird, huh?
-
Around here, there are plenty of roadsigns without distances on them. Whether they don’t have the distance in miles or don’t have the distance in kilometres doesn’t seem to make much difference.
-
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
One of the riders on my audax asked if I could supply a route sheet with the distance in miles rather than km. My initial response was to roll my eyes... But actually it was easy to do - I just pasted the route sheet into Excel and ran a conversion formula on the distances column.
Still using miles and still using a routesheet? Doubly old-skool! I hope he turned up on a Pashley, wearing cricket whites?
... and wearing “plus fours” rather than “plus 10.16s”
-
According to my former neighbour (Aussie airline pilot), he thinks in nautical miles - universal at sea and in the air - and we should all be standardised on that measure.
Certain countries – including China and Russia – use metric for æronautical purposes and I think it's standard practice among glider pilots too. Probably because feet, knots and nautical miles are relics of the capitalist running dogs and/or imperialist paper tigers. Distance in km, altitude in metres. There have been proposals since approximately forever, or at least WW2, to get the rest of the world to join in but I can’t see it happening any time soon as long as USAnia has a say in the matter.
-
Yes, as they say in France, it would 'avoir du poids'
Like all typically British things* the French got there first.
*Yorkshire pudding anyway.
-
Is that because you use a gps?
No. I’ve always preferred my routesheets in km, even in the days before I had a gps.
Weird, huh?
I always had routesheets in km because that's how they're supplied. It never occurred to me to convert them. Anyway, according to One More Kilometre and We're in the Showers (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/one-more-kilometre-and-we-re-in-the-showers-by-tim-hiltonsignificant-other-by-matt-rendell-48007.html) whether you use km or miles for cycling depends on whether you (or nowadays the ancestor of your organisation) was in with time trialling or road racing (or mods v rockers) back in the 1950s.
-
Miles and yards (or fractions) ...
Miles, furlongs, chains, yards, feet, inches, thou.
A standard audax is rather neatly 1000 furlongs.
-
I always had routesheets in km because that's how they're supplied.
Definitely the majority are in km, although I've had a few supplied in miles over the years.
-
Miles and yards (or fractions) ...
Miles, furlongs, chains, yards, feet, inches, thou.
A standard audax is rather neatly 1000 furlongs.
I wandered off to look that up and came across the Cape Foot and the Stadium (which is Latin for στάδιον, something I imagine you all know)
https://www.convertunits.com/type/length
There are loads of great measurements out there! Brilliant!
-
^^Sounds like my son and his friends (16/17). They'll say they use metric, but if you listen, they use a mixture. Because "it's sense, everyone does that" or something similar.
The measurements are all arbitrary, so they all have relevance and weight. Except length, which has no weight. Just relevance. ;)
A mixture is good. We want our young people to grow up being able to cope with different and difficult situations. Don't we...?
Or do you want them to go off to foreign lands, shouting (slowly) that xxxx measurement is best? You want them to grow up understanding that people are different and live in different ways; and that if the differences are merely about some arbitrary physical measurement, that there is a way to deal with that.
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
Who the hell made 10 the best number anyway? Blake Edwards?
I had to look up Blake Edwards. Found he wasn't the leader of Blake's Seven.
Yes, all of that. But more that usage is shaped by environment. If they were growing up in Germany or USA, they'd probably be mono-systemic, or whatever the term should be.
Obviously this means that BRITISH brains, forced to adapt to an ever-changing mix of measures, are far more flexible than the rigid brains of the rest of the world. Except maybe for Ireland, Canada, Australia and even the USA. And we're all less flexibly-brained than people living in the Mediterranean during the Roman Empire, who had to deal with totally different time and date systems from place to place.
-
I've just seen this painting by Russian futurist Olga Rozanova from 1916. That tape measure looks like it's in inches, so I checked; the inch was a Russian unit from the time of Peter the Great till 1925, though other units did not necessarily correspond to English ones even if they had the same names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement
(https://uploads6.wikiart.org/images/olga-rozanova/writing-desk.jpg!Large.jpg)
-
Miles and yards (or fractions) ...
Miles, furlongs, chains, yards, feet, inches, thou.
A standard audax is rather neatly 1000 furlongs.
It’d be rather fun to have your GPS showing furlongs counting down on an audax.
-
Given almost all panniers and bar bags are a flavour of cuboid, I think what they wanted was probably simple width x depth x height. This wouldn't work so well with saddlebags and not at all with frame bags, though it was before those returned to favour.
Yeah, that's not unreasonable, as long as it's clear which dimension is which.
The size of a barbag, regardless of the cuboid shape, is completely mythical. I have an 8l barbag (made by Oxford so it must be right) which is nicely cuboid. There is absolutely no way I could get four 2l oil bottles in it, let alone one 4l bidon. No way whatsoever! As for the 23l Carradice Camper longflap saddlebag? Pure fiction!! Measuring in mm, cm, inches, light years or any variation of quartz vibration or light wavelength makes no difference to this, the bidons won't go in!
-
It’d be rather fun to have your GPS showing furlongs counting down on an audax.
It would also be fun having your speedo showing three figures on the flat.
-
I worked for a company whose clock cards (we had a punch-in and out on card system) ran in 1/100 of an hour.
On maintenance tech training in France we were taught to use hours and decimal divisions thereof because it makes more sense for billing afterwards. A pity that I naturally break things down into units of 5, 10 and 15 minutes. Hours divided into 4 come naturally to me.
In cycling I use metric for everything except gear size (inches, which I work out by taking the roll-out development in metres and cms, then converting into a diameter before converting into inches). I can use gear inches because 1) I have no interest in measuring my cadence or using the maths to calculate my road speed and 2) I have tried converting to metres dévelopement but even though I can work them out in my head and converse with them, the actual figure means absolutely nothing to me as a gear size.
If I were in a country or activity that used imperial I would too and there is still a certain pleasure converting distances between the two. Litres to pints and gallons defeats me though. I just have to use one or the other but no converting!
-
I'm sticking doggedly with furlongs. (FPH) None of this new fangled stuff.
Besides, you get like 7.99998 for a mile. :thumbsup:
-
I'm sticking doggedly with furlongs. (FPH) None of this new fangled stuff.
Besides, you get like 7.99998 for a mile. :thumbsup:
Actually, you get exactly 8.
-
I'm sticking doggedly with furlongs. (FPH) None of this new fangled stuff.
Besides, you get like 7.99998 for a mile. :thumbsup:
Actually, you get exactly 8.
even better then!
-
Given almost all panniers and bar bags are a flavour of cuboid, I think what they wanted was probably simple width x depth x height. This wouldn't work so well with saddlebags and not at all with frame bags, though it was before those returned to favour.
Yeah, that's not unreasonable, as long as it's clear which dimension is which.
The size of a barbag, regardless of the cuboid shape, is completely mythical. I have an 8l barbag (made by Oxford so it must be right) which is nicely cuboid. There is absolutely no way I could get four 2l oil bottles in it, let alone one 4l bidon. No way whatsoever! As for the 23l Carradice Camper longflap saddlebag? Pure fiction!! Measuring in mm, cm, inches, light years or any variation of quartz vibration or light wavelength makes no difference to this, the bidons won't go in!
I wasn’t sure if there is a standard size for a bawbag, so I’ve emailed some Weegie friends, and will get back to you when they’ve answered.
-
According to my former neighbour (Aussie airline pilot), he thinks in nautical miles - universal at sea and in the air - and we should all be standardised on that measure.
Certain countries – including China and Russia – use metric for æronautical purposes and I think it's standard practice among glider pilots too. Probably because feet, knots and nautical miles are relics of the capitalist running dogs and/or imperialist paper tigers. Distance in km, altitude in metres. There have been proposals since approximately forever, or at least WW2, to get the rest of the world to join in but I can’t see it happening any time soon as long as USAnia has a say in the matter.
Not so. the Russians gave up on the fully-metric system some years ago, so now it only applies in their lower airspace. China is more metric, but not totally. It uses metres for elevation, but nautical miles for distance and speed. As in any other computer, it is the matter of a button press to have all the altimeters read in metres.
It's a long time since I did any gliding but, rather like Audax, they affect to measure distance in kilometres. Of course they don't really; just like Audax they simply create distance 'gates' beyond which you are deemed to have hit the target. Their instrumentation is conventional feet and nautical miles, and their GPSs display whatever the individual prefers.
-
Given almost all panniers and bar bags are a flavour of cuboid, I think what they wanted was probably simple width x depth x height. This wouldn't work so well with saddlebags and not at all with frame bags, though it was before those returned to favour.
Yeah, that's not unreasonable, as long as it's clear which dimension is which.
The size of a barbag, regardless of the cuboid shape, is completely mythical. I have an 8l barbag (made by Oxford so it must be right) which is nicely cuboid. There is absolutely no way I could get four 2l oil bottles in it, let alone one 4l bidon. No way whatsoever! As for the 23l Carradice Camper longflap saddlebag? Pure fiction!! Measuring in mm, cm, inches, light years or any variation of quartz vibration or light wavelength makes no difference to this, the bidons won't go in!
I wasn’t sure if there is a standard size for a bawbag, so I’ve emailed some Weegie friends, and will get back to you when they’ve answered.
I think that'd be another variant of "trouser inches" only exaggerated the other way.
-
I'm mostly metric and happily occupy myself converting to imperial as we go. This did backfire once in particularly bad weather riding the The Dean 300, 2 of us suffering, we turned right at the sign on the B4211, the sign clearly states 'Newent 6',
Me: "Only 10km until we stop"
<ride on a bit>
Partner: "Did you say, 10?, OK so 16km to go"
<ride on a bit>
Me: "Did you say 16miles?, that's almost 26km, not sure I can make it that far without food, it's probably about 20k still"
<ride on a tiny bit further>
Spots a sign, only 1/2mile left, we're there... :facepalm:
We'd ECE'd the start & both really needed food by this stage! :facepalm:
-
Having just regarded the coverage on Youtube of the latest test between Aus and India at Sidney I notice that bowling speeds are quoted in km/h. If it's right for cricket it must be right!!! (until the Trumpists start playing cricket of course; I suppose his golf courses are still using yards!)
-
I'm mostly metric and happily occupy myself converting to imperial as we go. This did backfire once in particularly bad weather riding the The Dean 300, 2 of us suffering, we turned right at the sign on the B4211, the sign clearly states 'Newent 6',
Me: "Only 10km until we stop"
<ride on a bit>
Partner: "Did you say, 10?, OK so 16km to go"
<ride on a bit>
Me: "Did you say 16miles?, that's almost 26km, not sure I can make it that far without food, it's probably about 20k still"
<ride on a tiny bit further>
Spots a sign, only 1/2mile left, we're there... :facepalm:
We'd ECE'd the start & both really needed food by this stage! :facepalm:
;D ;D ;D :D :D :D
-
^^Sounds like my son and his friends (16/17). They'll say they use metric, but if you listen, they use a mixture. Because "it's sense, everyone does that" or something similar.
The measurements are all arbitrary, so they all have relevance and weight. Except length, which has no weight. Just relevance. ;)
A mixture is good. We want our young people to grow up being able to cope with different and difficult situations. Don't we...?
Or do you want them to go off to foreign lands, shouting (slowly) that xxxx measurement is best? You want them to grow up understanding that people are different and live in different ways; and that if the differences are merely about some arbitrary physical measurement, that there is a way to deal with that.
No longer do people rely on log tables and long division. That's what computers are for, and they can work out conversions to far more decimal places that any human can. It's what IT is for.
Who the hell made 10 the best number anyway? Blake Edwards?
I had to look up Blake Edwards. Found he wasn't the leader of Blake's Seven.
Yes, all of that. But more that usage is shaped by environment. If they were growing up in Germany or USA, they'd probably be mono-systemic, or whatever the term should be.
Obviously this means that BRITISH brains, forced to adapt to an ever-changing mix of measures, are far more flexible than the rigid brains of the rest of the world. Except maybe for Ireland, Canada, Australia and even the USA. And we're all less flexibly-brained than people living in the Mediterranean during the Roman Empire, who had to deal with totally different time and date systems from place to place.
Apart from stones. Stones have gone the way of whom. I'm not sure they were used for anything other than weights of humans anyway? And when those are in non-metric nowadays, they're in pounds. I suppose it's American cultural influence (meaning not just TV and movies but sports in particular).
-
Apart from stones. Stones have gone the way of whom. I'm not sure they were used for anything other than weights of humans anyway? And when those are in non-metric nowadays, they're in pounds. I suppose it's American cultural influence (meaning not just TV and movies but sports in particular).
I was surprised recently when one of my younger colleagues made a reference to body weight in pounds (not stones and pounds, not kilograms). No way would she have been taught that at school, far too young.
-
I'm mostly metric and happily occupy myself converting to imperial as we go. This did backfire once in particularly bad weather riding the The Dean 300, 2 of us suffering, we turned right at the sign on the B4211, the sign clearly states 'Newent 6',
Me: "Only 10km until we stop"
<ride on a bit>
Partner: "Did you say, 10?, OK so 16km to go"
<ride on a bit>
Me: "Did you say 16miles?, that's almost 26km, not sure I can make it that far without food, it's probably about 20k still"
<ride on a tiny bit further>
Spots a sign, only 1/2mile left, we're there... :facepalm:
We'd ECE'd the start & both really needed food by this stage! :facepalm:
I’m intrigued by this feeling the need to convert. I’ll quite happily have km figures for remaining distance but if I see sign in miles I’ll treat just as it is. Essentially I don’t convert between km and miles on the road because I don’t need to. What I will do is convert them into a how much time till question. Though if a sign says 5 miles or less I’ll just convert it into “Not long till a shop, hopefully...”
-
I was surprised recently when one of my younger colleagues made a reference to body weight in pounds (not stones and pounds, not kilograms). No way would she have been taught that at school, far too young.
US cultural influence via the Internet? I automatically think of my weight in stones and pounds, but don't ask me what that means in pounds alone.
-
Having just regarded the coverage on Youtube of the latest test between Aus and India at Sidney I notice that bowling speeds are quoted in km/h. If it's right for cricket it must be right!!! (until the Trumpists start playing cricket of course; I suppose his golf courses are still using yards!)
The length of a cricket pitch is traditionally defined as 1/8 of a furlong, of course. 20.12m doesn't quite have the same poetry to it.
-
US cultural influence via the Internet?
TV, internet, magazines, whatever, but definitely a US influence. I think Cudzo is right that it's probably mostly to do with sport rather than other cultural spheres.
-
Having just regarded the coverage on Youtube of the latest test between Aus and India at Sidney I notice that bowling speeds are quoted in km/h. If it's right for cricket it must be right!!! (until the Trumpists start playing cricket of course; I suppose his golf courses are still using yards!)
The length of a cricket pitch is traditionally defined as 1/8 of a furlong, of course. 20.12m doesn't quite have the same poetry to it.
That would be an extra long pitch.
It is 1/10 of a furlong or 1 chain. 10 chains to the furlong.
It is one of the oddities of the imperial system that it swaps between 10 and powers of two.
So 10 chains to the furlong, but 8 furlongs to the mile.
10 pounds of water to the gallon, also 8 pints.
16 ounces to the pound.
10s because of fingers. Powers of 2 (8, 16 etc) as they can be divided without tools.
-
It is 1/10 of a furlong or 1 chain. 10 chains to the furlong.
Of course. Should have checked that rather than going by memory!
-
Most health apps (for instance) ask for your weight in Lbs or Kg, and almost never in Stones. I suspect that this convention has far more to do with younger people beginning to forget about using Stones as a unit of weight. In fact, I cannot remember when I last used Stones in relation to my own weight! I actually would have to go away and work out what my weight is in Stones and Pounds, yet I can tell you without hesitation what it is in Kg or Lbs (it's too many of both!).
-
I think it's not just US influence but the changing UK influence. Where do you normally encounter body weight? Either in a medical context, in which case it will be in kg (for a UK resident), or in sports (boxers, cyclists,... ) where the official data from the UK will also be in kg even if the commentator or coach thinks in stone, as it will from the rest of the world except the US.
I don't know why the US never adopted stones, but that's a historical question.
Also: it's an incredibly light bike that weighs less than a stone, but did anybody ever give the weight of a bike in stone and pounds? No, it's always pounds alone or kilos. I can't think of any situation other body weight where stones were in common use.
Ed: Just seen TimC's point about apps. So that too! And another instance of influence away from stones coming from within the UK too (though I suppose many of the apps originate in the US).
-
It is 1/10 of a furlong or 1 chain. 10 chains to the furlong.
Of course. Should have checked that rather than going by memory!
... and 1 chain x 1 furlong = 1 acre.
-
My scales show my weight in stones and pounds. There are 14 pounds in a stone. Dividing lbs by 14 not too hard to work out number of stones. Oh and 14 is not a power of 2 , so sorry DaveF exceptions to your above rule already. ;D
-
It is 1/10 of a furlong or 1 chain. 10 chains to the furlong.
Of course. Should have checked that rather than going by memory!
... and 1 chain x 1 furlong = 1 acre.
That sticks in my memory much more than any other imperial conversion factor, such as pints in a gallon or ounces in a pound. Which is odd, as it's something I've never put into practical use; perhaps its very uselessness (for me) is what makes it memorable!
-
I think it's not just US influence but the changing UK influence. Where do you normally encounter body weight? Either in a medical context, in which case it will be in kg (for a UK resident), or in sports (boxers, cyclists,... ) where the official data from the UK will also be in kg even if the commentator or coach thinks in stone, as it will from the rest of the world except the US.
I don't know why the US never adopted stones, but that's a historical question.
Also: it's an incredibly light bike that weighs less than a stone, but did anybody ever give the weight of a bike in stone and pounds? No, it's always pounds alone or kilos. I can't think of any situation other body weight where stones were in common use.
Ed: Just seen TimC's point about apps. So that too! And another instance of influence away from stones coming from within the UK too (though I suppose many of the apps originate in the US).
Whenever anyone gives their weight in stone, I ask whether that is old or new stone.
One stone is 1/8 of a hundred weight.
-
My scales show my weight in stones and pounds. There are 14 pounds in a stone. Dividing lbs by 14 not too hard to work out number of stones. Oh and 14 is not a power of 2 , so sorry DaveF exceptions to your above rule already. ;D
A stone is 1/8 of a hundred weight.
A hundred weight used to be 100 pounds.
Due to some early european trade agreement stones were adjusted in size, so that a hundredweight became 112 pounds.
-
You lot are not helping with the whole drunken lobster hypothesis...
J
-
My scales show my weight in stones and pounds. There are 14 pounds in a stone. Dividing lbs by 14 not too hard to work out number of stones. Oh and 14 is not a power of 2 , so sorry DaveF exceptions to your above rule already. ;D
A stone is 1/8 of a hundred weight.
A hundred weight used to be 100 pounds.
Due to some early european trade agreement stones were adjusted in size, so that a hundredweight became 112 pounds.
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
The English stone under law varied by commodity and in practice varied according to local standards. The Assize of Weights and Measures, a statute of uncertain date from c. 1300, describes stones of 5 merchants' pounds used for glass; stones of 8 lb. used for beeswax, sugar, pepper, alum, cumin, almonds,[12] cinnamon, and nutmegs;[13] stones of 12 lb. used for lead; and the London stone of 12 1⁄2 lb. used for wool.[12][13] In 1350 Edward III issued a new statute defining the stone weight, to be used for wool and "other Merchandizes", at 14 pounds,[nb 2] reaffirmed by Henry VII in 1495.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
So a stone of lead really might weigh more than a stone of feathers! But then it also might have weighed less...
-
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
Same with the Bushel. This is what makes so many imperial units so fucking batshit.
The barrel as a unit also changes depending on what it's designed to hold.
see previous statement re drunken lobster.
J
-
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
The English stone under law varied by commodity and in practice varied according to local standards. The Assize of Weights and Measures, a statute of uncertain date from c. 1300, describes stones of 5 merchants' pounds used for glass; stones of 8 lb. used for beeswax, sugar, pepper, alum, cumin, almonds,[12] cinnamon, and nutmegs;[13] stones of 12 lb. used for lead; and the London stone of 12 1⁄2 lb. used for wool.[12][13] In 1350 Edward III issued a new statute defining the stone weight, to be used for wool and "other Merchandizes", at 14 pounds,[nb 2] reaffirmed by Henry VII in 1495.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
So a stone of lead really might weigh more than a stone of feathers! But then it also might have weighed less...
I think you've explained this inadvertently. In the early days of quantifying by weight, the quantities of commodities being weighed had to be practical to lift and contain, so weighing 'feathers' (to use your example) would have required a smaller measuring stone than weighing gold, for example, as it would have been impractical to use the same weight for both.
-
I don't know about the bushel and barrel but the stone was standardized by Edward III in 1350, so really quite a long time ago. Although, as is the way of standards, this seems to have got a bit messed up later (perhaps following unification with Scotland, where the stone was 16 lbs) and there were further attempts at standardization in 1824 and 1835.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, they adopted the metric system in 1817 which resulted in... a stone of 6 (local) pounds where previously it had been 8!
Metric stone
In the Netherlands, where the metric system was adopted in 1817, the pond (pound) was set equal to a kilogram, and the steen (stone), which had previously been 8 Amsterdam pond (3.953 kg), was redefined as being 3 kg.[43] In modern colloquial Dutch, a pond is used as an alternative for 500 grams or half a kilogram, while the ons is used for a weight of 100 grams, being 1/5 pond.
-
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
The English stone under law varied by commodity and in practice varied according to local standards. The Assize of Weights and Measures, a statute of uncertain date from c. 1300, describes stones of 5 merchants' pounds used for glass; stones of 8 lb. used for beeswax, sugar, pepper, alum, cumin, almonds,[12] cinnamon, and nutmegs;[13] stones of 12 lb. used for lead; and the London stone of 12 1⁄2 lb. used for wool.[12][13] In 1350 Edward III issued a new statute defining the stone weight, to be used for wool and "other Merchandizes", at 14 pounds,[nb 2] reaffirmed by Henry VII in 1495.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
So a stone of lead really might weigh more than a stone of feathers! But then it also might have weighed less...
I think you've explained this inadvertently. In the early days of quantifying by weight, the quantities of commodities being weighed had to be practical to lift and contain, so weighing 'feathers' (to use your example) would have required a smaller measuring stone than weighing gold, for example, as it would have been impractical to use the same weight for both.
I think the change from 100 pound hundred weights to 112 was due to the fixing a legal minimum price for sacks of wool. Hmmm, how can we get around that peasant safeguard... bigger sacks.
-
I don't know about the bushel and barrel but the stone was standardized by Edward III in 1350, so really quite a long time ago. Although, as is the way of standards, this seems to have got a bit messed up later (perhaps following unification with Scotland, where the stone was 16 lbs) and there were further attempts at standardization in 1824 and 1835.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, they adopted the metric system in 1817 which resulted in... a stone of 6 (local) pounds where previously it had been 8!
Metric stone
In the Netherlands, where the metric system was adopted in 1817, the pond (pound) was set equal to a kilogram, and the steen (stone), which had previously been 8 Amsterdam pond (3.953 kg), was redefined as being 3 kg.[43] In modern colloquial Dutch, a pond is used as an alternative for 500 grams or half a kilogram, while the ons is used for a weight of 100 grams, being 1/5 pond.
The Ons thing caused an issue when baking a cake with my then Dutch partner, we were using my gran's recipe, which is of course in ounces, I said we needed 12 ounces. Said partner weighs out 1.2kg. Not the 340g I was expecting...
The pond == 500g thing kinda makes sense. 454g is close enough to 500g for most things. You'd think the ons would be 25g, not 100g, 25g being close enough to 28.3g for most things. But no...
J
-
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
The English stone under law varied by commodity and in practice varied according to local standards. The Assize of Weights and Measures, a statute of uncertain date from c. 1300, describes stones of 5 merchants' pounds used for glass; stones of 8 lb. used for beeswax, sugar, pepper, alum, cumin, almonds,[12] cinnamon, and nutmegs;[13] stones of 12 lb. used for lead; and the London stone of 12 1⁄2 lb. used for wool.[12][13] In 1350 Edward III issued a new statute defining the stone weight, to be used for wool and "other Merchandizes", at 14 pounds,[nb 2] reaffirmed by Henry VII in 1495.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
So a stone of lead really might weigh more than a stone of feathers! But then it also might have weighed less...
I think you've explained this inadvertently. In the early days of quantifying by weight, the quantities of commodities being weighed had to be practical to lift and contain, so weighing 'feathers' (to use your example) would have required a smaller measuring stone than weighing gold, for example, as it would have been impractical to use the same weight for both.
So it was determined not only by the need to know how much of something was there, but by practical considerations of handling in a marketplace, warehouse or farmyard. That seems highly sensible.
-
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
Same with the Bushel. This is what makes so many imperial units so fucking batshit.
The barrel as a unit also changes depending on what it's designed to hold.
see previous statement re drunken lobster.
J
Bat guano is always measured in standard imperial bushels.
-
I don't know about the bushel and barrel but the stone was standardized by Edward III in 1350, so really quite a long time ago. Although, as is the way of standards, this seems to have got a bit messed up later (perhaps following unification with Scotland, where the stone was 16 lbs) and there were further attempts at standardization in 1824 and 1835.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, they adopted the metric system in 1817 which resulted in... a stone of 6 (local) pounds where previously it had been 8!
Metric stone
In the Netherlands, where the metric system was adopted in 1817, the pond (pound) was set equal to a kilogram, and the steen (stone), which had previously been 8 Amsterdam pond (3.953 kg), was redefined as being 3 kg.[43] In modern colloquial Dutch, a pond is used as an alternative for 500 grams or half a kilogram, while the ons is used for a weight of 100 grams, being 1/5 pond.
The Ons thing caused an issue when baking a cake with my then Dutch partner, we were using my gran's recipe, which is of course in ounces, I said we needed 12 ounces. Said partner weighs out 1.2kg. Not the 340g I was expecting...
The pond == 500g thing kinda makes sense. 454g is close enough to 500g for most things. You'd think the ons would be 25g, not 100g, 25g being close enough to 28.3g for most things. But no...
J
Sounds like the Dutch preserved the terms they were used to but with new definitions that fitted convenient slots in the new system rather than the previous definitions. And doubtless a lot of people would have carried on using the old definitions, while, with Amsterdam being a big international trading centre, some would have been using similar terms but in their (English, Scottish, German, etc) usages. Metrication of Babel!
-
Seems that historically, the stone was a varying number of pounds according to what was being weighed.
The English stone under law varied by commodity and in practice varied according to local standards. The Assize of Weights and Measures, a statute of uncertain date from c. 1300, describes stones of 5 merchants' pounds used for glass; stones of 8 lb. used for beeswax, sugar, pepper, alum, cumin, almonds,[12] cinnamon, and nutmegs;[13] stones of 12 lb. used for lead; and the London stone of 12 1⁄2 lb. used for wool.[12][13] In 1350 Edward III issued a new statute defining the stone weight, to be used for wool and "other Merchandizes", at 14 pounds,[nb 2] reaffirmed by Henry VII in 1495.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
So a stone of lead really might weigh more than a stone of feathers! But then it also might have weighed less...
I think you've explained this inadvertently. In the early days of quantifying by weight, the quantities of commodities being weighed had to be practical to lift and contain, so weighing 'feathers' (to use your example) would have required a smaller measuring stone than weighing gold, for example, as it would have been impractical to use the same weight for both.
So it was determined not only by the need to know how much of something was there, but by practical considerations of handling in a marketplace, warehouse or farmyard. That seems highly sensible.
Purely a guess on my part; even though I'm old, don't assume any historical knowledge!
-
I don't know about the bushel and barrel but the stone was standardized by Edward III in 1350, so really quite a long time ago. Although, as is the way of standards, this seems to have got a bit messed up later (perhaps following unification with Scotland, where the stone was 16 lbs) and there were further attempts at standardization in 1824 and 1835.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, they adopted the metric system in 1817 which resulted in... a stone of 6 (local) pounds where previously it had been 8!
Metric stone
In the Netherlands, where the metric system was adopted in 1817, the pond (pound) was set equal to a kilogram, and the steen (stone), which had previously been 8 Amsterdam pond (3.953 kg), was redefined as being 3 kg.[43] In modern colloquial Dutch, a pond is used as an alternative for 500 grams or half a kilogram, while the ons is used for a weight of 100 grams, being 1/5 pond.
The Ons thing caused an issue when baking a cake with my then Dutch partner, we were using my gran's recipe, which is of course in ounces, I said we needed 12 ounces. Said partner weighs out 1.2kg. Not the 340g I was expecting...
The pond == 500g thing kinda makes sense. 454g is close enough to 500g for most things. You'd think the ons would be 25g, not 100g, 25g being close enough to 28.3g for most things. But no...
J
In France they still use the word livre (old pound) to mean 500g.
-
In France they still use the word livre (old pound) to mean 500g.
And if you order a 'demi' in a bar, it's half a pint (250ml) rather than half a litre.
-
In France they still use the word livre (old pound) to mean 500g.
And if you order a 'demi' in a bar, it's half a pint (250ml) rather than half a litre.
.. and a pint is 500ml not to be confused with the English pint 568ml or the old Parisian pinte of 930ml.
-
I default to metric, as most of my need to measure distance relates to audax cycling. Even in cosmopolitan Edinburgh Im viewed with suspicion by most non cycling people as a result. Its seen as an unforgivable continental affectation, further evidenced by my insistence on "gilet" and not "body warmer". ;D
As an aside, in the late 1970s my local council where I grew up (Falkirk & District) decided that any new road signs would be in KMs rather than miles. I think that they hardly did any, but I recall it being a local story at the time and I know for sure that there was definitely one on the outskirts of Grangemouth heading towards Old Polmont at that time (long since replaced by one in miles probably with some useless Gaelic added for good measure).
-
An entirely practical unit I came across recently. (7.5 km is ¾ of a Swedish mile). Poron is genitive of poro (=reindeer), and kusema is from kusta (=to piss).
I'm going to use the poronkusema (pl poronkusemat) exclusively from now on.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsLa2v1XEAAWU8t?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Can you derive a whole system of measurements from that?
We've got length.
Time is presumably the time taken for a reindeer to empty its bladder, so around 21 seconds.
Quantity, just count out the water molecules in a bladder's worth of urine.
Temperature, based on the body temperature of a reindeer and the freezing point of urine.
Mass of a standard bladder's worth at body temperature.
Electric current and luminous intensity could be tricky...
-
I'm sure you could do something with the conductivity of reindeer urine. And some species' urine is luminescent under UV light. Probably not reindeer's, unless maybe you feed them something weird.
-
Can you derive a whole system of measurements from that?
We've got length.
Time is presumably the time taken for a reindeer to empty its bladder, so around 21 seconds.
Quantity, just count out the water molecules in a bladder's worth of urine.
Temperature, based on the body temperature of a reindeer and the freezing point of urine.
Mass of a standard bladder's worth at body temperature.
Electric current and luminous intensity could be tricky...
At Pokka, which is on the map but nothing on the ground (no shops, but a cafe which is the only place to spend money in 190 km 25 poronkusemat) there's an artist's impression of a reindeer (poro) at -51-5° C, but it's eating, not kusee (or strictly speaking ei kuse)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3919/15268409215_2ac625c6aa.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pgdA7K)
-
I'm sure you could do something with the conductivity of reindeer urine. And some species' urine is luminescent under UV light. Probably not reindeer's, unless maybe you feed them something weird.
Mushrooms. Isn't drinking urine of reindeer that have eaten mushrooms the basis for flying reindeer (Rudolph et al) stories?
-
Sounds quite likely. I'd turn to our Finnish expert for further information...
-
Can you derive a whole system of measurements from that?
We've got length.
Time is presumably the time taken for a reindeer to empty its bladder, so around 21 seconds.
Quantity, just count out the water molecules in a bladder's worth of urine.
Temperature, based on the body temperature of a reindeer and the freezing point of urine.
Mass of a standard bladder's worth at body temperature.
Electric current and luminous intensity could be tricky...
The latter could be derived from the light emitted from a Sami Standard reindeer’s nose.
-
I'm sure you could do something with the conductivity of reindeer urine. And some species' urine is luminescent under UV light. Probably not reindeer's, unless maybe you feed them something weird.
Mushrooms. Isn't drinking urine of reindeer that have eaten mushrooms the basis for flying reindeer (Rudolph et al) stories?
According to https://www.livescience.com/25731-magic-mushrooms-santa-claus.html, it might be something like that, also coming down the chimney and bringing a fir tree into your house. Possibly.
"As the story goes, up until a few hundred years ago these practicing shamans or priests connected to the older traditions would collect Amanita muscaria (the Holy Mushroom), dry them, and then give them as gifts on the winter solstice," Rush told LiveScience. "Because snow is usually blocking doors, there was an opening in the roof through which people entered and exited, thus the chimney story."
-
Wow, it wouldn't have occurred to me the chimney could be connected with it in that way. But what's the thing about the fir tree? Perhaps people would hang the dried mushrooms from a fir branch? Also, wasn't the original St Nicholas from Turkey. They might have mushrooms but they don't have reindeer!
-
Wow, it wouldn't have occurred to me the chimney could be connected with it in that way. But what's the thing about the fir tree? Perhaps people would hang the dried mushrooms from a fir branch? Also, wasn't the original St Nicholas from Turkey. They might have mushrooms but they don't have reindeer!
According to the website, Amanita muscaria is to be found under such trees, which makes them special. And the shamen would dress up like the mushroom (in red). and "Many of these traditions were merged or projected upon Saint Nicholas, a fourth-century saint who was known for his generosity, as the story goes."
-
Wow, it wouldn't have occurred to me the chimney could be connected with it in that way. But what's the thing about the fir tree? Perhaps people would hang the dried mushrooms from a fir branch? Also, wasn't the original St Nicholas from Turkey. They might have mushrooms but they don't have reindeer!
According to the website, Amanita muscaria is to be found under such trees, which makes them special. And the shamen would dress up like the mushroom (in red). and "Many of these traditions were merged or projected upon Saint Nicholas, a fourth-century saint who was known for his generosity, as the story goes."
I thought Father Christmas wore green until Coca Cola got in on the act.
-
Wow, it wouldn't have occurred to me the chimney could be connected with it in that way. But what's the thing about the fir tree? Perhaps people would hang the dried mushrooms from a fir branch? Also, wasn't the original St Nicholas from Turkey. They might have mushrooms but they don't have reindeer!
According to the website, Amanita muscaria is to be found under such trees, which makes them special. And the shamen would dress up like the mushroom (in red). and "Many of these traditions were merged or projected upon Saint Nicholas, a fourth-century saint who was known for his generosity, as the story goes."
I thought Father Christmas wore green until Coca Cola got in on the act.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-claus-that-refreshes/
The image of Santa Claus as a jolly large man in a red-and-white suit was the standard long before Coca-Cola co-opted it for their advertising.
-
Of course the real fun starts when you take a beloved imperial unit and use it as basis for a decimal system. I can tell you that my body weight is almost exactly 3 kiloounces and I'm 1.174 millimiles tall. (And I cycled almost exactly one ninth megafurlong in 2020.)
-
Of course the real fun starts when you take a beloved imperial unit and use it as basis for a decimal system. I can tell you that my body weight is almost exactly 3 kiloounces and I'm 1.174 millimiles tall. (And I cycled almost exactly one ninth megafurlong in 2020.)
As I mentioned somewhere above the kilofurlong is the standard unit of audax.
-
As I mentioned somewhere above the kilofurlong is the standard unit of audax.
Sorry, Dave. I should read more carefully. I didn't even realize that 1 kilofurlong is almost exactly 200km.
-
KPH when on an audax (so that I can follow directions on a routesheet). MPH all other times.