Author Topic: Does anyone know what gravel is?  (Read 7494 times)

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #125 on: August 27, 2018, 09:27:51 pm »
My one true value is if I turn the pedals once, how far do i go? From that all else is true.

That's Development (whether you measure it in metres or milliFurlongs), and disregards the effect of crank length.

Boooo, Kim loses, suggest non- logical measure.

Crank length is irrelevant to how fast I'm going, only has an effect on knee upanddownness, which is a non-si unit.

Crank length is directly relevant to how hard you have to push on the pedals in order to get your bike moving, just like the rest of the system.  When cycling I'm more interested in force on the pedals than how fast they're turning.

If you're going to dismiss gain ratios as non-logical, you need to argue why another system is better.  The main arguments for the traditional measures are that they make the maths easier, or make intuitive sense to experienced penny farthing / unicycle riders.

You might as well argue that chainring size is irrelevant, as it only affects how fast the cranks are turning.  What matters is how far the wheel travels for a given amount of chain.
The question was not how hard I have to push, gear-inches doesn't address that either.

The most logical measure must be development, whether metres, centimetres or Angstroms makes no difference. If I make one revolution I go X distance, if I do that 90 times a minute I have Y speed, none of the other measures do that, and it is independent of wheel size, tyre size, chainring etc for comparative purposes, therefore the most logical.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #126 on: August 27, 2018, 09:46:57 pm »
My one true value is if I turn the pedals once, how far do i go? From that all else is true.

That's Development (whether you measure it in metres or milliFurlongs), and disregards the effect of crank length.

Tragically, unless I'm sitting down for a maths session, I have no sense of real-world values for gain ratio.  I've been known to calculate gear ratios in 170mm-crank-equivalent-inches in order to compare them.   :facepalm:

I some times wonder if Kim has a some alert set for metres of development. As without fail when I talk about it she comes along to rightly correct me that gain ratio, taking into account cranks is the one true way of expressing gears. Tho I am not sure how to go from gain ratio to "if I do x rpm in this gear, I go y distance in Z time"

System failure: your 28" wheel has a tyre height of 44.5mm and a total diameter of 711.2mm giving a dévelopment of 2.2352m with 34/34 (assuming you are on a 622mm rim - of course this figure will be correct only when your load compresses the tyre to give that diameter, the actual diameter could vary quite a lot with load at htese bigger tyre sections which is why vttists were always advised to set their bicycle computers by doing a rollout measure with the appropriate normal load).

Reading failure, I used 0.7m as a random number to complete the example. To fully apply it you need to know the actual radius or diameter of your wheel, which can only be accurately ascertained for a single combination of pressure and bike load, by doing a roll out. However you can get a good idea to a relatively good tolerance by using a magic number for your wheel diameter.

Quote

Useless trivia - gold is sold in ounces, beer in pints and for a lot of french who weren't born when the franc changed "un bric" is still "un million ancien" (even now we have the euro.

I will have to check which are the official ISO units, I should know but there may be a few surprises.

Beer is only sold in pints where you are, and only in some outlets. By law in the UK beer sold in a glass (As opposed to a bottle), has to be sold in 1/3rd of a pint, 1/2 of a pint, or multiples there of. (an argument I've had with many a UK barman who;s tried to tell me he can't legally sell me a 3rd of a pint). Else where in Europe there usually no legal requirement on the size of a glass of beer that is sold, tho there is a convention on 200ml and 500ml and in some cases 1000ml. Gold is sold in troy ounces, which shouldn't be confused with the usual ounce used in British imperial units (which is different from a US fluid ounce too). You can however in many places buy gold per gram, and there is no legal statue saying you can only buy gold in troy ounces.

And if we're having a measuring units trivia match, in .nl they have the pond, which is 500g, They simply took the pound and turned it into the nearest metric sensible number, which is 500g. So you often hear someone ask for a pond of beef at the slagerij. Conversely with the ounce, the metric ons in .nl is 100g. This lead to an interesting issue when baking a cake with a Dutch partner whilst using my grandmothers recipe. The 12 ounces of flour turned out to be 1.2kg...

Perhaps we should measure gears using Smoots...


So you believe that kids should listen and learn what they are taught in school to the detriment of all else. If they had done that a couple of centuries ago there would never have been a metric system in the first place. I can think of quite a few dictators and other autocrats who would have definitely agreed with that.
Sorry hysterical historical background getting the better of me.
Interesting, that podcast. A bit aligned on the USAnians (for me a gallon is 4.45l or thereabouts) but interesting all the same. I once worked on a brand new factory installation with metric and imperial measures on the same plans. It was a bit of a disaster as installations go.

No, I am talking as someone who has worked on international projects, worked in aerospace, and who lives an international life, and I believe that in some areas standardisation is fundamental to an efficient society. If we all use the same measures, then it makes things a lot more interoperable. Yes the Mars Polar lander is a poster child of how it can all go wrong, but funny tho it is to laugh at. It makes a good point. And by working with a standardised unit system it allows interoperability. 95% of the world use metric.

Yes there is historical interest to be had in the imperial system, and yes I can do a nice spiel to confused Dutch people explaining how there are 3 barley corns to an inch, 12 inchs to a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 2 yards in a fathom, 22 yards in a chain, 10 chains in a furlong, 8 furlongs in a mile, and 3 miles in a league, and it's not fscking rocket science! But the reality is, if I go into a hardware store anywhere but the US, and ask for a 200mm piece of wood 34x34 mm wide, they are going to understand what I mean. Where as if I was to ask for a 6' 4 5/8" x 1 5/16" x 1 5/16", anywhere except the US, or some UK stores with older staff, they are going to just think I'm crazy.

It's fair to say that for all it's faults, the Metric system is here, and it's here to stay,

Complaining about the use of inches on an English-language cycling forum seems to me to be rather, well, quixotic; however superior the mks system is for scientific and engineering calculation, the customary units aren't going anywhere, and will continue to be used (even if I suspect that, as for me, for many people of my generation an inch is 'about two and a half cm'). For hysterical raisins bikes are going to have weird hybrid metric/imperial dimensions for the foreseeable future. I'm surprised that QG's colleagues have no idea what an inch is; 'zoll' was fairly well known to the German and Swiss people I worked with, and I'd have thought anyone technical would have come across them, even only in the sense of 'weird USian legacy unit (see also feet, yards, miles...) that's a couple of cm large - check your databook for conversion factors'.

The actual reality is it was others complaining about my use of metric units rather than imperial ones.

As for if the imperial units are going anywhere. I'd say that actually within the UK, within about 50 years they will be very much a minority, almost died out unit. Anyone under about 40 has been brought up in Metric Britain, and unless the lunatics have really taken over the asylum that's not going to change

As for the English language forum thing. It's the internet, never assume where people are. Just cos we are all using English, doesn't mean that it is a) their first language, b) they are in the UK. The Dutch equivalent of Audax UK has a number of members who are on this forum, enough that this forum could be considered the unofficial home of randonneurs.nl online.

Quote

As Kim has pointed out, if you want a rational measure for gearing then gain ratio is the best, but, like development, I find the range somewhat unintuitive (& elegant though it is, I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary - one size up/down from 170mm is only 3% or so difference, and more than that suggests the riding will be different enough not to be directly comparable anyway).

and I find MoD an entirely rational system, I can look at a 2.1 and a 5.8, and I know roughly what that means, what it will feel like. It's the system I grew up with, it's the system I know, and it is the system used by most of the people I ride with.

Yes gain ratio is a unitless pure unit that should perhaps have wider utilisation, it hasn't. MoD has. Be me in a bike shop in Amsterdam, Trondheim, or Zurich, if I say my gear is 3m, they will understand me. If I say it is 45", they will just think I'm an ignorant foreigner.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #127 on: August 27, 2018, 10:10:32 pm »
I'm not in UK either J. Here we have livres (500g)and pieds. Also noeuds (for the mariners), cordes (for buying and selling firewood). A lot of fixie riders don't bother about wheel size, they use the gearing ratio (2.5, 3 etc) and use the braquet as a way of calculating their skid patches. And if I want a beer I'll ask for a demi - which can be a variety of sizes.

In a way, with cadence measures on bike computers, GPS for speed and at least two different ways of measuring altitude, and a computer at home  that will figure it out and relate it all, why should anyone need to work out this stuff for themselves. If it's only for interest you use what you like as a system. The only difference between gear inches and MoD is that MoD puts pi into the equation. Otherwise they are both gear ratio multiplied by wheel size (mind I am not offering to calculate mph from inches/minute, I have enough trouble converting inch-ounces to Newtons for B&S lawnmower engines). 1 mile = 1760 yds, might be easier to just measure everything in furlongs.

Perhaps I might understand gain ratios if I could relate them to torque measures.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #128 on: August 27, 2018, 10:30:18 pm »
I'm not in UK either J.

Excellent!

Quote

In a way, with cadence measures on bike computers, GPS for speed and at least two different ways of measuring altitude, and a computer at home  that will figure it out and relate it all, why should anyone need to work out this stuff for themselves. If it's only for interest you use what you like as a system. The only difference between gear inches and MoD is that MoD puts pi into the equation. Otherwise they are both gear ratio multiplied by wheel size (mind I am not offering to calculate mph from inches/minute, I have enough trouble converting inch-ounces to Newtons for B&S lawnmower engines). 1 mile = 1760 yds, might be easier to just measure everything in furlongs.

Perhaps I might understand gain ratios if I could relate them to torque measures.

The main reason I've been caring about such things is to try and decide on the gears on my new bike. I know that even a 50/34 and 11/34 is too high, so then I need to start looking at other combos. What can I get from different manufacturers. I'm currently looking at a Miche 34/13, and FSA 46/30. This should give me 1.9m-7.6m giving me a top speed at 90rpm of 40kph. Which is plenty for me, if I'm trying to go faster than that, I'm probably just wasting energy. It also means that at 60rpm, I'm doing 6.7kph, which if I can get to target weight means about 160w to get up a 10%. Which should be achievable.

This compares to my current gearing of 28/40 on a 34-11. Which is 1.8m -> 7.8m. I'm not going for this combo on the new bike as I can't do it with Di2, and shimano also don't make this chainset anymore.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #129 on: August 27, 2018, 10:36:27 pm »
My one true value is if I turn the pedals once, how far do i go? From that all else is true.

That's Development (whether you measure it in metres or milliFurlongs), and disregards the effect of crank length.

Tragically, unless I'm sitting down for a maths session, I have no sense of real-world values for gain ratio.  I've been known to calculate gear ratios in 170mm-crank-equivalent-inches in order to compare them.   :facepalm:

I some times wonder if Kim has a some alert set for metres of development. As without fail when I talk about it she comes along to rightly correct me that gain ratio, taking into account cranks is the one true way of expressing gears. Tho I am not sure how to go from gain ratio to "if I do x rpm in this gear, I go y distance in Z time"

While it's a subset of making the maths easier, that is a use-case I hadn't really considered.  When I start nerding gear ratios, it's because I want to specify a configuration that will allow me to get a bike with such-and-such-a-load up a whatever-bastard hill without undue risk of exacerbating chronic knee trouble, uselessly spinning the drive wheel or falling over sideways before I pass stall speed.  Or it's about how close I can make the ratios without excessively compromising the available range.  Basically, my emphasis is on the bottom end, and the force on the pedals.

The top end is about what speed you cruise or spin out at, and I can see that it's then potentially more useful to consider crank length (ie. ease of spinning a given cadence) and development (what speed that cadence will occur at) separately.  That's always been a secondary priority for me when specifying gearing, so other than as a quick sanity check with limited-range hub gears I've not found it particularly important in practice.

I know - you can tell I don't ride single-speed.  But also the difficulty of achieving decently low gearing with off-the-shelf road bike components has a lot to do with why I end up calculating gear ratios in the first place.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #130 on: August 27, 2018, 11:05:29 pm »
And the John Tomac comparisons. Whether Bombtrack, who apparently are 3 bods in Cologne, were inspired by this, and either hoped to bask in reflected nostalgia so to speak or hoped no one would notice, or it's just coincidence – or convergent design – I do not know.

Bombtrack mentioned John Tomac in their own press release, so...

I also got in touch with the owner of Bombtrack to ask for the spec and according to the info he sent, it comes with an FSA Gossamer narrow-wide 38T chainring.

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #131 on: August 27, 2018, 11:14:54 pm »

It's fair to say that for all it's faults, the Metric system is here, and it's here to stay,


Definitely.

Quote
As for if the imperial units are going anywhere. I'd say that actually within the UK, within about 50 years they will be very much a minority, almost died out unit. Anyone under about 40 has been brought up in Metric Britain, and unless the lunatics have really taken over the asylum that's not going to change

I'm less sanguine. For them to die out would take a couple of things, not least metrication of road signs and clothing sizes. That might happen in the next fifty years, but I wouldn't like to bet on it.

Quote
As for the English language forum thing. It's the internet, never assume where people are. Just cos we are all using English, doesn't mean that it is a) their first language, b) they are in the UK. The Dutch equivalent of Audax UK has a number of members who are on this forum, enough that this forum could be considered the unofficial home of randonneurs.nl online.

Sure; I've lived all across Europe and all, but I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the regulars on here are Brits or British residents - in that context talk of 'barbarian measures' is likely to meet with a shrug, because:
Quote
It's the system I grew up with, it's the system I know, and it is the system used by most of the people I ride with.

Is going to hold for GIs for most of the people on here. Just because it's got inches in the title doesn't mean its adherents want everything in furlong-fortnights; I'd have to do a bit of mental reckoning to tell you exactly how big a dimension 72" is, but I know that for tapping along on the flat I'll want a gear of roughly thereabouts.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #132 on: August 27, 2018, 11:34:06 pm »
I'd have to do a bit of mental reckoning to tell you exactly how big a dimension 72" is, but I know that for tapping along on the flat I'll want a gear of roughly thereabouts.

Same here. The actual unit means nothing to me, it's just an arbitrary scale that gives me a rough idea of how hard a gear will be to push.

I taught myself to think of body weight in kilograms and distances in kilometres but I've not yet taught myself an alternative way of measuring gears.

I agree with Kim re the importance of crank length. The limits of my knowledge are reflected in the B I got in GCSE Physics around 30 years ago, but even so I can remember some of the stuff I was taught about levers and moments.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #133 on: August 28, 2018, 02:19:47 am »

I'm less sanguine. For them to die out would take a couple of things, not least metrication of road signs and clothing sizes. That might happen in the next fifty years, but I wouldn't like to bet on it.


Clothing sizes? I don't think my size 16 skirt has any relationship to maths, let alone to a measurement system...

But given the international nature of many brands, a lot of clothes already come with 36"/91cm marked on them...

Quote

Sure; I've lived all across Europe and all, but I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the regulars on here are Brits or British residents - in that context talk of 'barbarian measures' is likely to meet with a shrug, because:
Quote
It's the system I grew up with, it's the system I know, and it is the system used by most of the people I ride with.

Oh just cos someone holds a British passport doesn't mean they are a British resident. Her Britannic majesty requests all let me pass without let or hindrance, even tho I'm not actually in the British isles. I had a UK education, in metric.

Pretty much anyone a couple of years older than me, and younger who was educated in the UK, should have been educated with metric.

Quote

Is going to hold for GIs for most of the people on here. Just because it's got inches in the title doesn't mean its adherents want everything in furlong-fortnights; I'd have to do a bit of mental reckoning to tell you exactly how big a dimension 72" is, but I know that for tapping along on the flat I'll want a gear of roughly thereabouts.

72" == 6' == 1.83m. Thats one I'm used to converting, as fence panels whilst being 1830mm wide, are just 6' panels, that have been relabeled. Even when sold in Hornbach. However i have no idea what a 72" gear would feel like.

Let's run some maths. 1.83m X pi = 5.75M i think, if I've done my maths right, and understood how the conversion works... Which is roughly on my bike big ring and 3rd or 4th sprocket from the smaller end (11t end). Or on my Brompton big ring 5th or 6th gear.

Ultimately what this boils down to is we can argue all day over which is the better system, which makes more sense, which we prefer. But the fact of the matter is, 95% of the world's population look at the users if imperial units and just think if it as uneducated heathens that haven't joined the 20th century yet. You may like betamax, but the world has chosen VHS, and if you want to play with the world, you're gonna need to understand VHS. To stretch the analogy somewhat.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #134 on: August 28, 2018, 12:16:35 pm »
And the John Tomac comparisons. Whether Bombtrack, who apparently are 3 bods in Cologne, were inspired by this, and either hoped to bask in reflected nostalgia so to speak or hoped no one would notice, or it's just coincidence – or convergent design – I do not know.

Bombtrack mentioned John Tomac in their own press release, so...

I also got in touch with the owner of Bombtrack to ask for the spec and according to the info he sent, it comes with an FSA Gossamer narrow-wide 38T chainring.
Seems that either the review I saw (was it off-road.cc? I can't remember now!) was sent a bike with a different chainring or they changed it for some reason. I wonder why?
The earth is vast and beautiful and contains many miraculous places. (Chekhov)

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #135 on: August 28, 2018, 12:21:30 pm »
Clothing: sure trousers are sold in waist inches in countries which are generally speaking fully metricated. Waist inches should be considered a nominal unit not a measurement, just as gear inches should, and so should metres of development.
The earth is vast and beautiful and contains many miraculous places. (Chekhov)

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #136 on: August 28, 2018, 01:06:57 pm »
Apparently – according to Wikipedia – metrication in the UK started, in small way, in 1864, which is only 40 years after the formalisation of the Imperial system.
Quote
In 1824 the Weights and Measures Act imposed one standard 'imperial' system of weights and measures on the British Empire.[49] The effect of this act was to standardise existing British units of measure rather than to align them with the metric system.

During the next eighty years a number of Parliamentary select committees recommended the adoption of the metric system, each with a greater degree of urgency, but Parliament prevaricated. A Select Committee report of 1862 recommended compulsory metrication, but with an "Intermediate permissive phase"; Parliament responded in 1864 by legalising metric units only for 'contracts and dealings'.
The earth is vast and beautiful and contains many miraculous places. (Chekhov)

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #137 on: August 29, 2018, 02:04:13 pm »
Apparently – according to Wikipedia – metrication in the UK started, in small way, in 1864, which is only 40 years after the formalisation of the Imperial system.
Quote
In 1824 the Weights and Measures Act imposed one standard 'imperial' system of weights and measures on the British Empire.[49] The effect of this act was to standardise existing British units of measure rather than to align them with the metric system.

During the next eighty years a number of Parliamentary select committees recommended the adoption of the metric system, each with a greater degree of urgency, but Parliament prevaricated. A Select Committee report of 1862 recommended compulsory metrication, but with an "Intermediate permissive phase"; Parliament responded in 1864 by legalising metric units only for 'contracts and dealings'.

Continuing the historical bit, the notion of calculating gear size in relation to the size of an Ordinary driving wheel would not have been of much interest to the french since the Grand Bi was not particularly popular, its period of popularity in UK coinciding with the Franco-Prussian war and its fallout in France and cycling resuming a popular role only after the development of the Safety. I wondered why such machines were known as "Machines" but it would appear that that was why. This is what I can learn from Wikipedia and some french writing.

I was looking for the definition of "développement" but I can't find it in a geometric sense on the net, my googlefoo is not up to it. I think if I were to dig out my TMI notes I might find that it is the distance travelled by a point on the circumference during one rotation - which would make it equally relevant to a Grand Bi. I will continue searching. It seems that to cycletourists of the late 19th-early 20th century weight of their machine and tyre type were probably as important as gear size, although Dr Ruffier does quote his gear sizes, if only to show how clever he was in being able to change them.

What did/do the Germans refer to gear size as (or by)?

Shifted a bit from gravel bikes though

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #138 on: August 31, 2018, 10:51:05 am »
Received a marketomail from Rose today:
Quote
Gravelówka znaczy wolność
"A gravel bike means freedom" It later calls it Rower typu gravel a "gravel" type bike, but although it talks about forest trails, meadows and "adventures where there are no roads" nowhere does it use words corresponding to "gravel" – even roads surfaced with gravel and cinders are actually very easy to find in Poland. Anyway, gravelówka is quite a neat sounding word.
The earth is vast and beautiful and contains many miraculous places. (Chekhov)

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #139 on: August 31, 2018, 02:34:13 pm »
The actual unit means nothing to me, it's just an arbitrary scale that gives me a rough idea of how hard a gear will be to push.
Correct.

An arbitrary scale works best if it's easy to remember, talk, and write about.
That means integer values in the 2-3 digit range.
Decimals just give spurious precision, having to decide on rounding, and having to say two numbers and "point" rather than one number.

Gear inches are eminently suitable.
Development would also be OK if it were always given in dm (1 dm = 10 cm) rather than m, but it isn't.

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #140 on: September 01, 2018, 08:25:08 am »
The actual unit means nothing to me, it's just an arbitrary scale that gives me a rough idea of how hard a gear will be to push.
Correct.

An arbitrary scale works best if it's easy to remember, talk, and write about.
That means integer values in the 2-3 digit range.
Decimals just give spurious precision, having to decide on rounding, and having to say two numbers and "point" rather than one number.

Gear inches are eminently suitable.
Development would also be OK if it were always given in dm (1 dm = 10 cm) rather than m, but it isn't.

It's just what you're used to.

One has a range of about 30 to 100, the other about 2.5 to 8.0. Both have rounding off and about the same number of syllables, eg six-ty-three vs five-point-one, although the decimal point is one extra key to type.


Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #141 on: September 01, 2018, 12:27:52 pm »
The actual unit means nothing to me, it's just an arbitrary scale that gives me a rough idea of how hard a gear will be to push.
Correct.

An arbitrary scale works best if it's easy to remember, talk, and write about.
That means integer values in the 2-3 digit range.
Decimals just give spurious precision, having to decide on rounding, and having to say two numbers and "point" rather than one number.

Gear inches are eminently suitable.
Development would also be OK if it were always given in dm (1 dm = 10 cm) rather than m, but it isn't.

It's just what you're used to.

One has a range of about 30 to 100, the other about 2.5 to 8.0. Both have rounding off and about the same number of syllables, eg six-ty-three vs five-point-one, although the decimal point is one extra key to type.

Anyone who has witnessed, as I have, the sheer hell experienced by kids (including my own) and some adults in trying to learn a system where a moving point changes all your values would doubt seriously the idea that metric is simple. The decimal point is the work of Stan and the system also demands a working knowledge of ancient Latin and Greek.

How many out there know how much 1 hectare is?

At least with feet and inches errors are easier to see and correct when learning the measures (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #142 on: September 01, 2018, 12:38:19 pm »
That's a fair point.

I suspect metric works best in science - not on the High Street.

(I grew up with metric units - at least at school and in my physics degree - but I find feet the best unit for human heights. For example. )
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #143 on: September 01, 2018, 01:25:59 pm »
I think the decimal point thing is reaching a little; after all, the base-10 system is what we normally count and do arithmetic in. I'm in my mid-thirties, so I'm mostly metricated - I quote measurements in cm or mm, and weights in grams and kilos. Pounds make a kind of intuitive sense to me, but not ounces; similarly inches up to about a foot do, but anything over usually requires mental arithmetic and conversion to cm (though people's heights in the range of about 5' to 7' are perhaps the exception). I'm equally happy with miles and km, though probably default to km for cycling. Pretty much the only thing I would default to imperial for would be gear inches and clothing chest/waist sizes, both of which are semi-arbitrary. The whole metric martyr thing always seemed like old people spoiling for some other fight (not least because it wasn't like you couldn't quote pounds and ounces alongside grams).

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #144 on: September 01, 2018, 03:21:37 pm »
I think the decimal point thing is reaching a little; after all, the base-10 system is what we normally count and do arithmetic in. I'm in my mid-thirties, so I'm mostly metricated - I quote measurements in cm or mm, and weights in grams and kilos. Pounds make a kind of intuitive sense to me, but not ounces; similarly inches up to about a foot do, but anything over usually requires mental arithmetic and conversion to cm (though people's heights in the range of about 5' to 7' are perhaps the exception). I'm equally happy with miles and km, though probably default to km for cycling. Pretty much the only thing I would default to imperial for would be gear inches and clothing chest/waist sizes, both of which are semi-arbitrary. The whole metric martyr thing always seemed like old people spoiling for some other fight (not least because it wasn't like you couldn't quote pounds and ounces alongside grams).

Sticking to one unit or going between cm and mm is easy enough. Go between the whole range from mm to km in the same exercise and a typical 10 year old is quickly confused. I have seen it! It isn't easy to sort out. Cl and cm3 is another one. I personally still have a problem about when you use a capital letter for the unit (greater than the SI unit I think), but that's really minor. Kg/cm2, Kpa and bar is something I note many people using hydraulics are a bit uncertain about, the kilo is a universal measure which covers a lot of errors!

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #145 on: September 01, 2018, 06:21:57 pm »
How many out there know how much 1 hectare is?

At least with feet and inches errors are easier to see and correct when learning the measures (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

10000m², or 100m x 100m.

I find that limiting the SI system to the Engineering subset can be very useful for error checking. This gives you km, m, mm, nm, etc... "I've been asked for a bit of wood 2m by 100*crackle*m, and 20mm thick" you can guess that there is a good chance it's 2m x 100mm x 20mm...


It's just what you're used to.

One has a range of about 30 to 100, the other about 2.5 to 8.0. Both have rounding off and about the same number of syllables, eg six-ty-three vs five-point-one, although the decimal point is one extra key to type.

2.5? really? My bike has gears sub 2.0... 

It's kinda a 0-10 scale for mortals.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #146 on: September 01, 2018, 06:50:15 pm »

.................. (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

I think that's a gross exaggeration.


Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #147 on: September 01, 2018, 07:59:46 pm »
How many out there know how much 1 hectare is?

At least with feet and inches errors are easier to see and correct when learning the measures (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

10000m², or 100m x 100m.

I find that limiting the SI system to the Engineering subset can be very useful for error checking. This gives you km, m, mm, nm, etc... "I've been asked for a bit of wood 2m by 100*crackle*m, and 20mm thick" you can guess that there is a good chance it's 2m x 100mm x 20mm...


It's just what you're used to.

One has a range of about 30 to 100, the other about 2.5 to 8.0. Both have rounding off and about the same number of syllables, eg six-ty-three vs five-point-one, although the decimal point is one extra key to type.

2.5? really? My bike has gears sub 2.0... 

It's kinda a 0-10 scale for mortals.

J

Show me where the m is in 1Ha or how the h is equivalent to 10 000. 1 Hectare is 100 are, the are is a measure of area. 1ca is equivalent to 1m2 in the same way that 1cm3 is equivalent to 1ml (and 1 bar is equivalent to 1 kg/cm2). Of course we are not allowed to use kg/cm2 in most places where we used it before.


.................. (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

I think that's a gross exaggeration.



I wish it were. It might just  be due to a pessimistic view of the world from living in a decimal country

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #148 on: September 01, 2018, 08:03:41 pm »

.................. (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

I think that's a gross exaggeration.

*groan*

well played sir, well played.

*claps 144 times*

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Does anyone know what gravel is?
« Reply #149 on: September 01, 2018, 09:10:01 pm »
The actual unit means nothing to me, it's just an arbitrary scale that gives me a rough idea of how hard a gear will be to push.
Correct.

An arbitrary scale works best if it's easy to remember, talk, and write about.
That means integer values in the 2-3 digit range.
Decimals just give spurious precision, having to decide on rounding, and having to say two numbers and "point" rather than one number.

Gear inches are eminently suitable.
Development would also be OK if it were always given in dm (1 dm = 10 cm) rather than m, but it isn't.

It's just what you're used to.

One has a range of about 30 to 100, the other about 2.5 to 8.0. Both have rounding off and about the same number of syllables, eg six-ty-three vs five-point-one, although the decimal point is one extra key to type.

Anyone who has witnessed, as I have, the sheer hell experienced by kids (including my own) and some adults in trying to learn a system where a moving point changes all your values would doubt seriously the idea that metric is simple. The decimal point is the work of Stan and the system also demands a working knowledge of ancient Latin and Greek.

How many out there know how much 1 hectare is?

At least with feet and inches errors are easier to see and correct when learning the measures (even though the 12x table seems to have been forgotten in the modern age).

1 hectare = 100 x 100m or equivalent.  Much more objective than an acre = the area of land a man with an oxen could plough in a day
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens