MPH or KMH?

[Bobby]

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...

We'd ECE'd the start & both really needed food by this stage! 

[mzjo]

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!)

[Cudzoziemiec]

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...

We'd ECE'd the start & both really needed food by this stage! 

[Cudzoziemiec]

^^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).

[citoyen]

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.

[Lightning Phil]

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...

We'd ECE'd the start & both really needed food by this stage! 

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...”

[drossall]

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.

[citoyen]

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.

[citoyen]

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.

[Davef]

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.

[citoyen]

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!

[TimC]

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!).

[Cudzoziemiec]

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).

[Davef]

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.

[Lightning Phil]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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!

[Davef]

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.

[Davef]

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.

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.

[quixoticgeek]

You lot are not helping with the whole drunken lobster hypothesis...

J

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

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...

[quixoticgeek]

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

[TimC]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

[Davef]

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.

[quixoticgeek]

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