Has anyone noticed the consistent use of pence per litre being used on the news recently? With the recent events in Saudi Arabia, petrol prices are rocketing. It seems very rare now to hear the word "gallon" on the news. It seems to be all about breaking the £1/litre barrier. Any comments?

All about £4/gallon barrier around my parts.

The headline on the front page of the Sun read "Petrol £4 a gallon".

On the same day the Mirror had "Petrol £1 a litre".

You pays yer money and makes yer choice.

(the Mirror wins for predicting a higher price than the Sun)

Even the arch-imperialist Daily Telegraph managed a front page headline and a full page article without mentioning the G-word once. Make of that what you will.

I've got to say, most of the coverage I've seen has been about the price in litres. The TV news(both BBC and ITV)has been almost exclusively in litres.

This is probably because it's the easiest way to compare the price you're paying now and what the doomsayers are predicting.

£4 a gallon ain't much use for comparing prices when every single petrol station you drive past on the way to work only shows the price in litres !

Folks, its just down to "break points"

like 100F
40C

etc etc

My car does an avg of 20 mpg - so I'd prefer to know how much money 20 miles costs me.

Oh God - there's me with that can of worms again (16oz)

The next point will be £5 a gallon and then a pound a pint.

Roll on.

Unless of course it gets to £2 a litre.

Even i'd be pleased to hear that.

I take it you don't like cars much then....

SteveH wrote

<<
My car does an avg of 20 mpg - so I'd prefer to know how much money 20 miles costs me.
>>

Suppose that Steve had written "My car does an average of 13L/100km, I'd like to know how much 30km costs me". The answer would be simple:

At £1/litre, 100km costs £13, so 30km costs £3.90.

(NB - I have chosen figures that approximate to Steve original figures)

Of course.. no one uses L/100km

Indeed - I *could* work it out in litres and km and stuff.

But I don't want to - I am more comfortable with mpg, just like anyone in the UK.

Bryan Parry: "Of course.. no one uses L/100km"

Wrong ! I do ! (And Martin too, me thinks...)

<<
Of course.. no one uses L/100km
>>

Apart from several million South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders, French[wo]men, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese etc

Let's put it this way: everybody in the whole world uses L/100 km, except for 75% of the British and some 300,000,000 North Americans.

And I think we'll keep using mpg because it is more useful when trying to figure out how far you can go on a certain amount of gasoline, which is what Americans like to know. Remember, Americans are apt to drive 50 miles (one-way) to work and anywhere between 150 miles and 2000+ miles for vacation (one-way of course).

Americans just like to drive. Also, they will usually drive no matter what the price of gasoline is. Thus they're more interested in the distance they can go on an amount of gasoline rather than an amount of gasoline for a distance.

Also, if it's metric, why wouldn't it be Litres per Megameter (L/Mm) instead of Liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km)? Wouldn't that be simpler?

The situation in America can hardly be use to advocate gallons in the UK.

(i) US and UK gallons are different.

(ii) Fuel is sold by the gallon in US, litres in the UK

The US will convert to metric in the fullness of time, but for now we have to recognise the difference.

MArtin, this conversation is about BRITAIN, therefore what saffers, Aussies and others od is irrelevant. Furthermore, only 75% British people use mpg? Surely higher, given even my relatively metricated friends (around 20y/o) use mpg.

The above post was by me, and Stan, The logic that length/capacity (specifically miles/gallon) is more useful than capacity/100 x length (specifically Litres/100 kilometres) still holds whether we are using UK Gallons or US ones.

The US may not switch to litres for selling gasoline, especially with the predicted usage of hydrogen powered automobiles in the future. It would be a big waste to convert gasoline to litres when it might be "outdated" in 20 years time. Also if for some reason anti french sentiment grows in the US, there might even be more oppostion to metric.

Wouldn't the proper SI unit for fuel consumption be the square meter? How come no one uses that?

Technically you are correct, but a layman would not understand the concept.

So are you saying that it is necessary to simplify SI in order to help laymen understand it? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of standardizing in the first place?

On reflection, it would be incorrect to express fuel consumption in m^2. This is because fuel consumption is expressed in (litres fuel)/(100 km). Since "fuel" is not a unit of measure, it cannot be factored out of the brackets.

<<<Let's put it this way: everybody in the whole world uses L/100 km, except for 75% of the British and some 300,000,000 North Americans.>>>

WTF?

How many Brits have km milometers?

I have NEVER EVER EVER heard people say l/100km anywhere ever on TV or on the street or in newspapers or on the radio apart from - ironically - a forum hosted by a group supporting British Weights and Measures!

Lets keep it real?

SteveH wrote

<<
I have NEVER EVER EVER heard people say l/100km anywhere ever on TV or on the street or in newspapers
>>

Do yourself a favour. When yo buy your weekend papers, look carefully at the fine print that accompnies each car advert. You should see fuel consumption figures in both miles per gallon and in L/100km.

Indeed, Martin, __BOTH__ mpg and L/100km. And given no Briton uses Kilometres, how exactly is 25%, according to metre, of the population using l/100km? And where did eh get that lovely figure from?

But if you are dealing with, for example, the concentration of something, you can cancel out units regardless of the substance. If the concentration of carbon dioxide is (9x10^-6 L CO)/(1 L air), you can cancel out the litres and express the concentration in dimensionless units (ppm) even though CO and air are not units.
I guess it's just a matter of convenience.

Re: Petrol might break the £1 a litre barrier! June 5 2004, 12:39 AM


Indeed, Martin, __BOTH__ mpg and L/100km. And given no Briton uses Kilometres, how exactly is 25%, according to metre, of the population using l/100km? And where did eh get that lovely figure from?

metre:
Please show me where I said that!

I apologise, metre, it was Conrad who said that. I assumed it was you, because it sounded like the kind of gibberish you usually spout.

Bryan: "I apologise, metre, it was Conrad who said that. I assumed it was you, because it sounded like the kind of gibberish you usually spout."

I admit that I cannot possibly sustain my claim. It was more like a wild guess, I suppose. All I can say is that quite a few people I know use L/100 km. Far from all of them, but quite a few.

Anyway, why is it so weird to imagine a Briton using L/100 km? Once you know that 7 L/100 km is average and 4 L/100 km is extremely low, everybody can use L/100 km.

<<
Once you know that 7 L/100 km is average and 4 L/100 km is extremely low, everybody can use L/100 km.
>>


Moreover, if petrol costs 90p/litre, then it is not rocket science to calculate that at 7L/100km, the petrol to travel 100km will cost £6.30.

But with respect, Conrad, its quite rare to hear a Brit express anything in kilometres - anything at all.

We can argue about metres being used but insofar as km is concerned its a non-starter.

I have never heard of km/100l anywhere except here.

Right - on to this:

<<<Do yourself a favour. When yo buy your weekend papers, look carefully at the fine print that accompnies each car advert. You should see fuel consumption figures in both miles per gallon and in L/100km. >>>

I realised I'd left my self wide open to "regu-man" there, martin! ;-)

Yes I realise that in the tiny print at the base of an advert you will see metric.

But lets face it - everyone ignores that regulation requirement and if a car ad is selling the economy figures as part of the ad *itself* then you can pretty much safely bet your house on it being quoted in MPG in the main text of the ad.

Steveh: "But with respect, Conrad, its quite rare to hear a Brit express anything in kilometres - anything at all."

I have been thinking about this a bit.

Using mpg in Britain is illogical, since petrol is sold by the litre.
On the other hand using L/100 km is illogical too, since road signs are still in imperial.

So, what I propose is the following: let's introduce L/60 miles !

This system would be much more logical and a lot simpler for everyone. No conversions needed anymore. And if Westminster ever decides to metricate our road signs we wouldn't have to get used to the L/100km system, since we're already using it.

Someone's mentioned miles/litre before.
Equally daft.

Did you know that in the far east they use km/litre? an "imperial style" metric consumption figure?

SteveH: "Equally daft."

Why's that daft ???

By the by, dear imperialists, 7L/100km (7L/60 miles) is the average fuel consumption for a normal car.

In other words an normal car needs about 1 litre for 10 miles. Ain't that simple ? ...even simpler than in metric ;-)

1 litre/10 miles --> about £1/10 miles

No one can deny this is a very, very easy system, especially for every Briton that thinks in miles.

Moreover, an average car's urban fuel consumption is about 12 litres/100 km.
This means: 12L/60 miles, in other words
2 litres/10 miles --> about £2/10 miles.

Careful conrad!

All this talk of easily and successfully mixing imperial and metric will get old eric-boy ranting down your throat!!

Steveh, you still haven't told me why my proposal is so daft...

Miles per litre is a typical kind of mangling of metric by Imperial that metric supproters often rant on about. Kilometres per litre is more natural for the metric user, but it simply doesn't work, as kilometres and litres are so small (hence litres/100km); 40 mpg = 5.5kmpl (unless my maths fails me)

<<
Miles per litre is a typical kind of mangling of metric by Imperial that metric supproters often rant on about. Kilometres per litre is more natural for the metric user, but it simply doesn't work, as kilometres and litres are so small (hence litres/100km); 40 mpg = 5.5kmpl (unless my maths fails me)
>>

Make up your mind. One minute anti-metrics complaign that metric involves numbers that are too big, but hey, now they are too small, just because Imperial equivalent has larger numbers.

.....

The point is that it is easier to compare things in mpg than in kmpl... like it is easier to compare things in PSI than in pascals, as the psi uses larger numbers. HOWEVER, in both PSI and MPG, we do not fidn figures running to thousands like we do in metric.

Bryan: "The point is that it is easier to compare things in mpg than in kmpl... like it is easier to compare things in PSI than in pascals"

Whatever Bryan, whatever...
Always trim your sails to the wind...

<<
Kilometres per litre is more natural for the metric user, but it simply doesn't work, as kilometres and litres are so small
>>
It does work. A lot of countries use it.

<<<Steveh, you still haven't told me why my proposal is so daft...>>

Because mpg is neat.

Its a great scale - think about it 100 is a the "good" extreme and 1 is the "bad" extreme.

A bit like fahrenheit.

I had 35cl of vodka last night, by the way

Steveh: "Because mpg is neat."

Rubbish. You're used to the system, that's all.

Irrelevant.



BTW, loads of Drivers I know prefer mpg to kmpl or l/100km, as it simply is more intuitive (even pro-metric people I know.. I am serious).

Bryan wrote:
The point is that it is easier to compare things in mpg than in kmpl... like it is easier to compare things in PSI than in pascals, as the psi uses larger numbers. HOWEVER, in both PSI and MPG, we do not fidn figures running to thousands like we do in metric.


My new cycle tyre states inflation to 85 psi.
I remember the old one helpfully added 445Kpa, THIS HAS BEEN DROPPED

By the way it's a Michelen, MADE IN FRANCE.

Even too silly for the French.

Up yours Delors!

"it is easier to compare things in PSI than in pascals, as the psi uses larger numbers. HOWEVER, in both PSI and MPG, we do not find figures running to thousands like we do in metric."

Really ?

You've never been scuba diving.

A full air tank is pressurised at 200 bar in metric.

In imperial the guage shows 3000 PSI.

It's standard practice to make your way back to the surface once your tank gets down to a quarter full. On many pressure guages I've seen it's often easier to spot 50 bar on a metric dial than it is to spot 750 PSI on an imperial one. (a minor niggle, but one none the less).

Also, when diving in metric you can't beat the wonderful simplicity of 10m of water equating to one atmosphere. Far more than convenient than 32 feet !

Bryan Parry wrote

<<
HOWEVER, in both PSI and MPG, we do not find figures running to thousands like we do in metric.
>>

Although pressures when measured in Pascals run to thousands, it is normal to use kPa or bars when measuring car tyre pressures. A typical pressure for a car's type is 220kPa or 2.2 bars.

S.Cruple: "Up yours Delors!"

May I presume you voted UKIP ?

re (Conrad): "May I presume you voted UKIP?"

REPLY: Whether he did or not, it now looks like around 1.5 million to 2 million people did so in the Euro elections on Thursday. Plus in the Netherlands, the Dutch have elected Paul van Buitenen (*and* another from his new eurosceptic Party), the E.U. whisteblower who was dismissed from his post after he revealed the vast extent of fraud and corruption in the institutions of the European Union (you know, allthat which Commissioner Neil Kinnock was supposed to sort out, until we learnt last month that the scale of E.U fraud has doubled in the past few years despite his claim to be an E.U. fraudbuster.

I liked the recent story of the Conservative M.E.P. for the 'East of England', Bashir Kanbhai, who proudly boasted of his special role on a committee to 'sort out fraud and corruption in the E.U.'. Weeks before the Euro elections, it was discovered that the 'house' he was claiming to live in on the Norfolk Broads, in Wroxham - and from which he claimed his generous travelling allowances - was in fact a lock-up garage.

Great embarrassment all round! He had to repay thousands of pounds of falsely-claimed expenses, then was sacked as an M.E.P. candidate, leaving the Conservatives one short on the ballot paper, only being able to field 6, instead of 7, candidates in the East of England region.

Meanwhile, Glenys Kinnock and other Labour M.E.P.s were shown up as falsely claiming huge allowances for meetings they never attended, a practice they justified as 'technically within the rules'

Without wanting to get too bogged down in politics on here, wouldn't the rise of the the UKIP be anything to do with Robert Kilroy-Silk and Joan Collins being members? They have had a lot of press publicity due to this. It is this thing where people vote for celebrities. I bet if David Beckham stood for election, he would almost certainly get in.

There are of course, many genuine voters who know the facts about the EU and believe we should withdraw, e.g. Tony, SteveH, etc. That is fine because we live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, it is clear that some people are uninformed about the EU. For example, watching a party election broadcast by UKIP, Kilroy-Silk asked someone what they thought of the EU. He said "they control all of our monetary policy". Erm, I thought that was done by the Bank of England! That would only happen if we joined the euro, which I am not sure whether I agree with.

re (Richard): "That would only happen if we joined the euro, which I am not sure whether I agree with"

REPLY: To date, 12 countries have joinef the euro. In sumamry, the results of their having done so have been as follows:

1. Each of those 12 countries can no longer set their national bank interest rates - the European Central Bank in Frankfurt does it for them

2. As a consequence, they can no longer control a key lever of their economies

3. Growth has stagnated

4. Unemployment has risen significantly

5. Inward investment into Europe has tended to flow to other, non-euro countries, such as Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland, instead of to them

6. The euro has been more unstable than either the dollar, the pound or the yen.

The euro continues to be very good news for the United Kingdom, so long as we never adopt it and the other 12 countries carry on using it

Last i checked the Euro was significantly stronger than the dollar. For a while (i havent checked real recently) the Euro even seemed to be catching the pound.

Currently, one euro trades at 66p and $1.20.

When euro notes and coins were finally introduced on 1 January 1999, they were initially traded at 71p and $1.22. Within a year, the euro slumped to 57p but has since recovered.

Prior to that, when it was formally established as a 'shadow currency' - I think on 1 January 1996 - the euro was set at 87p and, I think, around $1.40.

The current relative 'strength' of the euro against the dollar is in fact something of a problem for eurozone countries. It has increased the price of eurozone exports to such an extent that selling to the United States has become difficult for them, adding to their problems of sluggish growth and mass unemployment

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Prior to that, when it was formally established as a 'shadow currency' - I think on 1 January 1996
>>

For the record, the Euro was formally established on 1st January 1999. On that day the exchange rates between the various currencies that were to become the Euro were fixed. When I was working in Germany (2000/1), my fees were quoted in Euros and my UK bank accoutn was in Euros. My German bank account was however denominated in DMarks, but every transaction had the EUro equivalent next to it. Thus, if I drew DM100.00 from a cashpoint machine, an entry of EUR51.xx (I forget the exact numbers appeared alongside). The Eurocents did not always add up (due to rounding of each individual entry), but the pfennings did. At the end of 2001 my German account was changed from DMarks to Euros. By this time I was working in Italy and having a Euro account in Germany meant that I did not need a bank account in Italy.

Tony seems to have completely missed my point. What I am saying is that in general, the UK public doesn't seem to understand what the EU is about. The man who said to Mr Kilroy-Silk "they [EU] control all our monetary policy" clearly doesn't understand a basic issue about the EU, i.e. the European Central Bank. The ECB have nothing to do with our monetary policy at the moment unless we were to sign up to the euro.

The press have a lot to answer for when it comes to the bad press the EU seems to get. The Guardian and the Daily Mirror seem the only pro EU (or at least tolerant) newspapers. The other papers, particularly the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Telegraph are very anti-EU. They are very quick to criticise them, but keep quiet about the benefits such as regional development that has occured due to EU, i.e. in South Yorkshire where I live, many jobs have been created by encouraging business to set up here.

I have a question for anyone in Britain. In the EU, are there continent-wide political parties, or do the national parties put up candidates for the EU parliament? For example, there are labour and conservative parties in the UK, so are these parties affiliated with corresponding parties in other countries?

Not yet, Bud, not yet. But they're working on it.

Currently European elections are similar to your elections for the House of Representatives. Every EU member state elects a number of local representatives to the European Parliament, depending on their number of inhabitants.

When those representatives come to the European Parliament, they work together with representatives from other countries that have the same background. (British Labour, French Socialists, Polish ex-Communists,... or British Conservatives, German Christian-Democrats, Portuguese Conservatives,...)

In other words, Members of the European Parliament join an "ideological umbrella group". This umbrella group is not really a continent-wide party yet, but inch by inch they are moving towards that concept. In the future people from the UK will very probably be able to vote for a Swedish Conservative candidate.

In case you're interested to read something about those European political groups, those are their names:

EPP-ED (European People's Party and European (Christian) Democrats)
ES (European Socialists)
European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party
The European United Left/Nordic Green Left
European Greens/European Free Alliance
Union for Europe of the Nations
Europe of Democracies and Diversities

S.Cruple: "Up yours Delors!"

May I presume you voted UKIP ?

REPLY:
No, you may not as I didn't.

<<Without wanting to get too bogged down in politics on here, wouldn't the rise of the the UKIP be anything to do with Robert Kilroy-Silk and Joan Collins being members? >>

I don't think so, personally. In fact I think Kilroy Silk could even have been a liability. Very few people liked his show, most hated it (that includes me). I think its more likely to be a combination of three things:

1) Playing the marketing game better: I'm sure that most people will have seen at least 3 big UKIP "advert boards" and good election broadcasts. This gives the appearance of a "proper professional" party, rather than the maveric look it got a while back.

2) The euro and the constitution: These two things have really galvanised public opinion in the UK recently. With so many people being strongly against both it makes sense that these people will vote for people who are clearly and explicity "anti"

3) Labour are mainly pro-EU. The liberal democrats frequently bend over and "assume the postion" on all things EU. The tories are pro-EU -erm- anti-EU -erm- anti EU but pro-erm-EU (you get the idea). Only UKIP sells a clearly anti-EU message (lets leave aside the BNP as most people are not extreme right).



"Kilroy-Silk asked someone what they thought of the EU. He said "they control all of our monetary policy""

Try to see this as a reason to *VOTE* UKIP. ie lack of information. Try to see this as UKIP showing up peoples ignorance to the EU programme as they have been kept in the dark about most things, lied to on other things and non/mis-informed about others.
Believe me- UKIP are not going to transmit an obvious incorrectness in their broadcast without putting over the real issue of lack of information etc.


"I have a question for anyone in Britain. In the EU, are there continent-wide political parties, or do the national parties put up candidates for the EU parliament? For example, there are labour and conservative parties in the UK, so are these parties affiliated with corresponding parties in other countries?"

Conrad's covered this but let me concur and go further. There are groupings inside the toothless parliament - sorry - the euro-parliament. Elected MEP's can basically decide who to go to. In fact there are a big number of "non-aligned" that are yet to choose which group to go for.
Interestingly there are quite a few members of the "hard left" - something alien to ordinary Brits since the late 80's (and something, no doubt, eric yearns back to).

"In the future people from the UK will very probably be able to vote for a Swedish Conservative candidate"

Basically you believe that the "constitution" will be signed.

I prefer to think that in the future Sweden and the UK will be good trading partners with the EU - *full stop*.

Steveh: "Basically you believe that the "constitution" will be signed."

Absolutely ! Maybe not in its present form, but it will.

Time will tell, on this one.

I would agree that either a constitution is signed in some form, or the UK will have to leave to allow other countries to go ahead.

You know what I'd prefer, but remember :- the UK is not the only country where it's countryfolk are vehemently against this "piece of paper".

Could this be the EU tearing itself apart?

Having gained 10 countries could it now lose up to 5?

It would certainly make it workable again.

(P.S. I am in favour of an EU that comprises of France and Germany and surrounding countries as I believe that this prohibits conflict between them)

Richard, the way I see it, no paper should give a pro-EU stance, because by becoming further integrated into the EU, we would be losing our status as Sovereign nation state. This means that anyone supporting this move is technically a traitor.

Bryan Parry: "by becoming further integrated into the EU, we would be losing our status as Sovereign nation state. This means that anyone supporting this move is technically a traitor."

Bryan, by your logic every Welshman or Scotsman that supports the UK is a traitor too.

Er no, Wales is a nation within the country of Britain inside the UK.

We have history.

The only history we have with Europe is either fighting them or saving them.

Indeed, I recently had to explain the history of the UK to some other fellow who said a similar thing.. but Idon't need to here, as I know conrad is jsut being annoying :)

Anyone know the history behind the raising of the two fingers, btw?

A good story of the Welsh aiding the English against the bloody french.

Sorry we couldn't help you out on Sunday by the way but because the Russian football team are allowed to use drugs to make them play better we can't be there in Portugal.

Well, I learnt in many very good books that the two-fingers dates back to the hundred years war. Apparently, the French would cut off the first two fingers of any English soldier they found (to render our amazing longbowsmen useless). Thus, our fully-fingered soldiers would mock them by lifting their two arrow-firing fingers.........


....... However, recently I read a book which states this is a myth. They did not offer any alternative explanation, though.

"LLantrisant"

Ok that was a bit too cryptic.

Look at point 10 from this page...

http://www.guildofglyndwr.co.uk/misc.htm