This caption accompanies the latest advert for the Rover 75. It is pictured at a traffic light, well ahead of the VolksWagen Passat and even further ahead than the Renault Laguna, with the accompanying information: "The Rover 75 beat the Renalt Laguna and the VW Passat in 8 out of 10 categories..."

But it is the slogan that is of interest. It seems to be a slightly cheeky reference to that much-vaunted currency that has been adopted by Germany and France - the euro - which is great news for Britain because it's handicapping our continental rivals by helping to saddle them with:

1) combined unemployment over 7 million,
2) low or nil growth,
3) lower foreign investment,
4) straitjacket-like borrowing limits due to the Growth and Stability (there's a joke!) Pact, and
5) higher inflation.

I may be wrong, however. It might be a reference to Britain having failed to go metric

P.S. In case anyone's interested in the Rover 75, the ad says it does 26.6 miles to the gallon (urban), 46.3 (extra urban) and 36.2 (combined). The ad states that the car illustrated is the 1.8 Connoisseur which includes 'optional 17" serpent alloys'

As we buy our petrol in litres and have been for some 30 odd years, it seems logical that miles per gallon is desperately outdated. Miles per litre perhaps seems more logical for the time being.

Why is miles per litre more logical than miles per gallon. The gallon is a much more logical unit.

I accept whilst Britain still uses the mile, that the mile still has to be in usage in fuel consumption. But use this example:

I need to make a 40 mile return journey and I go to the petrol station with an empty fuel tank so I need to know how much petrol I need to put in to complete the journey. If I knew my car did 36 miles per gallon, that wouldn't be much use to me as I would be looking at the counter at the petrol station in litres.

Therefore, it would be much more easier to know that my car does 8 miles per litre and so therefore to complete my journey of 40 miles, I need 5 litres of petrol in my car (40/8=5). Using mpg is much more difficult when looking at circumstances like this.

Completely away from the debate, what does urban, extra-urban and combined actually mean in fuel consumption?

That's a very good academic example, but not very practical. I'm sure none of us have, in real life gone through a thought process like that. It usually goes like this:
I know how far my gas (or petrol) tank indicator needle will move for each $20 (or 20 pounds) I spend at the pump. I know about how far I can drive on an eighth of a tank, a quarter tank, or a half tank. If the needle doesn't show enough to make the distance I have to go, I fill it up, all the way full. If it does, I start driving. Either way, I don't sit there and mess with numbers and units. I don't think anyone else does either.

<<
As we buy our petrol in litres and have been for some 30 odd years, it seems logical that miles per gallon is desperately outdated. Miles per litre perhaps seems more logical for the time being.
>>

Why not go the whole hog and use km/100 L like they do everywhere else in the world (except the USA).

Agreed Martin but I am trying to come to some compromise with everyone on the forum. Of course, if/when Britain officially gets the km, L/100km should be the sole comsumption units.

Legislation requires fuel consumption to be quoted in metric units, so why introduce a bastard unit which is neither metric not Imperial.

Britain is on its way to going metric for cars - CO2 emissions are stated as grams/km now. Does anyone know if they have always been in those units?

Why not reduce this confusion entirely and get your gas pumps switched back to reading in gallons and then your 36 mile trip at 40 miles to the gallon would require a little under one gallon of gasoline?

Gallons and miles seem to serve the US public quite well and have been serving us here (all 291,009,236 people across 3,537,441 square miles). As the average guy on the street how many miles to the gallon he gets in his car, he'll tell you between 20 and 30 (generally) and he will tell you how much it costs per gallon.

If your roads are measured in miles, and your cars have quotes in miles per gallon, then wouldn't it be logical to have your gasoline sold by the gallon? There's nothing wrong with the gallon as a unit. It's well defined, of convenient size, and completely practical.

Interesting subject going on here.

Personally the MPG figures are best fo me (and everyone I know, and people on TV etc etc).
Sure the pumps don't say "gallon" any more, but people "rate" the MPG figure in more of a point score now.

So if someone said "My car does 77MPG" you'd get people saying "that's good" while basing it on a recognisably good figure.

The sad thing is people don't fill up with "so many" gallons anymore. They fill up with "20 quids worth". I have never EVER heard someone say "I think I'll put 5 litres in the car before I set off" -it just doesn't happen. A further erosion of tradition that some do not care about.

"Britain is on its way to going metric for cars - CO2 emissions are stated as grams/km now"

I think I'm not in the minority when I say that I will probably never buy a car based on those figures!

"If your roads are measured in miles, and your cars have quotes in miles per gallon, then wouldn't it be logical to have your gasoline sold by the gallon"

"EU rules" and "logical" are far from synonymous!

It is easier to compare with other country's fuel prices (except USA) as we buy petrol in litres. Go to France and petrol is something like 1 euro per litre. Therefore I can easily say that that is something like 70p/litre, more or less the same as Britain.

I don't drive in Europe enough for that to be of benefit.

SteveH only shows his limitations.

Just because he can't adapt he concludes that no one else can.

Well, from what I've read the current situation in Britain appears to be:

1. road signs in miles
2. fuel efficiency in miles per gallon, and
3. fuel prices in per liter

In order to accomplish a consistent set of units, we have two options:
A. Change (3) to match (1) and (2), or
B. Change both (1) and (2) to match (3)

Consider the costs associated with each of them, I think it's pretty obvious which one is easier and more efficient.

"SteveH only shows his limitations."

You are only limited by your own blinkeredness. Learn more rather than less. Learn a second language, broaden you horizons. Simply "de-learning" imperial seems very limiting to me.

"Just because he can't adapt he concludes that no one else can"

Your quote contains an implicit psychology that you know more about me than is realistic. Try to stick to what you know when making an argument and that way you don't risk looking like an idiot.
Why not stick to the pros and cons of imperial on this chat board on a site dedicated to preserving imperial rather, than try to guess the ability of my brain "trying to cope".

I could, however, go to a pro-metric board dressed as "yard man" and simply have a personal go at the people there but then they'd "enjoy me" - if you get my drift. Do you get my drift?

A few comments:

As Bud has outlined above, you have miles on your roads, miles per gallon quoted for your cars and you buy gasoline by the liter? How RIDICULOUS is that?

Let me see; which is easier and less expensive to change?

Secondly. Europe, as much as you would like it, is not the equivalent of the United States (and will never be). France is not another state. It's another country. They speak another language. They're arrogant as heck. Why would you want to compare French gasoline when it's in another country? Last time I checked the British and the French never really got along anyway.

The European Union is like trying to create one country out of many that have been separated for centuries by different cultures. It's like trying to join together two like poles of two different magnets and calling them one magnet. On the other hand the United States is union of many different states with one common language, culture and goal.

MattS wrote: "The French are arrogant as heck."

At least that's one thing Americans have in common with them !

MattS: "The European Union is like trying to create one country out of many that have been separated for centuries by different cultures. [...] On the other hand the United States is union of many different states with one common language, culture and goal."

Matt, you really made me laugh. I have quite a few American friends and from what they tell me I'm not so sure that Americans have a "common culture and goal".

Last time I checked Texans and other Southerners just spat at people from New England.
Northerners don't seem to like Southerners very much too and mostly tend to look down on them.
BTW, I have some friends in Michigan and they say they feel more *Canadian* than American !

<<
Well, from what I've read the current situation in Britain appears to be:

1. road signs in miles
2. fuel efficiency in miles per gallon, and
3. fuel prices in per liter
>>

Fuel consumption in Britain is quoted as miles per gallon and litres/100km. If you look on any car advert, both figures are given. I think both figures are both currently official in the UK. It is just that most people think in mpg. Why? Because we continue to have miles on our roads and so it means more to them than L/100km. That is why I personally prefer at the moment miles/litre as it combines our current system of litres and miles. Despite preferring the kilometre, I have no option other than to use miles while we have them.

Until you can appreciate American culture, don't blindly decide that all Americans are arrogant. You liberal Europeans can't seem to get through your heads that there is a United States because Europe couldn't (still can't) get its act together. The original people who created the US were all transplanted Europeans fleeing the mess that you call Europe. The different cultures (French, German, British, Spaninsh etc. all blended to become American).

While different parts of the country have different subcultures, we all come together to create what is known as the Great American Melting Pot, or Salad Bowl depending on your taste. Americans have different values and religions etc; however, all people come together to support the simple ideals that are the foundation of American government and culture. You think your free democratic societies in Europe came from no where? Last time I checked all the European democracies came AFTER the US.

BTW, be glad you don't speak German.

Fuel consumption is a measure of cost. When most things are costed, the cost is expressed in the amount paid for one unit of benefit - for example sausages are £2.50/kg (ie one unit of benefit is 1 kg of sausages), banana are prices 60p/kg (or per lb in Sunderland) etc.

When one is looking at the cost of fuel, one unit of benefit is one unit of distance while the cost can be expressed in £/unit distance, $/unit distance, €/unit distance etc or more conveniently, the amount of fuel consumed per unit distance (the amount of fuel is directly related to the number of £, $, € etc).

This suggests that the idela units would be litres/km, gallons/mile etc. Since the numbers are rather small, it is convenient to use a larger unit of benefit - 100 km or 100 miles. Since nobody uses gallons/100 miles, why not go straight over to metric and use what everybody else does - litres/100 km.

BTW 17L/100km = 17mpg (aprox). If you half the litres/100 km, then you double the mpg - ie 8.5 L/100km = 34mpg (approx)

MattS wrote: "Until you can appreciate American culture, don't blindly decide that all Americans are arrogant."

Well Matt, it's the story about the the pot calling the kettle black. Until you can appreciate French culture, don't blindly decide that all French people are arrogant.

"BTW, be glad you don't speak German"

I do speak a bit of German actually...

Martin: "BTW 17L/100km = 17mpg (aprox). If you half the litres/100 km, then you double the mpg - ie 8.5 L/100km = 34mpg (approx)"

Very interesting thing. Didn't know that. Thanks !

The unity seen among states in the US will be very difficult to accomplish in Europe, for two reasons:

1. The US states were not separated for centuries before uniting. They united shortly after independence from various European countries. They have only fought one civil war in history, whereas European countries have fought literally dozens.
2. Their motives were different. They united together for defense, not to create a strong economic block. The founding fathers did not say "if we want to become a major economic power on the world stage, we have to unite" like the EU obviously wants to do.

The EU authorities are simply pushing the pace of unification too fast. Such a radical transformation needs time. First, they have to undo the division in Europe, which may be undone politically but not emotionally. Then they can slow down and let unification progress at a reasonable rate. This will avoid generating opposition and causing instability.

Bud,

I think that you are not aware of the origins of the European Union. The first of these agreements was the Benelux (BElgium, NEtherlands, LUXembourg), signed in 1944 in London by their Governments-in-exile.

In about 1950 France and Germany signed the Iron adn Steel agreemetn and in 1956 the first six members of the European Union signed the Treaty of Rome - the countries were Francem Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg - two former Nazi/Fascist countries (now rif of their old Governemnts) and four countries that had been occupied by the Nazis. One of the motives was to ensure that WWII would not happen again.

Conrad,

I speak French fluently (I minored in it in college after 7 years in school), and have spent long periods of time in France and in Canada. So, I do appreciate French culture. I also think that the French are arrogant towards anyone who does not speak French, and especially those who speak English. Need I remind you that until WWI, the French and the British had been at war for hundreds of years?

Now as to the European Union. No matter what the origins are in the middle part of the last century, the Union is still and will always be about economic strength, not about a union of culture or language or country.

The United States were and are a people united for liberty. Need I remind you of the Declaration of Independence from your King George III? Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty of Give me Death." The US was not created for economic cooperation, or security or to balance another world power. All these things flowed out of American independence, they didn't cause it.

<<
Need I remind you that until WWI, the French and the British had been at war for hundreds of years?
>>

I do not recall learning about any Anglo-French wars in the period 1815 to 1914. Furthermore, until 1801, the French fleur-de-lise were in the British ROyal Standard. They were removed in 1801 as Britain was at that time helping the King of France to regain his throne - ie Britain was supporting one side of France against the other.

I love how quickly you all jump on a statement that is made and completely ignore the point that was being made.

SO HERE'S the POINT:

The European Union is not like the United States of America and can never be like the United States. It was not formed for similar reasons, and I believe does not have enough cohesiveness to work. Why? Because there are at least, count them, 14 different languages spoken:
Friesian, Danish, German, Greek, Spanish, French, Gaelic, Italian, Dutch, Portugese, Finish, Swedish, English, and Welsh

There are with the 15 member countries, 15 different governmental systems.

Each country has it's own cultures and subcultures.

Some larger countries in Europe aren't and will never be a member (i.e. Switzerland)

The fact is. The European Union is a union with only these things in common between all 15 countries:

Metric Measures
The Euro Currency

The United States has one language spoken and recognized over the entire country. Each state government is required to be a republican form mirroring the federal government. The Union is not for economic reasons. All people are citizens of the *same* country, and are citizens of their state secondly.

It takes more than a common market and a common currency to outweigh the economic and political standing of the United States.

Martin, I am well aware of the origins of the European Union. As you mention, it started in 1944.

However, 1944 is, relatively speaking, very recent compared to the long history of Europe. The earliest war between Britain and France that I can remember studying was, I think, the War of the Roses, in the twelfth century or thereabouts (I'm not exactly certain.) By the Renaissance, (1400s), Britain and France and Spain had established their own national identities. Five centuries later, we see the beginnings of the EU. And it hasn't even been one century since.
Yes, the EU goes back a while, but not very long considering the length of European history.

My violin teacher once told me, if you practice something incorrectly for an hour, you have to practice it correctly for six hours to undo the incorrect practice thoroughly. At this rate, it will take Europe 30 centuries to undo the divisions and emotional memories of five centuries of wars that they have fought. But at least they're making a start.....
PS I don't think it will take that long. That was just a random analogy.

MattS wrote: "The European Union is not like the United States of America and can never be like the United States. [...] There are with the 15 member countries, 15 different governmental systems. Each country has it's own cultures and subcultures."

That's true indeed, Matt.
Look, I am a strong believer in the "European project" and I am well aware that we still have a long way to go. But think about how much European countries have been growing toward each other since 1944.

"Some larger countries in Europe aren't and will never be a member (i.e. Switzerland)"

Switzerland is slowly moving toward membership. Swiss politicians think that Switzerland could become a member by 2030.

By the by, according to a recent survey almost 50% of the Norwegians wants Norway to become member of the EU. I expect them to hold a referendum within a couple of years.

"It takes more than a common market and a common currency to outweigh the economic and political standing of the United States."

That's what our politicians start to realize too. That's why they've set up the Convention.

<<
Why? Because there are at least, count them, 14 different languages spoken:
Friesian, Danish, German, Greek, Spanish, French, Gaelic, Italian, Dutch, Portugese, Finish, Swedish, English, and Welsh
>>

Three of thelanguages mentioned - Fries, Gaelic and Welsh, although being official langauges inparts of the EU are formally regarded as being "minority languages" in that while the EU require the countries concerned to respect the rights of those who speak the language concerned, EU business is not conducted in those languages.

Before Steve jumps down my throat, may I place on record that my paternal grandfather was born in Friesland and I have a typical Fries surname.

Welsh was made part of the national curriculum of wales in the 80's. No EU interference was "required".

However we have been told by the EU to charge VAT for the river crossing, previously free from VAT. Someone tell me what's so "harmonious" about that?

Also...


"One of the motives was to ensure that WWII would not happen again"

WWII cannot happen again, since it will be called WWIII (PEDANTRY PEDANTRY PEDANTRY!!!)

Also the next war in Europe will be *because* of the EU, only it this time it will be a civil one. Sounds barking right now, I know. Almost as barking as someone claiming that a man could be given a criminal record for selling a pound of bananas back in the early 80's!

Ok, so subract 3 languages off my list. You still come up with 11 languages and it could be more if you add Norse and the eastern block of countries.

Compare that to the 1 main language spoken in all 50 states of the US. If you would like to add Spanish to the US that makes a big 2 and it's not the language of business.

Tell me how easy it is to do business in the EU when you have 11 languages to translate back and forth?

<<
man could be given a criminal record for selling a pound of bananas back in the early 80's!
>>

I think that a criminal record arises from his refusal to pay the fine, not for selling bananas.

...and I thought I was being pedantic!

It is a criminal offence to sell a pound of bananas weighed by the pound and priced by the pound - that is how it is.

Yes you can have dual measuring but the above still is true.

Matt : I thought there were more than that that many languages in the US. For example "New Jersey" is said as "Neeaw Joy zee" by those who live in New Jersey. (I jest)

And also sold as a pound.

<<
You are only limited by your own blinkeredness. Learn more rather than less. Learn a second language, broaden you horizons. Simply "de-learning" imperial seems very limiting to me.
>>

There is no virtue in learnig something as useless as Imperial measures or the Welsh language.

<<
Your quote contains an implicit psychology that you know more about me than is realistic. Try to stick to what you know when making an argument and that way you don't risk looking like an idiot.
>>

That's a good one coming from you.

<<
Why not stick to the pros and cons of imperial on this chat board on a site dedicated to preserving imperial rather, than try to guess the ability of my brain "trying to cope".
>>

For once I agree. Think I'll stick to the cons though.

>>> "There is no virtue in learning something as useless as Imperial measures or the Welsh language".

Let's put imperial measures aside and concentrate on the Welsh language.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. "Usefulness" is in the mind of the user. If an individual makes a CHOICE to learn or use something, why should it be classed as of no value or useless by a non-user?

The measure or language may well be "useless" to those that do not use it. That's fine. But why should a non-user deny the user the right to exercise a private choice?

When the non-user is accused of being blinkered by a potential user for not learning it.

[Giggle]

"There is no virtue in learnig something as useless as Imperial measures or the Welsh language."

Imperial is enjoyed by the vast majority of UK'ers. IF you couldn't understand imperial then you'd have a very difficult job holding a conversation, enjoying a drink with one's mates, recognising news items etc etc in yhr UK. Of course you actually need to *have* friends before you recognise its usage!

"...or the Welsh language."

Parking-Meter-man, you do pick the most uphill of struggles in your choice of campaigns! Welsh is now spoken by more people today than it has ever been spoken in recorded history.

Oops! That involves "people" again! You're very existance relies on the politics rather than society and community!


Right! Back to my lessons....

Mae'r gath frwnt yn araf ond mae'r prefedyn yn dlawd

<<
Parking-Meter-man, you do pick the most uphill of struggles in your choice of campaigns! Welsh is now spoken by more people today than it has ever been spoken in recorded history.
>>

There you go again with your unwarranted assumptions. I don't give a damn about the Welsh language. I'm certainly not campaigning about it.

No doubt you will use it to insult people in their presence without them knowing.

Whatever you say, sir!

It's the weekend - off to see my (look this up..)

F R I E N D S

Bye!

I don't need to lookup that word any more than you need to look up the word enemy.

Judging by your behaviour on these forums you must have plenty of them.

Enjoy your gallon of cider Steve.

<<
Enjoy your gallon of cider Steve.
>>

... and the good news is that if the UK follows SA's lead, then a gallon of cider will be replaced by 5 litres of cider. (This is what happened to SA wine in the 1970's).

" May 23 2003, 9:16 PM " was the time of your post, Metre man - sorry I could not respond.

Martin - so having drunk 8 pints of cider, I will have downed an SA "5 litre" or something?

Steve - 5 litres is in fact 8.8 pints. Before metrication, people in South Afrca could by a demi-jon of wine (1 gallon). After metrication it miraculously increase to 5 litres.