I don't think any single vehicle will have *all* of those. The motor industry 'progressed' from BSF or Whitworth through UNF or UNC to Metric over several decades - but I can't remember exactly when!
My guess is Imperial to Unified (US) in the 1950's and Unified to metric in the 1980's - but I could be way out!
Yes indeed. And the calorific value varies from quarter to quarter - but is constant throughout the quarter!
That's 'cos there isn't any - it's got a be a misprint or mis-edit. For "kWh in cubic feet" simply read "kWh".
Nope, that's the way it left the factory. 40k miles on it, and everything ties up to what the parts book says it should have.
Brake flexis? Metric. Metal wheel cylinders? Dibnah. Metal line between the two? Half and half.
Bless.
I suspect it'd cost you more than you'd save, probably by an order of magnitude.
There was one - Series IIa - my mate had one and commented thus.
However the metric bolts may have been due to some after market additions.
It can't. It's an average. Presumably there's no economic benefit to be gained from installing equipment capable of taking and recording the necessary measurements and doing the calculations. Somebody would end up paying for it all
- the customer - and this would probably put gas at a competitive disadvantage as compared with electricity.
michael adams
...
I imagine like most cars the tyres have metric widths and imperial diameters.
You'd need to refrigerate the incoming pipe.
-- Richard
That appears to be a formula for units of 100 cubic feet (1 cubic foot is 0.028317 cubic metres). On old gas meters measuring in cubic feet only the dials down to 100s are read, so that makes sense. The "in cubic feet" is probably just confusion or something left from an earlier version.
-- Richard
"I remember when that Castle was a Maiden"
I was the last year at school to be taught long division in £sd.
However, everything else was taught in metric.
Indeed, very sloppy of me!
My Thermodynamics lecture once checked if we were awake (it was very close) by referring to the Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight system of measurement, as opposed to the Metre/Kilogram/Second system, or whatever was the current one at the time. But mixing systems as you describe, I would find confusing. One or the other, or you get Mars landers falling from the sky.
I often find I make fewer mistakes when cutting things to length if I use inches rather than cm or mm - less chance to misinterpret 1010mm as
1.1m etc. But doing physics calcs in anything other than Si units feels wrong. kg are fine until I think of my weight, where stone seems more intuitive (but never pounds - unless cooking). Distance is in miles but never feet, metres are ok as well, but not km. My height definitely in feet and inches ;-)
Agreed. Physical body dimensions in mms or cms mean nothing to me, I have no concept of them. I buy petrol in litres, because that's how it is sold, but I log my consumption in miles per gallon. My French car even uses miles and mpg for its computer readout. I can understand kms, but I still have a problem with temperatures in Centigrade, or whatever they call it nowadays. And as for beer in a pub, well, there is no substitute for pints (the more, the better).
This coming Sunday is the forty-fourth anniversary of decimalisation.
I was at school 68-79 so learnt both systems (as well as learning imperial at home of course) and I've found over the years have tended to use metric, because I guess I find them easier or something, measuring mostly in mm. I only know my weight in kg (maybe because the scales are digital and show metric unless changed over). I know my height in both, but tend to use metric if I have to give it
Cooking tends to flip between metric/imperial/cups depending on the recipe and the tools used (I tend to use the digital scales, but sometimes use the mechanical ones, or even the old balance scales.
In the car I use miles/mpg cos. my handhled GPS is set to metric and I have tend my bike computers set to metric as well.
That's a futile argument. I spend time lying underneath a (just) 21st Century Disco II and still need a 9/16 spanner for the propshaft bolts!
Hence my comment about "even Solihull".
The start of metrication goes back to the 50s (if not earlier) but I don't think the problem was ever the units, but a standard British feeling of "we've done it this way for XX years, so we'll keep doing it" while failing to notice the world moves on. The UK car industry is a good example of that, the Mini, the Deafener, etc. Introduced but then left almost completely untouched for about 30,000 years.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.