OV9

I'm always disappointed in the sizes here after coming back here from Germany. The sizes are pretty irrelevant now though as we're paying for 3 pints and getting 1...

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 4:48 pm i like our daft systems with every measurement specific to the context.

People height in feet and inches, but car height (carpark barriers) in metres.

Construction all in mm but property rented in sqft.

Fuel sold in litres but consumed in gallons.

etc…

Never thought about the issue of context. Think you’ve definitely hit the 70mm nail on the head with the 20oz hammer

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 4:53 pm I’m also a big fan of paper sizes…

A0 is 1 m2, then each size is halved with the width becoming the length of the next size down. Someone thought that one through!

I love that tyre sizes are a mix of units. I bet that really annoys someone somewhere though

I liked the old measurement for wood as it was quite silly. You bought it based off the dimensions before it was planed. Now it’s all in mm and accurate and boring.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 8:30 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 4:53 pm I’m also a big fan of paper sizes…

A0 is 1 m2, then each size is halved with the width becoming the length of the next size down. Someone thought that one through!

I love that tyre sizes are a mix of units. I bet that really annoys someone somewhere though

oooh, yeah - that one’s great! inches, mm and a percentage - all presented with no units!

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:35 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 8:30 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 4:53 pm I’m also a big fan of paper sizes…

A0 is 1 m2, then each size is halved with the width becoming the length of the next size down. Someone thought that one through!

I love that tyre sizes are a mix of units. I bet that really annoys someone somewhere though

oooh, yeah - that one’s great! inches, mm and a percentage - all presented with no units!

It has the potential to annoy both hard-line imperial and metric advocates equally

I was briefly astounded at the apparent closure of one of the largest mining companies in the world.

mik wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:47 am

jamcg wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:17 am
Same with mpg/ the 100km/l. I understand mpg. The other means nothing to me (ah Vienna)

That's mainly because it's an utterly utterly ludicrous metric, with a constant added in because someone realised that JohnQCitizen struggles with numbers less than one.

It's like deciding you don't like mph. But you don't like kph either. You'd prefer to see an expression of time required to cover a fixed distance, rather than a distance covered in a fixed time.

So 60mph = 96.56kph. Which is 0.01036 hours per km.

No hang on - that's a tricky number for displays.

So lets instead express it as 0.621373 minutes per km.

Hang on - that's a bit tricky too. But I really don't want to go for seconds per km, so lets go for the number of minutes required to cover, ermm, how far is it to my mum's house again? 42.7km. OK.

60mph = 26.53 minutes per 42.7km. (Realistically everyone will just say "mp42.7km" of course).

Perfect!

Another one to add to the "well that's weird" list. This popped up on my instagram feed today.

He's using an inverted metric to make a completely different point, but there you are : velocity expressed as "minutes per 10 miles"

I think that's one of those things you just inherently learn if you do reasonably long distance driving regularly - IE my dad, when he was doing Oldham to Wick, reckoned that by driving like his hair was on fire once he got off the motorways up on the A-roads through scotland, saved about half an hour to an hour (depending on tractors etc...). But by taking it easy, not overtaking everything at any opportunity, and so on he arrived half an hour to an hour later, but a lot more chilled out, less stressed, and less tired.

I did the same thing when I was doing Leeds to Herts regularly (every weekend) and eventually settled on just leaving the cruise control at 60 and nipping between the first and second lane. Difference in time was genuinely negligable once you take roadworks etc at each end into account, but it's the difference between high 30s and high 40s MPG in the Mondeo, and it was a lot more laid back.

People who have only ever done long trips once or twice a year probably just aren't aware of it, so it bears mentioning I guess.

I had the same thought process when I was commuting from Northampton to Slough 3 or 4 times per week. I would do Jct 2 to Jct 10 of the M 40 and used to try to use that part of the Journey to "Make up time", given it's very light on traffic etc.

Then I crunched the numbers and realised the 36 or so miles at 80 mph took 27 mins whereas at 65 mph, it tool 33 mins. It was rare that you could sustain 80 mph so in truth, driving at speed only saved me 4 or 5 mins over the journey - not worth it.

so I stuck to 65 mph and lane 1. I was on expenses and sort of hypermiling a bit to make money so in the end, I started turning of AC too etc

I find the motorway stressful at 60 mph. Only do it when I'm towing a trailer and I find you generally end up in a convoy of people who are nervous driving on the motorway. End up getting boxed in by faster traffic and in lorry blind spots longer than I'd like.
80+ is when it's most calm, no idiots to worry about as I'm the biggest idiot