economy

Sorry G-S if the way I express economy upsets you, but I can look at it both
ways. If someone tells me they get 15 kpl and I know the size of the tank it
is easy to work out 15 x 22 = 330 k's on the other hand if it
6.6666666666666666666666666667 litres per 100 k's I just go 7x3 21 litres
300 k's, close enough does it really matter after all it is only grade 4
math.

 

I agree JL.

 

Audi A4 diesel get 20 kpl and for you G-S that 5 litres per 100 k's there I
wasted my time not yours.

 

oh **** the standard

I grew up with mpg and use kpl now and always will.

 

....and he reserves the right to measure how long tyres last in years and
how long it takes to decide what tyres to buy next in decades.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Just as you reserve the right to be dickhead. Its your birthright

 

Firkins per Furlong!

-----sharks

 

All you're saying is that you find multiplication easier than division.

My bike uses 6 to 7 litres per hundred km and the tank is 13 litres
(plus reserve). So I get about 200 km out of a tankful. 13 divided by 6
times one hundred.

The other way, my bike gets around 15 kms per litre.

If I fill my tank I have 13 litres which gets me about 13 times 15 or
about 200 kms.

You get a logical answer either way.

 

That's in the ballpark of what the Diversion uses. It averages about 5
lt/100km with fat bugger me wringing it's neck. With someone slightly
less 'meaty' and who wasn't continually wondering when the power was
going to come in they tend to average about 4 to 4.5lt/100km.

Oh, and don't waste your own time... waste someone's time you don't like


G-S

 

Must be a different most to the most I ride with JL. Most of the people
I ride with just look at the fuel gauge!

Fair enough, but I would contend this is a _useful_ one


G-S

 

Careful... you'll confuse them LOL


G-S

 

My point exactly, so why not do it the accepted way?


G-S

 

You don't **** sports bikes only standards eh

G-S

 

But you do so much better a job at it Will


G-S

 

Ooooo that's a win for my side, the teachers are the ones trying to
change to a lower standard LOL


G-S

 

Firkin 'ell!

I wouldn't get far at all!! [1]


G-S

[1] Considering 1 Firkin of live beer would have me well and truly pissed

 

Oh do **** off if you're going to make useless assumptions about my
mental capacity. Neither is particularly difficult. I'm not saying
anything of the sort.

I'm saying one is in line with the way the majority of riders I've
talked about fuel consumption with tend to think about it(1). Obviously
if one is merely the inverse of the other then both are valid
representations of the data, that doesn't mean there isn't one
representation that is more useful than the other.

I guess that's why mathematics is considered one of the sciences.

JL
(1) Yes that could be considered a non representative sample of the
population, but I'm not about to start doing statistical analysis of it
either. I'll accept there is a non zero probability of a type 1 error, OK ?

 

Probably, we're in both a different age demographic and probably a
different type of riding set.

In which case I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree !

JL
(1) Well actually of my 3 bikes, one does have a fuel gauge, it's the
one whose new price was at least half that of the other two - the
schizoid(2) scooter-bike, there's something weird about paying 21K for a
bike without one and 8K for one with one, I can only assume that means
that only cheapies come with them ?
(2) Gilera DNA 180 - can't work out if it's a scooter or a bike.

 

Given one is merely the inverse of the other, how can it be a lower
standard ?

JL

 

Not by me, I rarely do trips in multiples of 100km.

Gary (Queensland is closed (except for the junk food vendors))