SIDI boots

You're menopausal. Swollen ankles & feet are classic symptoms. I've had it
for ages.

I take a diuretic in the morning to help regulate my blood pressure. I can
get my older Daytonas on without a struggle in the morning. By afternoon
they can be a **** to get on due to some sort of rebound effect as the
diuretic wears off. I've recently bought another pair of Daytonas in the
next size up. Sawn off jobbies which are great with jeans for trips down
the shops.

 

*ding*

Until I discovered the Daytona brand I struggled to find decent boots to
fit my feet. Italian made/designed ones seemed to be the worst.

 

What's less efficient about using a different set of units?

 

Modern people have metric feet and it's inefficient to squeeze them into
imperial (lackey running dog) shoes.

 

Different boots for different times of day? Truly, you are the Imelda
Marcos of ukrm.

 

It appears metric feet stop at size 46. Bloody hard finding 47s or
48s... or *proper* UK12s, for that matter - most seem to be 10.5s with
the wrong label...

 

My experience is that you have to buy at least a size up to get a
comfortable fit with SIDI's. However I do have wide feet. Go try some
on, but I bet you *need* 45's (i.e 10.5's).

 

I feel your pain brother (as a mere size 11). The choices are limited as
fewer of that size are made in each batch and many shops will only get
one pair of the large size (if that) as most of their customers are sized
8-9-10 and they're happy with that chunk of the market which they can
supply without keeping slower moving sizes in stock.

 

fx <looks at two pairs of size 47 Sidi Vertigo's arranged in the
wardrobe>

 

There you go FJ - that's reason for the shortage.

 

http://www.walktall.co.uk/

I also recently bought a pair of size 12 work shoes from amazon of all
places.

 

Transitioning from smaller units to larger ones and vice versa in Imperial
units is a pain in the arse, as there's not a standard factor (as there is
in SI units) or any relation among names (as there is in SI units). 12
inches make a foot whereas 3 feet make a yard and 2 yards make a fathom (I
think) and there's 16 ounces to a pound but 14 pounds to a stone. And then
you have to have two different types of miles (at least, there's two I'm
aware of). It's unnecessarily complicated and rather archaic.

Metric units generally use powers of 10 and that's about it, the prefixes of
each unit indicating what power of ten we're dealing with, regardless of
measure (be it gram, metre, litre or whatever else). I think it's much, much
easier for someone uninitiated to grasp that concept and easier for anyone
to make conversions off the top of their heads.


Geo

 

I'm open to cash offers, although I should point out.....

http://www.bigbikebook.com/ProductD...D/3005/v/444fe8be-8d0f-4b00-9098-5de179787f80

 

I don't wear that style of boot, I prefer lace-ups.

 

Yes, I know all that, but you still haven't explained the *efficiency*
bit.

I can happily work in metric and imperial, converting from one to the
other (mostly) unaided by calculators or tables, despite being
educated exclusively using metric units. However, I can't get my head
round hectares at all, but I can easily understand and visualise
acres.

Why do they need hectares, when they have perfectly good units like
square metres and square kilometres?

 

only on a short-term, sickness cover, basis

 

I thought I did. Using SI units one only has to use powers of ten and the
name suggests which power of ten it is that should be used. As a counter
example, going from ounces to stones means that one has to either remember
what unit is in between and then multiply fist by 16 and then by 14, or they
would have to memorise that they have to multiply by 224, which isn't as
easy as, say, 100 or 1000. Do that for the randomly related measures in
Imperial and you get lots of stuff to memorise for no good reason. I
wouldn't be calling it inefficient if it just stuck to a different system,
say, dodecadecimal, it's that it has no system to speak of that makes it
inefficient.

I don't see why you can visualise two acres of land and you can't visualise
a hectare (which is approx. 2.5 acres). I've never used either, so I can
visualise them with equal ease/difficulty. The acre however is 43,560 square
feet or 4,840 square yards , which is just irritatingly complicated (and
therefore inefficient), wheres a hectare is just 10,000 square metres or 1
square hectometre (100m x 100m) or whatever else you might like that's
metres to some power of ten, squared.

According to Wikipedia, hectares are a relic from an older form of the
metric system and not part of the SI per se, although still accepted. Nobody
needs them, they're a logical multiplication so it's just there in case an
area is easily defined by it. In Greece we prefer to use a "stremma" for
smaller areas, that is one tenth of a hectare, or 1,000 square metres. It's
not SI, but it's also easy to convert using decimal, which is half the point
of using SI.


Geo

 

I've got 5 pairs of bike boots for different purposes.

--
Lozzo
Suzuki SV650S K5
Honda CBR600 FW trackbike
Yamaha SR250 Spazz-Trakka
Suzuki GSXR750 L
Suzuki TS50X
Suzuki TS50X

 

The field out the back of our farm was 2 acres, so I can visualise acres
quite easily. Plus, colloquial use of the term "acres" to mean "very large
areas" is embedded in the language. Similarly, I can visualise 25kgs,
because it's just about ½cwt, and I used to hump ½cwt bags of chicken meal
around.

 

I have one pair for all seasons, but they're starting to get a bit shagged.