Cycling UK Forum

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 12:08pm I think this is a slightly separate issue. Conventional tyre sizes, such as 700C and 26", are rather more akin to names than measurements. The names sometimes incorporate or refer to what appear to be units, but they do not function as units in this context.

It's a similar situation with clothing, where a "measurement" is in fact more of a comparative scale - but only comparative to other sizes of the same design - rather than corresponding to an actual measurement of the garment (or the body it's meant to fit). Whereas gear inches really are inches, even if only approximated.

Yes, sizing systems are different from systems of units, although they depend on them.

That leads to the canonical jokes about buying timber that is obviously specified in inches but labelled in metric units, and similar.

And sizing systems often have frameworks that go way beyond specifying the units of measurement, as with ISO paper sizes

And my plea for using ISO nomenclature when discussing HPV wheels and tyres goes way beyond using metric units...

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 4:37pm

st599_uk wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 4:31pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 10:57am
It's not an abbreviation, but the organisation writes it all in capitals:
https://www.iso.org/home.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... reviations

How do you think it should be pronounced?

The receptionist when you go in pronounces it Ee soh

I most commonly hear eye-soh and after that eye-ess-oh. That's both in common parlance in England and in work on standards in the UK, the EU and the USA.

How do you think it should be pronounced?

Thanks

Jonathan

As I said, last time I visited, the receptionist used Ee soh

VinceLedge wrote: ↑20 Apr 2024, 8:40am Anyone know (of course someone will ) why the metric equivalent of miles per gallon is litres per 100km, rather than km per litre?

Someone else up-thread explained the 100 factor. Miles per gallon is a measure of fuel economy (sic) where bigger numbers mean more economy, the inverse of consumption. Litres per km or 100km is a measure of fuel consumption: bigger numbers mean more fuel is used. This way round makes more sense to me. I find inverted scales confusing. From my professional life I know other people do too. You really don't want to get me started on this!

If you want to calculate how much fuel a journey will use then a measure of consumption is easier: 200km = 2 x consumption.

If you want to know the range in your tank then economy is slightly easier to use. If it is in a unit no longer sold at the pump you will have some sums to do.