Keithl Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Has anyone read page 222 of Novembers MMM? I'll quote a line from Richard Peace's article on Trail Bikes: "WHEEL SIZE All the bikes featured here are either 26in or 700cm wheels.... The larger 700cm wheels will give you more stable handling whilst the smaller 26in..." I should think so too as 700cm is actually 23 feet in English! Let's see if they print a correction next month. Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 It was pointed out to me recently that, in the same MMM issue, the wheelbase length (3.50m) and rear-overhang (2.5m) statistics quoted on page 122 for the TEC FreeTEC 718Ti UK, if correct, indicated a startling rear-overhang of around 72% of wheelbase. Presumably the wheelbase datum should be the 3954mm appropriate to a Transit RWD lwb chassis-cab. No fun being an editor when readers are studying your best efforts through a microscope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I don't think anyone is doing it deliberately, i think that there is still a large section of the population that still automatically thinks in imperial measurement terms, Yes, i know that Metric is more logical (good old Napoleon) and is much easier to learn from the start, but i think that is the point. Because Imperial weights/measurement were SO difficult to learn, the facts and laws went deep into the sub-concious. Right up until I retired I was an Engineer who used Weights and Measurements every day, I still had to convert the metric into imperial to get the size or weight concept of the task INTO my head. The Buyers Guide at the rear of MMM converting to Metric was a sad day for me (more conversions). The Good ??? news is that we 'oldies' are slowly dying off, when we are finally out of the way, the young lad at the DIY store won't have to worry about 'Old duffers' asking for 2 yards of 4'' by 2''. OR someone asking for a 230cm tube for their bike tyre !!! :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Further to the above post The Test :when you weigh yourself do you think in Kilograms or Stones and ounces. ??? And a more Scary one: When approaching a low Bridge do you dread (as I do) the height being only shown in Metres and cm. ( I'm sure that many cases of Trucks and Buses getting stuck under low bridges is 'Imperial leftovers' not doing the conversions quick enough). PS. I have both Metric and Imperial height of my M/H incl. Status aerial on a card on my Dashboard (just in case). The very Idea of a 700cm bike wheel tsk,tsk, I'D NEVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE !! (errr I might). How about U ?? :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Hi Ray and thanks for your thoughts. I consider myself an 'in-betweeny', not being (quite) old enough to have got completely used to Imperial but still having to deal with it on a regular basis. As for your 'Test' whichever system I weigh myself with I automatically convert it to the other for comparison and as a result always check the sanity of conversions given in technical details or articles. How many others out there use both systems 'side by side'? Keith. PS I also have the main measurements (H, W, L) in both Metric and Imperial stuck to the rear of my sunvisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cattwg Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I'm with Rayjsj on this one. Hard as I try I just cannot think in metric. I too have a card taped to the dash with our height, width and length stated in imperial and metric! I have a second card with the common, continental speed restrictions given in MPH and KPH Cattwg :-S :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I too have card on dash with H W L in imp and metric, weights are in metric only. Like I guess many on here my initial schooling was in imperial but when doing A levels we changed to S.I. (commonly known as metric). As for weighing myself I allways know both as when racing there was lightweight and heavyweight class which was measured in kg and I was right on borderline. At work mostly we work in imperial but WW1 aircraft often have imperial airframes but metric engines, but once it comes to hanging aircraft I convert everything to metric, it makes life much easier, the real pain comes when dealing with screw threads, I commonly use BA BSF BSW UNF UNC ME and Brass, then theres Rolls Royce who delight in using 'odd' threads of their own, as for metric there have been just as many odd pitchs of thread used over the years as imperial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 The only way is to ditch imperial and go metric, being bi-lingual is ok for a while but can get even more confusing. Metric weight makes shopping when on holiday so much easier - never knew whether to go for 100 grams or 400 grams - neither made any sense. as for distance - well - like most women I'm confused by the male estimate of what constitutes 6 inches *-) :$ so it may as well be metric as anything else, and sums are easier :D B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Madge Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I'm all metric, gave up imperial many moons ago. It's so much easier when travelling on the continent. :-D :-D Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo3090 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 There's another one! In the buyers guide it doesn't list the Autotrail Cheyenne 660 low line, just the highline. And another! They put the GVW as 3,500Kgs when it is 4,005Kgs Oops they did it again! They miss out the Mercedes versions of the Autotrail range completely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I've noticed a number of 'other' errors, such as duplication of words etc. Seems to be more common now than it used to ... perhaps the Editors need some new glasses!!! :D :-S Still a great mag though! :-> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmick Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 mel - first thing tomorrow I'll make an appointment with spec spec spec savers savers savers savers.... big m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Nah, Mick, you don't want spec savers ... try Tesco, then you get Tesco points on your clubcard and a "5p off a litre of fuel" coupon! :D On second thoughts, don't bother with the optician ... these little errors just go to prove that you're human like the rest of us ... well, some of us anyway ... not sure about some forum members ... beings from another planet would seem more appropriate for a few. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.