I hear that the GS tank holds 5.1 gallons, but how much of that is actually usable with the petcock on normal? On reserve/prime? I feel like i need to fill up at around 2.8-3 gallons.
About 1 gallon is the reserve. When you know your MPG, you can estimate when you are going to hit reserve.
With 1 gallon reserve, you've got 40-60 more miles before you have to push it.
I generally fill up after 100 to 160 miles. Whenever convenient in that area.
It is a good practice to flip to reserve every couple of months so the reserve fuel line doesn't get filled with crud and water. Often I do it after a fill up then switch back when I get home. It only takes a mile or two to move all the gas through that line. 10-20 miles really gets it clean.
If you ever run out and need reserve, you don't want a clogged reserve line that pours crud into the carbs.
TBH I would often ride with it set on reserve. and start looking at 120. a tad lower on my hd.
I'll generally run mine for about 350km (217 miles) before hitting reserve. At 4L/100km (58.8mpg) that's about 14 litres (3.7 gallons) before reserve, leaving 3 litres(0.80 gallon).
Around the 200 mile mark, my GS500F was ridden primarily on long day rides, I generally got between 60-65 Mpg without even trying, I was filling up long before I would have needed to use Reserve.
I leave my bike on reserve all the time (because gravity) and fill up between 160 - 200 mi. depending on when I realize I'm within that range.
I top mine off all the time. I never know where I will be and even though bikes get great mileage, I still like to keep it full. Same goes for my truck
I tend to start looking for gas at around 120-150 miles, depending on where I am, and generally before I go out for a joy ride. I don't really get nervous until I hit around 180-200 miles. I had to run 20 miles home on reserve once and was flipping out the entire way lol.
Quote from: adidasguy on October 11, 2013, 10:49:34 PM
About 1 gallon is the reserve. When you know your MPG, you can estimate when you are going to hit reserve.
With 1 gallon reserve, you've got 40-60 more miles before you have to push it.
I generally fill up after 100 to 160 miles. Whenever convenient in that area.
It is a good practice to flip to reserve every couple of months so the reserve fuel line doesn't get filled with crud and water. Often I do it after a fill up then switch back when I get home. It only takes a mile or two to move all the gas through that line. 10-20 miles really gets it clean.
If you ever run out and need reserve, you don't want a clogged reserve line that pours crud into the carbs.
on gravity fed tank many times if it looks like it has plenty, engine will sometimes act like its out
I get 300km out of my main tank (187.5 miles), sometimes about 10 - 20km more. Given that the main tank is 15L and the reserve is 5L, it means I'll probably get 400+ km out of the full tank.
I usually fill up around 375km though (234.4 miles)
I usually fill my tank when it needs fuel :dunno_black: :flipoff:
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on October 12, 2013, 11:26:57 AM
I leave my bike on reserve all the time (because gravity) and fill up between 160 - 200 mi. depending on when I realize I'm within that range.
Actually the gravity is the same. Since both fuel lines exit the tank at the bottom - both have the same column of fuel above them. Actually, since both go to the same petcock and to the same carbs, even if the tubes exited the tank at different heights they would have the same column and weight of gas on them until the fuel level got below the intake for the main line.
I ride till it starts to stutter on main line... Reach down and flip to res ... Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... If I'm still riding further I look for a filling station .. Within about 50km usually ... I know it has more than that but :dunno_black:
Quote from: Janx101 on October 13, 2013, 04:21:00 AM
I ride till it starts to stutter on main line... Reach down and flip to res ... Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... If I'm still riding further I look for a filling station .. Within about 50km usually ... I know it has more than that but :dunno_black:
Yea...you can never be sure lol.
Once, my bike stuttered, I put it on reserve. I had done about 20km on reserve. I was heading down towards the M5, then I saw signage saying there was an accident on the M5 and delays. I saw the huge line, and I thought screw that. I don't want to run out and have to push the GS500 down the M5 tunnel! Took a quick left exit and went and filled up.
Quote from: Janx101 on October 13, 2013, 04:21:00 AM
I ride till it starts to stutter on main line... Reach down and flip to res ... Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... If I'm still riding further I look for a filling station .. Within about 50km usually ... I know it has more than that but :dunno_black:
Agree, I always waited until I had to flip to reserve before filling up. I used to practice turning the petcock while riding so that it was second nature and a quick maneuver. If you are going interstate speeds you don't have much time between when it starts to sputter and when it will cut out, so you've got to flip it quick. It was usually between 150 and 170 miles before I had to switch.
Quote from: DrtRydr23 on October 13, 2013, 09:07:21 AM
Quote from: Janx101 on October 13, 2013, 04:21:00 AM
I ride till it starts to stutter on main line... Reach down and flip to res ... Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... If I'm still riding further I look for a filling station .. Within about 50km usually ... I know it has more than that but :dunno_black:
Agree, I always waited until I had to flip to reserve before filling up. I used to practice turning the petcock while riding so that it was second nature and a quick maneuver. If you are going interstate speeds you don't have much time between when it starts to sputter and when it will cut out, so you've got to flip it quick. It was usually between 150 and 170 miles before I had to switch.
Or you could just leave it on reserve and just know how much fuel you have before you're out.
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on October 13, 2013, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: DrtRydr23 on October 13, 2013, 09:07:21 AM
Quote from: Janx101 on October 13, 2013, 04:21:00 AM
I ride till it starts to stutter on main line... Reach down and flip to res ... Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... If I'm still riding further I look for a filling station .. Within about 50km usually ... I know it has more than that but :dunno_black:
Agree, I always waited until I had to flip to reserve before filling up. I used to practice turning the petcock while riding so that it was second nature and a quick maneuver. If you are going interstate speeds you don't have much time between when it starts to sputter and when it will cut out, so you've got to flip it quick. It was usually between 150 and 170 miles before I had to switch.
Or you could just leave it on reserve and just know how much fuel you have before you're out.
:icon_eek: .. you what? ... with variable throttle use and terrain covered .. how much or less than normal a tank gets filled? ...
maybe for 'norman the numpty hypermiler' bro!! .. :icon_rolleyes:
theres a term for 'just knowing' how much fuel is in the tank .. its ... "so i ran out of gas" .. ;)
no one persons version of switching and filling is correct of course... and many folks have breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when they have coasted into a filling station on fumes...
look up how many threads mention 'my bike just stuttered and died on me... but
theres plenty of gas in the tank!' .. and thats just on main setting...
no... i'm sorry .. to the corner with you and your wild ideas of 'just knowing' .. ;) ;) ;) :flipoff:
Just to add a Smartass flavor to this thread. I refill when my fuel light comes on around 300-310 but I usually stretch it to 350ish.
The smart ass response will state but there's no light.
When I got my last bike, unbeknownst to me the PO had rebuilt the petcock and not put it back together correctly; as a result it was always open drawing fuel from both taps. Needless to say, I ran out of fuel twice until I rebuilt it correctly.
I generally try to refill close to the time I'd have to switch over to the reserve.
Quote from: GS500F2004 on October 13, 2013, 06:25:28 PM
The smart ass response will state but there's no light.
Not on a GS500, but slips doesn't ride a GS500. :thumb:
Quote from: slipperymongoose on October 13, 2013, 05:53:57 PM
Just to add a Smartass flavor to this thread. I refill when my fuel light comes on around 300-310 but I usually stretch it to 350ish.
well there you go... the beemer has an extra idiot light.... there for 'the extra idiot' !! :flipoff:
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on October 13, 2013, 04:12:19 PM
Or you could just leave it on reserve and just know how much fuel you have before you're out.
Yeah, I guess you could use the force or something. Seriously though, do whatever you want. As long as you don't run out of gas its all good. Personally, I've seen my mileage fluctuate enough that I like having reserve as a warning and running the ON setting most of the time.
Better a light to tell me then fumbling round with a petcock that causes so much joy in this forum eh janxy? :flipoff: :flipoff:
Quote from: slipperymongoose on October 13, 2013, 07:03:46 PM
Better a light to tell me then fumbling round with a petcock that causes so much joy in this forum eh janxy? :flipoff: :flipoff:
i'm gonna organise for your bulb to go missing!! :flipoff:
and its not a fumble... its a easy reach down and turn the switch bit... least the way i do it... dont know how YOU used to do it... :dunno_black: :flipoff:
Sea turtles janx sea turtles
I'm getting right around 60 mpg, so I usually ride until I hit reserve at ~180 miles and then look for fuel after that. And just to keep both lines full of fresh fuel, I usually alternate between ON and RES for the first few days of a new tank because my commute is only 15 mi. each way. But even though I've never gone much over reserve, I still usually fill up only 3 gallons or so. I wonder I'm not filling up the tank as far as I could be.
Did about 355km today on the main tank, didn't even run out, definitely a record for me.
every two weeks around pay day
I get to 200 miles (UK miles that is) and am still not on reserve, but fill up at around that mark. Purely used for commuting in London and getting on average 64mpg. Quite pleased with the little beasty.
Quote from: makman on October 15, 2013, 07:31:52 AM
I get to 200 miles (UK miles that is)
The land miles used in the UK are the same as in the states; the only different ones are nautical miles :police: Anyways I thought that GB had converted to the metric system :tongue2:
Like the rest of the educated world. :D
Quote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
Anyways I thought that GB had converted to the metric system :tongue2:
Quote from: Zookmang on October 15, 2013, 07:59:50 PM
Like the rest of the educated world. :DQuote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
Anyways I thought that GB had converted to the metric system :tongue2:
Exactly, The British have converter from the unit system they developed; only the US, Burma, Liberia, and a few other enclaves are still using the bass ackwards British Gravitational unit system.
I do 300 kms and then refill - sometimes i hit reserver, usually I dont.
empty tank = better performance and fuel efficiency
full tank = less tank rust
Having run out of gas twice when I first had the bike, I now fill up roughly every 100 miles. Good to know I should set the petcock to reserve every now and then to flush it out.
Quote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 08:29:35 PM
Quote from: Zookmang on October 15, 2013, 07:59:50 PM
Like the rest of the educated world. :DQuote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
Anyways I thought that GB had converted to the metric system :tongue2:
Exactly, The British have converter from the unit system they developed; only the US, Burma, Liberia, and a few other enclaves are still using the bass ackwards British Gravitational unit system.
I went to school for engineering, so I totally understand the mathematical simplicity of the metric system. But no one is ever going to convince me that there are better units than inches and feet for dealing with distances on a day to day basis. A centimeter is too small, and a meter is too big.
I use the impertic system. :thumb:
The one thing that I think I would miss about the imperial system is the torque measurement. I mean, what the F! is a newton-meter?! For some reason I just like pound-feet/foot-pounds. I had friends start their college careers in engineering, only to change quickly because their professors made them do their studies in metric, specifically with newton meters as their measure of force. But at any rate, I'd gladly just take the pains and be slightly confused on some measurements for the rest of my life so that we could switch and be done with it.
While we're at it, what system does a pint fall under?
Not related. but i walk on 2 FEET. not a bit less than a meter :thumb:
Quote from: tmbr_wulf on October 17, 2013, 07:54:16 AMI had friends start their college careers in engineering, only to change quickly because their professors made them do their studies in metric
If
that's why they dropped out of engineering, they weren't fit for engineering.
+1
Quote from: 007brendan on October 17, 2013, 01:11:21 AM
Quote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 08:29:35 PM
Quote from: Zookmang on October 15, 2013, 07:59:50 PM
Like the rest of the educated world. :DQuote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
Anyways I thought that GB had converted to the metric system :tongue2:
Exactly, The British have converter from the unit system they developed; only the US, Burma, Liberia, and a few other enclaves are still using the bass ackwards British Gravitational unit system.
I went to school for engineering, so I totally understand the mathematical simplicity of the metric system. But no one is ever going to convince me that there are better units than inches and feet for dealing with distances on a day to day basis. A centimeter is too small, and a meter is too big.
That's why they also have decimeters. 10 times bigger than a centimeter, but 10 times smaller than a meter. Just saying. :icon_mrgreen:
To be honest, I wouldn't mind switching to the metric system. I like the fact that everything is so easy to convert. Instead of 16 ounces per pound, 5280 feet per mile, etc. it's all in powers of ten. Not to be argumentative, but I also wouldn't mind having to say "half a meter" or "50 centimeters" instead of "1 and a half feet". However, it would take quite a bit of effort to convert an entire country to metric. And I don't know if I'd ever feel right talking about a '69 Hemi Cuda with a "7.2 liter Hemi" putting out "280 kW" and "650 Nm".
I guess it goes back to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". :dunno_black:
Quote from: tmbr_wulf on October 17, 2013, 07:54:16 AM
The one thing that I think I would miss about the imperial system is the torque measurement. I mean, what the F! is a newton-meter?! For some reason I just like pound-feet/foot-pounds. I had friends start their college careers in engineering, only to change quickly because their professors made them do their studies in metric, specifically with newton meters as their measure of force. But at any rate, I'd gladly just take the pains and be slightly confused on some measurements for the rest of my life so that we could switch and be done with it.
While we're at it, what system does a pint fall under?
Haha! As an engineer, this is hilarious!
Dan
Quote from: tmbr_wulf on October 17, 2013, 07:54:16 AM
While we're at it, what system does a pint fall under?
A pint is Imperial.
And Jas, I still don't understand KW. I learnt power outputs from Gran Turismo so I understand HP better, damn I messed my life up. :P
I'm in king of the same boat. I know all of the newer cars by their displacement in liters, and the old muscle cars by cubic inches. I also do most of my DIY work in imperial, and all of my other calculations in SI. I'm all kinds of screwed up when it comes to units lol.
"Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... "
Got caught like that on my Yamaha SR250 (no trip meter to even warn you) a couple of times. The next time you ride the bike you forget it's on reserve and...you know the rest. I must say though, it always amazed me how far the thing had actually gotten before dying.
Quote from: bryan88 on October 21, 2013, 02:05:11 AM
"Then if I'm nearly home I leave it ... "
Got caught like that on my Yamaha SR250 (no trip meter to even warn you) a couple of times. The next time you ride the bike you forget it's on reserve and...you know the rest. I must say though, it always amazed me how far the thing had actually gotten before dying.
Nup! ... Part of my 30 sec pre ride check even before I start the bike... Wheels = 2 , chain .. yep it's there, lights work?... All of them? .. Yep!, where is fuel tap pointing? , how many Kms on trip meter?.... Ok... Warmup .... Ride.... Either to fuel up or away... But if it's on res already... ALWAYS to fuel up
Quote from: tmbr_wulf on October 17, 2013, 07:54:16 AM
The one thing that I think I would miss about the imperial system is the torque measurement. I mean, what the F! is a newton-meter?! For some reason I just like pound-feet/foot-pounds. I had friends start their college careers in engineering, only to change quickly because their professors made them do their studies in metric, specifically with newton meters as their measure of force. But at any rate, I'd gladly just take the pains and be slightly confused on some measurements for the rest of my life so that we could switch and be done with it.
While we're at it, what system does a pint fall under?
What's wrong with Nm? Torque is a force that results from or causes angular motion. The unit of force has for centuries been in Newtons. Wikipedia states that 1 Nm is the torque created from exerting 1N of force on something that moves in circular manner from a distance of 1 metre. So if you exert the same force from half the distance I guess it will be 2Nm.
Look up the SI units convention. Generally most countries stick to this for their engineering applications, especially if working with other countries. I think there was a funny story circulating awhile back of a complete c0*k up in using two different conventions. Here it is:
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/
I think the pint falls under the drinking system :icon_lol:
Quote from: JAS6377 on October 17, 2013, 05:24:50 PM
Quote from: 007brendan on October 17, 2013, 01:11:21 AM
Quote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 08:29:35 PM
Quote from: Zookmang on October 15, 2013, 07:59:50 PM
Like the rest of the educated world. :DQuote from: radodrill on October 15, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
Anyways I thought that GB had converted to the metric system :tongue2:
Exactly, The British have converter from the unit system they developed; only the US, Burma, Liberia, and a few other enclaves are still using the bass ackwards British Gravitational unit system.
I went to school for engineering, so I totally understand the mathematical simplicity of the metric system. But no one is ever going to convince me that there are better units than inches and feet for dealing with distances on a day to day basis. A centimeter is too small, and a meter is too big.
That's why they also have decimeters. 10 times bigger than a centimeter, but 10 times smaller than a meter. Just saying. :icon_mrgreen:
To be honest, I wouldn't mind switching to the metric system. I like the fact that everything is so easy to convert. Instead of 16 ounces per pound, 5280 feet per mile, etc. it's all in powers of ten. Not to be argumentative, but I also wouldn't mind having to say "half a meter" or "50 centimeters" instead of "1 and a half feet". However, it would take quite a bit of effort to convert an entire country to metric. And I don't know if I'd ever feel right talking about a '69 Hemi Cuda with a "7.2 liter Hemi" putting out "280 kW" and "650 Nm".
I guess it goes back to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". :dunno_black:
This is true, the confusion a switch would cause is simply not worth it. Books would have to be updated, street signs changed, etc. Not worth the hassle.
Quote from: Zookmang on October 17, 2013, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: tmbr_wulf on October 17, 2013, 07:54:16 AM
While we're at it, what system does a pint fall under?
A pint is Imperial.
And Jas, I still don't understand KW. I learnt power outputs from Gran Turismo so I understand HP better, damn I messed my life up. :P
As an electrical engineering student, I would be shot for saying I prefer HP over kW, but it's true...I grew up with HP, although kW is not a problem either. Just remember this simple conversion factor and you'll be right for the rest of your life:
0.75. That's all you need to remember. If you want be more pedantic: 0.7457.
Numerically, kW is LESS than HP. So if you want to convert HP to kW, kW is roughly 75% of HP.
Converting from kW to HP, simply divide kW by 0.75.
So just remember 0.75 [3/4] :)
Strictly speaking, kW is the more "correct" unit for today's engineering, you will get all kinds of weird and incorrect results from using HP with existing units. The equations used in power calculations assume you're using the SI unit convention, if not, you'll have to convert everything else to make the results correct.
That being said, I still prefer HP. Has a real manly grunt to it.
Quote from: GS500F2004 on October 22, 2013, 02:22:23 AM
That being said, I still prefer HP. Has a real manly grunt to it.
I thought it had an equine grunt to it :tongue2:
Quote from: GS500F2004 on October 22, 2013, 02:13:06 AM
What's wrong with Nm? Torque is a force that results from or causes angular motion. The unit of force has for centuries been in Newtons. Wikipedia states that 1 Nm is the torque created from exerting 1N of force on something that moves in circular manner from a distance of 1 metre. So if you exert the same force from half the distance I guess it will be 2Nm.
Look up the SI units convention. Generally most countries stick to this for their engineering applications, especially if working with other countries. I think there was a funny story circulating awhile back of a complete c0*k up in using two different conventions. Here it is:
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/
I think the pint falls under the drinking system :icon_lol:
Nice wikipedia paste. Yes, it's easy to read about what a newton is, but no one uses newtons as a measurement of force in day to day calculations. Even people that use the metric system, when talking about the most common force -- weight -- simply use the mass unit (kilograms) instead of the force unit (newtons). Americans are very familiar with the imperial force unit -- pounds. I can pick something up and tell you roughly how many pounds it is. So when talking about pound feet, it's easy to extrapolate -- a pound of force applied 1 foot out from the center of rotation (many wrenches are conveniently about the same size as 1-2 feet). But how much is a newton? Even people that use the metric system probably couldn't pick something up and tell you how many newtons it weighs or press on a torque wrench and tell you how many newton meters they are applying.
Quote from: 007brendan on October 22, 2013, 10:51:50 AM
Nice wikipedia paste. Yes, it's easy to read about what a newton is, but no one uses newtons as a measurement of force in day to day calculations. Even people that use the metric system, when talking about the most common force -- weight -- simply use the mass unit (kilograms) instead of the force unit (newtons). Americans are very familiar with the imperial force unit -- pounds. I can pick something up and tell you roughly how many pounds it is. So when talking about pound feet, it's easy to extrapolate -- a pound of force applied 1 foot out from the center of rotation (many wrenches are conveniently about the same size as 1-2 feet). But how much is a newton? Even people that use the metric system probably couldn't pick something up and tell you how many newtons it weighs or press on a torque wrench and tell you how many newton meters they are applying.
It's easy. The multiplier is 10 here, too (well.. about 9,81 at my altitude, but 10 is good for everyday use).
So if I pick up something that has a mass of 5 kilograms, I may tell you it weighs 50 Newtons.
Quote from: 007brendan on October 22, 2013, 10:51:50 AM
Quote from: GS500F2004 on October 22, 2013, 02:13:06 AM
What's wrong with Nm? Torque is a force that results from or causes angular motion. The unit of force has for centuries been in Newtons. Wikipedia states that 1 Nm is the torque created from exerting 1N of force on something that moves in circular manner from a distance of 1 metre. So if you exert the same force from half the distance I guess it will be 2Nm.
Look up the SI units convention. Generally most countries stick to this for their engineering applications, especially if working with other countries. I think there was a funny story circulating awhile back of a complete c0*k up in using two different conventions. Here it is:
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/
I think the pint falls under the drinking system :icon_lol:
Nice wikipedia paste. Yes, it's easy to read about what a newton is, but no one uses newtons as a measurement of force in day to day calculations. Even people that use the metric system, when talking about the most common force -- weight -- simply use the mass unit (kilograms) instead of the force unit (newtons). Americans are very familiar with the imperial force unit -- pounds. I can pick something up and tell you roughly how many pounds it is. So when talking about pound feet, it's easy to extrapolate -- a pound of force applied 1 foot out from the center of rotation (many wrenches are conveniently about the same size as 1-2 feet). But how much is a newton? Even people that use the metric system probably couldn't pick something up and tell you how many newtons it weighs or press on a torque wrench and tell you how many newton meters they are applying.
I didn't claim that I made that line up. I in fact said Wikipedia states :icon_confused:
No one uses Newtons as a unit of measurement? You have got to be kidding me. I don't know whether you do engineering or not, but by that kind of statement I would assume you do not. It might be like that in the USA, but the vast majority of the world does NOT use pounds.
People who use the metric system cannot tell you much something weighs in Newtons because it's not a common language term, it's almost invariably used in scientific applications. You are also completely incorrect because Newtons is NOT a unit of MASS. It is a unit of FORCE. So to say something's mass is 10N is as correct as saying something is 18 feet hot. :cookoo:
I'm sorry to say that most of your opinion here is pretty redundant because you assume all along that everyone else thinks the same way people do in the USA. Most people in the rest of the world don't think in pounds, similarly, Newton-metres is easily grasped by the same token as how you described foot-pounds. When I went to school, learning Physics in year 11/12, we dealt with Newtons and Newton metres. Not foot-pounds.
Car/bike owner's manuals here state torque values in Nm, some may have ft-lbs in brackets. When I bought a torque wrench, the eBay description stated the range in Nm, need I go on?
Correct this strange notion you have of assuming that the rest of the world must naturally be in tune with something because you think it to be so. People cannot tell how much force they are applying in terms of Nm? You are obviously in a different part of the world to understand that. Think about it, if one works with Nm, then your muscle memory adapts to that eventually. This is difficult to understand because?
If I lived in the USA, I would adapt to ft-lbs similarly, you just aren't used to it. Similarly, if people give me speeds in mph, I can roughly understand it, but it doesn't have the same meaning to me. It is the same for gallons, ounces, etc.
..... I still refill my tank a bit after I switch to reserve... Mostly... :icon_rolleyes:
This little thread has made me look into this a bit further. It actually seems like in the past the USA has tried to convert to the metric system but it failed, sometime in the 1970's. Understandably, trying to convert a system is no easy task.
However, one part stood out, which confirms to me, that science for the most part in the USA also sticks to the metric system.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/10/why_hasnt_the_us_gone_metric.html
QuoteToday, agencies with large international or scientific operations--like the Department of Defense and NASA--are almost fully converted
The history of the metric and imperial system is also very interesting, why the change happened and the interesting stories associated with them. I for one was born in a country that quantified speed in km/h but gave distances in miles :icon_lol: -- the effects of transition.
my 08 f runs 430-450kms before i need to switch to reserve and fills up with about 16 liters. this works out to 80-85 mpg imperial. up here in canada we switched to the metric system back in the late 70s while i was still in school. i know metric, imperial and your american system and can do the conversions in my head for the common stuff. if i use a measuring tape when building something i still use feet/inches but for mixing 2 stroke oil i use liters/milliliters.
thats averaging about 4 gallons us per fillup. well a few more litres. my first introduction to the metric system in ontario was in late 90's for some odd reason i couldnt get a moving truck to do 80. i tried lol. between cornwall and alexandria.
well at least you crossed the border, most drive up in the summer and its 70 degrees and the canadian station says its 20, they turn around grumbling its too cold
I thought 500km's was a good time to fill the tank :D
(http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz72/mitchc_1/Bike/20131025_090146_zps669613b2.jpg) (http://s815.photobucket.com/user/mitchc_1/media/Bike/20131025_090146_zps669613b2.jpg.html)
Just under 4L/100km. By filling the airspace you can get 21.5L into that 20L tank and a genuine 500km range. Hit reserve at 430km.
(http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz72/mitchc_1/Bike/20131025_090738_zps81b8d956.jpg) (http://s815.photobucket.com/user/mitchc_1/media/Bike/20131025_090738_zps81b8d956.jpg.html)
geez mitch! .. talk about on the smell of an oily rag! .. stretchin it! :thumb:
Quote from: GS500F2004 on October 24, 2013, 05:06:15 AM
I didn't claim that I made that line up. I in fact said Wikipedia states :icon_confused:
No one uses Newtons as a unit of measurement? You have got to be kidding me. I don't know whether you do engineering or not, but by that kind of statement I would assume you do not. It might be like that in the USA, but the vast majority of the world does NOT use pounds.
People who use the metric system cannot tell you much something weighs in Newtons because it's not a common language term, it's almost invariably used in scientific applications. You are also completely incorrect because Newtons is NOT a unit of MASS. It is a unit of FORCE. So to say something's mass is 10N is as correct as saying something is 18 feet hot. :cookoo:
I'm sorry to say that most of your opinion here is pretty redundant because you assume all along that everyone else thinks the same way people do in the USA. Most people in the rest of the world don't think in pounds, similarly, Newton-metres is easily grasped by the same token as how you described foot-pounds. When I went to school, learning Physics in year 11/12, we dealt with Newtons and Newton metres. Not foot-pounds.
Car/bike owner's manuals here state torque values in Nm, some may have ft-lbs in brackets. When I bought a torque wrench, the eBay description stated the range in Nm, need I go on?
Correct this strange notion you have of assuming that the rest of the world must naturally be in tune with something because you think it to be so. People cannot tell how much force they are applying in terms of Nm? You are obviously in a different part of the world to understand that. Think about it, if one works with Nm, then your muscle memory adapts to that eventually. This is difficult to understand because?
If I lived in the USA, I would adapt to ft-lbs similarly, you just aren't used to it. Similarly, if people give me speeds in mph, I can roughly understand it, but it doesn't have the same meaning to me. It is the same for gallons, ounces, etc.
I think you misread my post, because nowhere did I say that Newton was a unit of mass. And yes, I am an engineer, though I mostly do programming now.
My snarky wikipedia comment was meant to say that we don't need a lesson in what Newtons and torque are, we already know what they are.
The point I was trying to make is that the MOST common force that people deal with every day is weight, and for some reason, people that use the metric system have chosen not to express weight in force units (Newton), and use mass units (kg) instead, which is what I meant when I said that people don't use Newtons in everyday situations. Meanwhile, the imperial system treats weight like any other force, and expresses it with force units (pound), not mass (slug). This simple difference means for most people, conceptually, it is easy to translate that knowledge over to other types of forces, and torque, because they use the same unit.
Quote from: 007brendan on October 25, 2013, 11:00:57 PM
Quote from: GS500F2004 on October 24, 2013, 05:06:15 AM
I didn't claim that I made that line up. I in fact said Wikipedia states :icon_confused:
No one uses Newtons as a unit of measurement? You have got to be kidding me. I don't know whether you do engineering or not, but by that kind of statement I would assume you do not. It might be like that in the USA, but the vast majority of the world does NOT use pounds.
People who use the metric system cannot tell you much something weighs in Newtons because it's not a common language term, it's almost invariably used in scientific applications. You are also completely incorrect because Newtons is NOT a unit of MASS. It is a unit of FORCE. So to say something's mass is 10N is as correct as saying something is 18 feet hot. :cookoo:
I'm sorry to say that most of your opinion here is pretty redundant because you assume all along that everyone else thinks the same way people do in the USA. Most people in the rest of the world don't think in pounds, similarly, Newton-metres is easily grasped by the same token as how you described foot-pounds. When I went to school, learning Physics in year 11/12, we dealt with Newtons and Newton metres. Not foot-pounds.
Car/bike owner's manuals here state torque values in Nm, some may have ft-lbs in brackets. When I bought a torque wrench, the eBay description stated the range in Nm, need I go on?
Correct this strange notion you have of assuming that the rest of the world must naturally be in tune with something because you think it to be so. People cannot tell how much force they are applying in terms of Nm? You are obviously in a different part of the world to understand that. Think about it, if one works with Nm, then your muscle memory adapts to that eventually. This is difficult to understand because?
If I lived in the USA, I would adapt to ft-lbs similarly, you just aren't used to it. Similarly, if people give me speeds in mph, I can roughly understand it, but it doesn't have the same meaning to me. It is the same for gallons, ounces, etc.
I think you misread my post, because nowhere did I say that Newton was a unit of mass. And yes, I am an engineer, though I mostly do programming now.
My snarky wikipedia comment was meant to say that we don't need a lesson in what Newtons and torque are, we already know what they are.
The point I was trying to make is that the MOST common force that people deal with every day is weight, and for some reason, people that use the metric system have chosen not to express weight in force units (Newton), and use mass units (kg) instead, which is what I meant when I said that people don't use Newtons in everyday situations. Meanwhile, the imperial system treats weight like any other force, and expresses it with force units (pound), not mass (slug). This simple difference means for most people, conceptually, it is easy to translate that knowledge over to other types of forces, and torque, because they use the same unit.
You are correct in that respect, I did misread your post somewhat. The average person does not deal with Newtons in a day-to-day basis, but then again, this is besides the point. It is not really a unit needed to be used in day-to-day calculations. I do not know when the misunderstanding between kg and N happened, but it has, and it has stuck. The one redeeming feature with this unfortunate event is that it's roughly a division by 10, so essentially it makes no difference in everyday situations. That is to say 1000N ~ 100kg (on Earth)
There isn't a huge problem actually when working with Newtons, whether or not you're the average person. I quizzed a local riding group here, and almost invariably everyone works in Nm for torquing. The only exception if you can call it that are some of the older people who say they are comfortable with ft-lbs. Probably because they lived through the time when Australia made the switch. If leaving aside this N/kg usage anomaly, the metric system is far superior in every respect. Imperial is an old system, it's outdated, and the metric system was developed particularly to combat the ridiculousness of the derivations of most of the imperial units. All calculations are so much easier as it works on the common sense base 10 system (more or less)
I'm not having a go at you, but I find it very odd that an engineer would be oblivious to the benefits of the SI system. I was reading through this imperial vs metric issue and I find that most scientific institutions in the USA already work in metric, and many places in the USA are already switching gradually (from road signs to consumer labelling) -- so I'm not sure when you exactly studied engineering.
The long and short of it is, yes there is a usage error between weight and mass in metric, but no it doesn't really cause any trouble as you have suggested, and people don't use imperial here, even for forces -- bar some of the older folk. All this being said, going through some of these units made me realise I still use imperial in some situations, I just don't realise/think about it! I suppose some of these units still hold its place in society and it wouldn't really do any harm to keep it. For instance, human height in feet and inches. I still get a little confused by heights in cm and m. Horsepower vs kW, etc.
Oh come on guys! ... Don't go being reasonable and agreeing with each other NOW!.... I've just opened the 3rd box of popcorn! :icon_rolleyes: :flipoff:
... Engineer fights ... I don't always get it... But it's definitely still more entertaining than daytime tv!
Ah...it's no fight, just a little mental stimulation. I'm glad we've had this, I actually learnt a few things :whisper:
Since we're on the topic of refilling, I will tell you my refilling incident today:
So I got my carburettors synch'd the other day, bike was doing roughly 300km - 320km on the 15L main tank before I had to switch to reserve. I noticed recently that I was able to push close to 350km, and I was still on the main tank -- so I thought the carbs must have really been out of whack before the synch. Decided to see how long I'd go today before I had to switch to reserve.
I reached 420km before the bike started to cough a bit, I switched to reserve and it starts to stall violently and then the engine dies. Thinking that I didn't turn to reserve quick enough, I restart the bike (I'm on an uphill section on Cumberland Highway near Fairfield). It starts idling rough and dies again. Wondering what the hell is happening. I restart it again and give it WOT. The bike roars into life and I quickly get into the left lane and turn out of Cumberland Highway. It dies again.
Having a slight suspicion of what's happening I switch it back to main -- it starts but has some rough idling. I look up ahead and it's a slight downhill. I start to accelerate hoping that there's a fuel station. The bike dies again, but to my luck there's a Shell about 200m away. I coast downhill, hang a right and fill up.
When I filled up, it confirmed my suspicion of what's happened
I switched the main and reserve fuel lines around by accident when I was servicing the bike earlier...
:technical: :technical: :technical:
The tank was pretty much dry and I was running on the fumes I think.
20L tank, filled up 19.96L to the TOP.
(http://s22.postimg.org/gry6xmn81/DSC_0025.jpg)
I'm an engineer myself and I say that most people are incorrectly referring to their mass as their weight. In the English system people commonly use lb-mass (since it is a lot smaller than a slug), which coincidentally in numerically equivalent to lb-force (at sea level) yet most people are oblivious to this fact (unless they're scientists, engineers, etc.).
Quote from: radodrill on October 26, 2013, 08:13:57 AM
In the English system
The English system????
Its known as the Imperial system.....at least it is here in England :D
Quote from: sledge on October 26, 2013, 08:55:01 AM
Quote from: radodrill on October 26, 2013, 08:13:57 AM
In the English system
The English system????
Its known as the Imperial system.....at least it is here in England :D
Here in the states I've hear it called the English system, British Gravitational, SAE, and the US Customary; I guess in the UK and it's colonies it's the Imperial, though you use stone etc that we don't
And certain units of measure are not the same between SAE and Imperial units; gallons being a common example. 1 US gallon = 0.83ish Imperial gallons.
Dan