Display:
No, it means you would burn an additional 40 litres of fuel if you drove 80km with a flag.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 at 02:42:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh? A horribly inefficient vehicle making 10MPG = 4.23km/L = 0.24L/km, would with the addition of a small flag use 0.74L/km = 1.36km/L = 3.2MPG.

I don't believe it.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 at 02:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what it says, yes.

But if I normally get 60mpg, that's about 20km per litre. So to drive 80km without a flag takes 4 litres.

A flag costs an additional 40 litres over that 80km????

I realise they aren't going to be talking about my car.  But it still seems a suspiciously high figure if talking about cars.  What did they test it on?  A Hummer full of bricks?

(Unless, of course, I've got Wednesday morning syndrome and my maths is screwed.)

by Sassafras on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 at 03:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
35 litres is a full tank for me.

Have they change the design of these flags? I don't remember them being the size of a house and made of brightly painted depleted uranium.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 at 04:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series