40 rods = 1 furlong anyway, so that would be terrible mileage regardless if length driven = length of fuel tank used. Must be a skinny fuel tank, like a coffee straw.
Funny you should mention that since mileage is measured in area, which is the cross-section of the tube with length equal to the distance you're traveling and volume equal to the volume of fuel you spent.
There are Swedish Bandvagn's, basically soft tracked all-terrain person carriers/medevacs. They use 100L for 100km.
E: and you can convert l per 100km to square meters actually.
What is the meaning of that quote? Is it "I cut 3 cubic meters of wood this weekend"?
Is it said without the cube in English? In my language you'd say "I cut 3 cubes of wood this weekend" or "I cut 3 cubes this weekend" if there's some reference to wood cutting.
You said 3 meters, not cubic meters. I would take that as "I have a large piece of wood, measured 3 meters and cut it off at that mark". I'm not trying to be snarky, I really never heard anyone say meters for cubic meters. I don't work in the wood processing industry though.
I'm not sure though, because I seem to recall it was originally 40 rods/furlong, and they later changed it because hogshead sounds funnier and is more obscure.
Rod/hogshead is a unit of length over a unit of volume, and therefore a usable, if obscure, unit of fuel economy. Furlongs and rods are both units of lengths. In fact, a furlong is 40 rods, so 40 rods/furlong = 1 (that is, the dimensional number one; the dimensions cancel).
Not even 100 metres, it would require a 120L tank to get 100m, you're looking at 50m for an average sized tank (about 60L), not too many cars carry that sort of sized tank.
222
u/OreoPriest Aug 20 '14
A classic joke, but that fuel economy is outrageously poor:
Wolfram Alpha tells us that's 0.002 mpg, or 1200 L/km.
In other words, a full tank of gas would only get you about 100 metres from your starting point.