SAE is used to refer to a measuring system just as Kleenex is used to refer to a boxed tissue and Windex is commonly used to refer to glass cleaner. When one calls a company “ISO certified”, one is referring to the company’s quality system, even though ISO is actually the prefix used by the International Organization for Standardization to designnate “standard”, as in “isometric”. The 9000 series of documents is just one of a great many.
Acronyms and proper nouns can and do become also adjectives and sometimes improper nouns. Language is a wonderfully flexable thing. Except to an English teacher. Which is probably why that was never a good subject for me in school…
Fuel efficiency would be better measured by liters per 100 tonne-kilometer. Or gallons per 100 ton-miles?
(quantity of fuel)/( (distance travelled)*(mass) ). Akin to ‘specific fuel consumption’.
The English flip-side would be TMPG: ton-miles per gallon
This would put a large SUV, micro-car, scooter or locomotive on the same footing.
[now let’s see how much flack I catch for simply tossing out a wild idea]
[/daydream]
So YES…the term SAE is used to mean a measuring system by mechanics and engineers in the Automotive industry
Under whose authority is this done? Does SAE approve and if they do, what SAE standard are the tools made to? What about the metric tools are they not backed by an SAE standard? Show me where SAE itself uses the term to mean a measuring
collection of units?
The NIST doesn’t use the symbol SAE to mean a measuring system. They use the symbol USC, meaning United States Customary Units (they even acknowledge that USC is not a system).
The tools were called SAE because at one time the tools met SAE specifications and it was never implied they meant a measuring collection of units.
SAE is used to refer to a measuring system just as Kleenex is used to refer to a boxed tissue and Windex is commonly used to refer to glass cleaner. When one calls a company “ISO certified”, one is referring to the company’s quality system, even though ISO is actually the prefix used by the International Organization for Standardization to designnate “standard”, as in “isometric”. The 9000 series of documents is just one of a great many.
Acronyms and proper nouns can and do become also adjectives and sometimes improper nouns. Language is a wonderfully flexable thing. Except to an English teacher. Which is probably why that was never a good subject for me in school…
You’re examples don’t make it right. By doing what you are doing is denying that SAE is in fact a very metric organization today and only uses USC as an afterthought. You are trying to imply a very strong connection between SAE and USC which no longer exists. At least Kleenex is still tissue.
NIST uses the term USC and that means United States Customary Units. That is the correct term to describe non-metric units customarily used in the US.
What it all proves is you know nothing about SAE and are trying to mold SAE into some old-fashioned entity from the past. They have evolved (and continue to do so), you need to to keep up with them.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ… huh? Still on SAE?.. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
[now let’s see how much flack I catch for simply tossing out a wild idea]
Well, circuitsmith, if you want to “level the playing field” by weighting MPG (or GPM) by vehicle weight, I’d humbly suggest it should be weighted by PAYLOAD, not GVWR. You could determine the most efficient vehicle per 1,000 pound payload, or passenger seat, or whatever. Of course, this is somewhat irrelevant if one regularly operates the vehicle at a small fraction of payload capacity.
[and to really nitpick, it should be per POUND/KG* of fuel weight, not volume, to compensate for temperature, and for the higher BTU/gal of diesel (which happens to be very close to gasoline on a BTU/pound measure.)]
*[to really, really nitpick, it should be noted that lbs and kg aren’t exactly compatible measures–one is weight, the other mass.]
Ametrika - Your tone and attitude and general writing is the same as another poster who was here just to agitate the same way you are. Your superiority complex is EXACTLY the same…I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re not one in the same as “Cars Cause Cancer”. Same attitude…and you add NOTHING to the forum.
Bear in mind that there is really no such thing as a Superiority Complex!
In reality, what you are observing is an inverse manifestation of an Inferiority Complex, and that condition leads some people to post diatribes that are both pedantic and hostile .
Ametrika - Your tone and attitude and general writing is the same as another poster who was here just to agitate the same way you are. Your superiority complex is EXACTLY the same…I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re not one in the same as “Cars Cause Cancer”. Same attitude…and you add NOTHING to the forum.
A superiority complex can work both ways. There are those who get a wrong idea in their head and refuse to be corrected and their superiority complex puts them in a defensive mood.
I’m sure you have been posting here for years and feel like that makes you special to the point you can’t be corrected. So your tone and attitude are no better.
You are not in a position to tell me whether I add something to the forum or not. I’m not posting here hoping to have a nice chat with you, but in the hopes that someone who blindly comes by and reads these posts doesn’t automatically assume you are right because you are not being corrected.
Ametrika, regarding your opinion of me:
“What it all proves is you know nothing about SAE and are trying to mold SAE into some old-fashioned entity from the past. They have evolved (and continue to do so), you need to to keep up with them.”
My response is…“yaaawn”. With emphasis.
You must be right. I must know nothing. Here I sit in my absolute ignorance, pondering the future of the universe. What a wonderful world.