KPH or MPH?

MPH purely because that is what we use in the UK. If I holidayed or lived in a country that used KPH then I would change the computer to be corresponding.

Cyclist14 said:

Last season I used MPH on my computer and this season I've switched over to kilometers, which do you think is a better form of measurement?

I like Kilometers more because they are more precise and linear (i.e: 1 Kilometer=1,000 Meters vs. 1 Mile=5,280 ft.)

Well, precision has nothing to do with the unit of measure. And neither is more linear than the other by the mathematical definition of linear. Both MKS and English units of length are closed under addition and multiplication which makes them both linear.

Metric makes more sense, definitely, but sense is not something we use here in the US. FWIW, I'd use whatever units are mandated by local traffic ordinances.

Cyclist14 said:

Last season I used MPH on my computer and this season I've switched over to kilometers, which do you think is a better form of measurement?

I like Kilometers more because they are more precise and linear (i.e: 1 Kilometer=1,000 Meters vs. 1 Mile=5,280 ft.)

Like El Loto said, whatever is used by the country you're in - I remember the first time I drove "North of the border" into New Brunswick seeing speed limit signs and distance signs change from miles into kilometers - had to go by the other scale on my speedometer....

MPH, since I'm in the USA. I don't know if I would alter my computer settings to KPH if I visit outside the USA. That may screw with my mileage tracking program.

When I first recived my cyclecomputer I set it to MPH because of by training program. However, after a year of not being able to compare rusults when team mates, I'm crossing over to metric.

I use MPH but have often thought about switching to KPH. One reason is that when I watch a professional race, I have a hard time discerning too much when they say, "he is going 40 KPH" or "today's stage is 126 Kilometers." On OLN, they always say, this stage is roughly the distance between "New York and Boston" or "Atlanta and Charlotte." This does little good unless you happen to be somewhat familiar with the geogrpahical relationship of the two cities. I might try KPH for a while to see.

KPH since i´m european

Cyclist14 said:

Last season I used MPH on my computer and this season I've switched over to kilometers, which do you think is a better form of measurement?

How can one be "better" than the other? 😕 😕 😕

At the moment I am using CPH (centimetres per hour) because I am so slow...

Aussie Steve said:

At the moment I am using CPH (centimetres per hour) because I am so slow...

You should start w/ smaller units, like umPH (microns per hour), APH(angstroms per hour). Once you've done enough training and you've reached the level where you're averaging the number of UMPH or APH that you desire, switch to RPHPH (red pubic hairs per hour) to challenge yourself more.

Me? I used to use PPH (parsecs per hour) 'cuz I thought Star Trek was so cool. Then when I started working at NASA I switched to AUPH (astronomical units per hour). Now that I'm doing grad work in optics, I've switched to RHeNeLCLPH (red HeNe laser coherence length per hour).

Start with Mph then switch to Kph . You will think you going like a bat out of hell.
If you can't be great,then lie to yourself as a consolation.

Cyclist14 said:

Last season I used MPH on my computer and this season I've switched over to kilometers, which do you think is a better form of measurement?

I like Kilometers more because they are more precise and linear (i.e: 1 Kilometer=1,000 Meters vs. 1 Mile=5,280 ft.)

Km is more linear? I have no clue what that means. 1km=1000m, 2km=2000m; 1mi=5280 ft, 2mi=10560 ft, etc. Seems like both are linear to me.

I use mph, b/c that's what I'm used to in the US. If I lived in Germany, then I'd use kph.

I use miles. I have a friend I refer to as "Metric Dave." He's such a metric fanatic his favorite trumpeter is Kilometers Davis, and his favorite Who song is "I Can See For Kilometers." He mows his back meter, and if you give the guy a centimeter, he takes a kilometer...

Metric system for me, but then again that is what the street signs say. It just makes it that much easier to watch the tour on television.

MPH vs KPH? neither here nor there. i prefer HIS, hours in saddle. 😉

TKOS said:

Metric system for me, but then again that is what the street signs say. It just makes it that much easier to watch the tour on television.

kph is better, but I won't ever switch to it because I am way too used to mph.

Just imagine if one day the US switched to the metric system. lol

velomanct said:

kph is better, but I won't ever switch to it because I am way too used to mph.

Just imagine if one day the US switched to the metric system. lol

Yeah, that'd be a pain switchin' to a system where changing units was a matter of multiplying be some power of ten

alienator said:

Yeah, that'd be a pain switchin' to a system where changing units was a matter of multiplying be some power of ten

Australia made the switch (for everything bar aviation, which remains feet and nautical miles) some years ago. I remember the time because my parents treated it like they were learning another language, having grown up with imperial measurements. Now, of course, it is all metric. Interestingly people still talk about baby weights in pounds and ounces, even though they would never think about buying a pound of butter from the shop! Make the change - it makes your average speeds on your bike look better, and temperature in metric just makes a whole lot more sense.

Nautical Miles because one NM is equivalent to one minute of arc, which keeps me in touch with the Global Universalism. It is also the only truly logical unit of measure on this planet as it is a relation to the size of the rock we live on.🙄 😄

KPH is better for the ego. You are going SOOO much faster with metric. I really like the suggestion above for centimeters per hour. Now my speed is really going through the roof. Multiplication instead of youth, vigor, stamina! I like it!