Rear disc diameter

The figures given in the manual are actually incorrect. 272mm is 10.71", I appreciate it isn't much of a difference in the conversion to inches, but where mathematics is concerned, it is either right or its wrong.

Ron.
 
SydneyRoverP6B said:
The figures given in the manual are actually incorrect. 272mm is 10.71", I appreciate it isn't much of a difference in the conversion to inches, but where mathematics is concerned, it is either right or its wrong.

Ron.

Just goes to prove what I'm always saying, being "book smart" just don't cut it in the real world.
 
harveyp6 wrote,...
Just goes to prove what I'm always saying, being "book smart" just don't cut it in the real world.

Don't let your Doctor hear you say that... :wink:

Ron.
 
The big question is, were they specified as 10.69" or 272mm, I suspect 10.69", because that makes 271.526 mm which from my A level maths (of 20 odd years ago) rounds up to 272mm
 
webmaster wrote,...
The big question is, were they specified as 10.69" or 272mm, I suspect 10.69", because that makes 271.526 mm which from my A level maths (of 20 odd years ago) rounds up to 272mm

Hello Richard,

The manual shows the metric measurements first followed by the imperial in parentheses. This implies that the imperial is converted from the metric. If however the metric was converted from the imperial, then the way in which it has been presented is incorrect.

Ron.
 
Back
Top