1948berg
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 410
- Location
- Southern Norway
- Tractor
- A Fergie-MF 35 gas- Mf 165- Mf 6161- Unimog- Fiat 880
Stupid question I guess, but is changing to metric measure an issue in USA?
Inch vs metric
- Thread starter 1948berg
- Start date
- Views: 4374
RoyJackson
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2001
- Messages
- 23,144
- Location
- Bethel, Vermont
- Tractor
- John Deere 4052R Cab,, Deere 855D UTV, Z920A Zero Turn Mower and assorted implements
This has been an issue for many years.
The movement to a standardized measurement system is at least 20 years old. The only industry i know of that did make the transition is automotive. Most of the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) drawings are metric...that is, when you get drawings. Most design is transmitted using CAD data now.
As far as the rest of industry, many use a dual system (English measurement called out as the "hard" dimension with metric in parentheses).
I like using the metric system, but I know I'm in the minority in manufacturing when this issue comes up.
The movement to a standardized measurement system is at least 20 years old. The only industry i know of that did make the transition is automotive. Most of the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) drawings are metric...that is, when you get drawings. Most design is transmitted using CAD data now.
As far as the rest of industry, many use a dual system (English measurement called out as the "hard" dimension with metric in parentheses).
I like using the metric system, but I know I'm in the minority in manufacturing when this issue comes up.
Bird
Rest in Peace
Yep, it's a big issue. The metric system is so much simpler and more logical if you're accustomed to it, but since most of us grew up learning inches, feet, yards, miles, pints, quarts, gallons, etc., it's tough to change, not to mention having to buy two sets of wrenches, both metric and SAE. I think most, if not all, our cars have speedometers that show both miles and kilometers per hour, canned or packaged grocery items are labelled with both systems, and many other items are labelled with both. Maybe someday we'll go entirely to the metric system, but I'd bet money it won't be in my lifetime. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
OP
1948berg
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 410
- Location
- Southern Norway
- Tractor
- A Fergie-MF 35 gas- Mf 165- Mf 6161- Unimog- Fiat 880
Modern stuff and horses
Ouote
"Modern Technology and Horses' Asses
Sometimes we don't realize what the past has done to shape the modern world, intentionally or otherwise. Take this story for instance about the US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) for trains. The gauge is exactly 4 feet 8.5 inches. If a train system had actually managed to operate in Brunei we would have the same measurement too. (Extra info - there is an old railtrack near Lumut, unfortunately or fortunately that's about the last time Brunei had any trains.) This same gauge is used on the British inter-cities and the ultra-modern high speed lines as France's TGV, Germany's ICE and the Japanese Shinkansen Bullet Trains.
Anyway, why use this measurement? Apparently this is the gauge used by the English who built them in England and who then built them in the US. Why did the English used that gauge? It's because the people who first build trains are the same people who first build the tramways they used in cities in England. They used the same equipment and other what nots to then build trains. And why did these people used the gauge of 4 feet 8.5 inches? It's because they were using again the same equipment that they had used for building wagons to build tramways.
Why did wagons have that 4 feet 8.5 inches measurement? Apparently if they had used some other measurement, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England and Europe because that was the spacing of the wheel ruts. Who was it then who built those rutted old roads? It was the Romans! The roads were formed by Roman war chariots made to specifications by the Imperial Rome government for use throughout Europe.
So, the modern rail track used by Americans and more than 60% of the railtracks in the world are influenced by the military specifications decided more than 2,000 years ago. And why did the Romans choose that width? It is because the Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back end of the two war horses that hauled the chariots. So today, you have it, the world's modern train track width was decided upon by the width of the buttocks of horses!
Interestingly, the engineers who made the booster rockets attached to the Space Shuttle were forced to the width they have now because those booster rockets had to be delivered by train from factory to the launch site and the train had to run through a tunnel where the tunnel is just slightly wider than the train tracks and train tracks obivously were the width of two horses' rear ends. So a major design of the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years agao by the width of a horse's back end!
Some people have used this story to make the point that a government's bureaucracy and technical specifications lived forever. Me? I leave you to make up your own mind, but it does seem to be a case of the old saying, “if it works, don’t change it!” even if it's 2,000 years old. "
Ouote
"Modern Technology and Horses' Asses
Sometimes we don't realize what the past has done to shape the modern world, intentionally or otherwise. Take this story for instance about the US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) for trains. The gauge is exactly 4 feet 8.5 inches. If a train system had actually managed to operate in Brunei we would have the same measurement too. (Extra info - there is an old railtrack near Lumut, unfortunately or fortunately that's about the last time Brunei had any trains.) This same gauge is used on the British inter-cities and the ultra-modern high speed lines as France's TGV, Germany's ICE and the Japanese Shinkansen Bullet Trains.
Anyway, why use this measurement? Apparently this is the gauge used by the English who built them in England and who then built them in the US. Why did the English used that gauge? It's because the people who first build trains are the same people who first build the tramways they used in cities in England. They used the same equipment and other what nots to then build trains. And why did these people used the gauge of 4 feet 8.5 inches? It's because they were using again the same equipment that they had used for building wagons to build tramways.
Why did wagons have that 4 feet 8.5 inches measurement? Apparently if they had used some other measurement, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England and Europe because that was the spacing of the wheel ruts. Who was it then who built those rutted old roads? It was the Romans! The roads were formed by Roman war chariots made to specifications by the Imperial Rome government for use throughout Europe.
So, the modern rail track used by Americans and more than 60% of the railtracks in the world are influenced by the military specifications decided more than 2,000 years ago. And why did the Romans choose that width? It is because the Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back end of the two war horses that hauled the chariots. So today, you have it, the world's modern train track width was decided upon by the width of the buttocks of horses!
Interestingly, the engineers who made the booster rockets attached to the Space Shuttle were forced to the width they have now because those booster rockets had to be delivered by train from factory to the launch site and the train had to run through a tunnel where the tunnel is just slightly wider than the train tracks and train tracks obivously were the width of two horses' rear ends. So a major design of the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years agao by the width of a horse's back end!
Some people have used this story to make the point that a government's bureaucracy and technical specifications lived forever. Me? I leave you to make up your own mind, but it does seem to be a case of the old saying, “if it works, don’t change it!” even if it's 2,000 years old. "
Egon
Epic Contributor
There are many other versions of the why's of the width of Railway track.
Metric is much simpler but I'll always think in feet, yards,miles etc.
Now I sure wish I knew how much a barrel be' it half full or half empty, held but I do now what the size of a cubic meter of water is! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Egon /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Metric is much simpler but I'll always think in feet, yards,miles etc.
Now I sure wish I knew how much a barrel be' it half full or half empty, held but I do now what the size of a cubic meter of water is! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Egon /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Inspector507
Super Member
Roy,
An interesting thing I've noticed concerning your comment
<font color="blue"> As far as the rest of industry, many use a dual system (English measurement called out as the "hard" dimension with metric in parentheses). </font>
The National Electrical Code®, which started out close to 100 years ago as a fire insurance guide. It has been for years used internationally and is now referenced as part of the International Electrical Code® Series. It used to have the hard measurement in English with the metric in parenthesis. Starting with the 2002 or maybe the 1999, it has been reversed. Metric is now the listed hard measurement with English in parenthesis.
So I don't know how long it may take the construction industry to change, but I think it will.
An interesting thing I've noticed concerning your comment
<font color="blue"> As far as the rest of industry, many use a dual system (English measurement called out as the "hard" dimension with metric in parentheses). </font>
The National Electrical Code®, which started out close to 100 years ago as a fire insurance guide. It has been for years used internationally and is now referenced as part of the International Electrical Code® Series. It used to have the hard measurement in English with the metric in parenthesis. Starting with the 2002 or maybe the 1999, it has been reversed. Metric is now the listed hard measurement with English in parenthesis.
So I don't know how long it may take the construction industry to change, but I think it will.
Bird
Rest in Peace
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( don't know how long it may take the construction industry to change )</font>
There's one part of the construction business I'd like to see changed and that is the lumber part of carpentry. A 2 x 4 ought to be 2" by 4" and I wouldn't care whether they used metric or not. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
There's one part of the construction business I'd like to see changed and that is the lumber part of carpentry. A 2 x 4 ought to be 2" by 4" and I wouldn't care whether they used metric or not. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
turnkey4099
Elite Member
It's not at all tough to change. All you have to do is dive into it and live it. Within a week you would wonder why anyone would have wanted the old system. MOst of the reaction against it is the people who insist on trying to convert metric back to English before they understand it. Example is buying groceries.
"How much milk is in a liter...hmmm....let's see, I think a liter is bigger than a quart soo..."
Who Cares!? You don't buy a quart of milk now. You buy a carton of milk "that size". Same as wrenches. You don't reach for a 9/16, you reach for "that wrench" and would do the same in Metric except you would have fewer to sort through.
Harry K
"How much milk is in a liter...hmmm....let's see, I think a liter is bigger than a quart soo..."
Who Cares!? You don't buy a quart of milk now. You buy a carton of milk "that size". Same as wrenches. You don't reach for a 9/16, you reach for "that wrench" and would do the same in Metric except you would have fewer to sort through.
Harry K
Cliff_Johns
Elite Member
It is 2X4 Bird. But that's the rough dimension before drying, jointing and thickness planning.
Personally, I rather like the english system (as it's called). The measurements are more human oriented rathern than some random thing like basing the unit on the size of the earth.
Also, If you start with an inch, and divide by two you get half and inch, then a quarter of an inch, then a sixteenth etc.
In metric, things are setup to divide by tens, which isn't what you usually want when you're doing approximations etc. If the length is between 2 and 3/16 and 2 and 4/16 (1/4) then you know it's about 2 and 7/32. If it's between 24mm and 25 mm, it's generally considered just wrong or close enough (or you start using half's etc which isn't metric at all and yes, you can switch dimensions completely to micrometers, but that's even more confusing.). Woodworking measurements are not as straight forward in metric. I've read many old woodworkers in england and other parts of europe regret the conversion.
Doesn't matter to me much one way or the other, though I was more enthusiatic about it before I got into woodworking and understood how inappropriate metric was for the job. S
till, things are done both ways and everyone gets thier job done.
Cliff
Personally, I rather like the english system (as it's called). The measurements are more human oriented rathern than some random thing like basing the unit on the size of the earth.
Also, If you start with an inch, and divide by two you get half and inch, then a quarter of an inch, then a sixteenth etc.
In metric, things are setup to divide by tens, which isn't what you usually want when you're doing approximations etc. If the length is between 2 and 3/16 and 2 and 4/16 (1/4) then you know it's about 2 and 7/32. If it's between 24mm and 25 mm, it's generally considered just wrong or close enough (or you start using half's etc which isn't metric at all and yes, you can switch dimensions completely to micrometers, but that's even more confusing.). Woodworking measurements are not as straight forward in metric. I've read many old woodworkers in england and other parts of europe regret the conversion.
Doesn't matter to me much one way or the other, though I was more enthusiatic about it before I got into woodworking and understood how inappropriate metric was for the job. S
till, things are done both ways and everyone gets thier job done.
Cliff
JoeR
Platinum Member
Metric is not as granular as the English system. I am not saying this is the reason since I think Metric is easier, but it is has shortcomings too. For example, from freezing to boiling Metric is 0 to 100C. In English untis you have 32F to 212F, so you have 180 values vs. 100 metric values to measure the same range. The same for inches and mm. I have drill bits that go down to the 1/64", but the metric ones are usually in half mm. Once again, there is a granularity difference.
Just my 2 cents...
Joe
Just my 2 cents...
Joe
