Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how you deal with it since these structures already exist, if I gut my house I need 4'*8' sheets of material and that is not going to change.
"However, a formal government policy to support metrication was not agreed until 1965. This policy, initiated in response to requests from industry, was to support voluntary metrication, with costs picked up where they fell. In 1969 the government created the Metrication Board as a Quango to promote and coordinate metrication. In 1978, after some carpet retailers reverted to pricing by the square yard rather than the square metre, government policy shifted, and they started issuing orders making metrication mandatory in certain sectors."
I'm sure structures existed in the UK prior to Metrication Board of the 1960's and 70s. What they did was simply expressed metric measurement equivalents on packaging until people became familiar with them. Notice that canned goods from overseas are expressed in metric with english equivalent in smaller font.
By the way... you can have 1.2m * 2.4m sheet of wood. Just because you express measurements in metric doesn't necessarily mean those specific sizes cease to exist. We've also stop making actual 2"x4" studs.... the construction industry didn't exactly implode.
For one thing the cost would be enormous especially when you consider something like the construction industry. You will always have the need for 2"*4"'s and sheets of material 8'*4'*. You can switch to the metric system but that leaves you three choices.
1)Dual system which is going to be expensive for both shipping, storing especially when you consider it's set up for standard material. You'll need to add accommodations for metric material plus the expense of dual sizes. Somewhat pointless since most contractors will opt for the older sizes anyway.
2)Single metric system with regular metric sizes which is going to cause a lot of waste and subsequently expense.
3)Relabel the standard sizes with metric sizes which would just be stupidity.
2 inches is 5 cm, all you have to is change the label, it was called 2 by 4, and now it's called 5 by 10. I think that metric system allows better measurements then inches. I can measure to a millimeter rather then a quater inch, so construction industry will benefit.
I don't see what's wrong with #3. It may look like a funny number when converted (e.g. 2x4 is 60 cm by 120 cm) but they are still decimal numbers, and decimals are intuitively easy to understand. .
I'm a physicist by training, so working in SI is quite natural for me for technical subjects. Yet the current system of measure also has practical uses, in that the in between sizes are easily relatable. For example, that 2x4 you mentioned, would be about 50.8 mm x 101.6 mm, except of course that's not the final dimensioned size as has been discussed elsewhere. I think the real problem for SI in every day use is the jump in scale is a power of ten, but most people naturally think in powers of 2. Also that power of 10 means a mm is really small, a cm is small but a bit larger but still less than half an inch, then we jump all the way to the meter (yes I know, there is the decimeter but who uses that) whereas in the English system, we go from inch to foot to yard. It's having that useful in between measure and a useful fractional size that makes keep the English system going. Yes, if we had the SI system, everyone would eventually adapt. The big question is the value add worth the cost?
I think that metric system allows better measurements then inches. I can measure to a millimeter rather then a quater inch, so construction industry will benefit.
I'm not saying it's not a better system, it's absolutely better simply becsue it's based on 10. FYI I've never seen a tape measure that didn't go to at least 1/16th's and often have 32nd's which is little smaller than a mm.
Metric is used in the sciences, where it makes the most sense. In the rest of life, it doesn't really matter. Is metric easier when doing calculations? Sure, but there's nothing wrong with the system that's in place - it's perfectly functional and has served us well for a very long time.
Completely agree with you. I have a B.S. in Meteorology so I'm pretty used to the metric system. Not just in meteorology but also in other science fields. All physics and chem classes used metric. There was also some switching between metric and english. Metric is great for the sciences and it makes sense. But the general public doesn't need to deal with conversions all the time. Temperature doesn't matter. Nobody really struggles to remember the freezing point or the boiling point and no calculations have to be done figuring out what to wear for the day. Stepping on a scale and seeing kilograms or pounds doesn't change anything. Except for a few science lovers no one is gonna calculate Newtons of force while driving a car or calculate torque. Distances might be problematic as those are often divided down. Figuring out how many feet are in 1/8th of a mile is a lot trickier than meters in 1/8th of a kilometer. A lot of times on the road you'll see "Lane ends in 500 feet" or something like that. That's not an easy conversion into miles. Still, in most situations, it really just does not matter.
Having owned a home with real 2*4's I can tell you it's a pita.
Yup mine is a 1920s home. But that's my point. Whether the measurements are in metric or english the same issues will still continue to exist. Not to the point that it will cause a stop or massive changes to how newer homes will be built.
In fact, probably be better for other goods that will most likely be exported (or even imported)
Everything is costly in America.
Here is the perception one might have:
Let's put more teachers in classrooms. No it is going to be expensive.
Let's teach civic education and moral values in our schools. No it is going to be expensive.
Let's repair our roads. No it is going to be expensive.
Let's have a subway train system in that big city. No it is going to be expensive.
Let's put more lights in our streets. No it is going to be expensive.
Let's put a bus schedule at each bus stop. No it is going to be expensive.
Let's have have insurance so that at least those who lost their jobs for one reason or another can have a chance to go to hospital when there are sick. No it is going to be expensive.
The issue isn't that it's necessarily costly, but that there isn't a business-case. In America, if there is not a robust business case for a given change in custom, process or policy, then said change isn't going to happen, even if in principle the change is worthwhile. In America it is anathema to have a centralized body of authority to decree that such-and-such is going to happen, even if in the abstract the decree is sensible. If there is no business-case to institute some change organically, then it just won't happen, short of some crisis that jars the system.
Elsewhere in the world, even in thriving pluralistic democracies, there is more acceptance of centralized directives, and less contempt of such things as being bullheaded, self-serving, corrupt and inept.
Yup mine is a 1920s home. But that's my point. Whether the measurements are in metric or english the same issues will still continue to exist.
The width of 2*4 is relatively minor issue compared to changing the size of other material. You can simply fur out a regular 2*4 with half inch piece of plywood. If a sheet plywood or drywall is a different measurement it has to be cut to fit, the ends have to fall on the center of a stud. There is other issues involved with his as well such as tongue and groove plywood and beveled ends on drywall.
If for example you were to gut a house every piece of drywall would need to be cut to fit. That's a huge amount of waste and extra work.
As I said before the only viable solution is relabeling them and that IMO is pointless.
Quote:
In fact, probably be better for other goods that will most likely be exported (or even imported)
If it's profitable these companies will be exporting material sized for those places if they are not already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
