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.
But metric standard is part of the MKS( something like meter,kilogram , second ). universal system. I think the standard length of 1 meter is kept in a laboratory in France or somewhere else in Europe.
That was my point.
We adopted the English system from the British... ironically they moved on we haven't.
I know he/she was joking.. .but if kicking the British out didn't make us adopt metric, doing it he 2nd time most likely won't either...
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,313,597 times
Reputation: 6471
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
For one thing the cost would be enormous especially when you consider something like the construction industry.
Back in the 80's a lumber mill in WA state started milling lumber in metric sizes for sale in Japan. Previously Japan would buy raw logs and float them across the Pacific to be milled in Japan.
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.
Its not like no other country that switched had to deal with the same issues....
Think of it this way, industry is becoming more and more globalized... its going to start costing more to support both.
In software, we have to actually spend lots of development time to handle both... or not do it at all. Our German colleagues that sell our product in Europe are particularly annoyed at us.
Back in the 80's a lumber mill in WA state started milling lumber in metric sizes for sale in Japan. Previously Japan would buy raw logs and float them across the Pacific to be milled in Japan.
That's not the issue, I don't know what the number is but lets say you have something like 500 million structures built with standard sizes typically on 16 inch centers. The ends of any 4'*8' material will fall on the center of stud, joist, outside wall or whatever it may be. If standard sizes are not available you're going to generate a huge amount of waste and work becsue every piece of material would need to be cut to fit.
Its not like no other country that switched had to deal with the same issues..
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.
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.
This is pretty earth shattering, so sit down before you read it.
A 2x4 is not 2x4. And the units used to measure something don't change the size, weight or temperature of it.
This is pretty earth shattering, so sit down before you read it.
A 2x4 is not 2x4. And the units used to measure something don't change the size, weight or temperature of it.
I've been swinging a hammer since I was about 2, I'm well aware of that. That is the case with most houses built after about the 40's but it's really irrelevant, it's the standard sizing throughout the structure and the 16 inches on center that is relevant. You can take a sheet of material that is 4'*8' and fasten it horizontally or vertically and right down the line with adjoining pieces. You don't have to cut to fit for the bulk of it.
FYI there are some older houses built with real 2*4's and this will illustrate the point I'm trying to make. If you need to add studs to an existing wall you neither need to a)rip a wider board down to 4 inches, b)fur a regular 2*4 out to 4 inches or if you needed a lot of them special order them. It's extra work and expense if you are working on a house like that. You'd have the same issue if you switched to metric sizes, of course you could use some odd sized metric sizes that were same as standard but that kind of defeats the purpose.
Why are we not using Kilogram to measure weight and degree Celsius to measure temperature?
Why feet instead of meters and miles instead of Kilometers when it comes to measuring distances ?
Why gallons instead of liters ? What's the deal ?
Sticking to the British old standards?
I'm just curious, did this just hit you? I mean we have been doing this forever. Why question it now?
Here is the view of an old machinist, we do not deal in inches in that crazy 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 scale most of you are used to when thinking of measurements, we figured out long ago that an inch needed to be divided in hundredths. It is an easy system to work with, 1 spin of a handwheel is .100, 1 inch is 10 turns of the wheel, its easy to count 100, 200, and 50 equals 1/4". Most of the machines in my shop are over 50 years old and still going strong and quite accurate, I cannot even imagine the cost of replacing them with newer metric machines.
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.
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.
Last edited by ThePage; 02-08-2015 at 07:09 AM..
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.
