Is it Time to get Onboard with Metric Measurements?

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

The Hemi in my Ram is 345 cubic inches and makes 375 horsepower.

Liters reminds me of 2 liter Cokes bottles, when all the other ones are in ounces. Why is that?

Because the 2 liter soda bottles hit the market during the 1970s attempt at metric conversion. The expectation was that the other packaging would gradually follow. It didn't, but the 2 liter bottle was well-received enough to become established, so they just stuck with it.

[Glennwillow]

I seem to remember in the US effort to go metric that folks doing cooking in the early 70s had a particularly hard time with all portions or measurements being metric. Ounces and cup measurements were what cooks were used to in the US while ml was what you used in a chemistry lab.

I have worked in the pump and fluid systems business for the last 45 years and in my world it's generally understand that GPM (gallons/minute) is generally expressed as US GPM. True Imperial GPM is 20% different. Even in the metric system some countries predominantly use l/s (liters/second) for flow while others use m3/hr (cubic meters/hour). The conversion between the two (3.6) is fairly easy, but still, for those who feel that converting numbers is horribly onerous, the conversion problem is still not solved.

We human beings tend to be inconsistent.

- Glenn

[Murphy Slaw]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

We human beings tend to be inconsistent.

Yep.

If there's one thing we're consistent about...…..

[rllink]

My friend almost always states his opinion with, "logic would tell you," or "common sense should tell you." I always respond that logic has no place in an illogical world and that his common sense is nowhere close to my common sense.

[brad4d8]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

....But it came as a real surprise when many years later I learned the USA still used Imperial measurements - the country with decimal currency.

Interestingly, the US Gov't. used to, and may still, use the decimal system for a measurement not usually done that way anywhere. When my father went to work for the US Post Office (1958), the time clock was divided into 100 units instead of 60 minutes. The reason? It mad it easier to determine what percentage of an hour to pay for partially worked hours.
When the attempted switch to metric took place in the 70s. the pushback from industry was overwhelming. The main argument was the cost of retooling existing machinery. I would guess that these days with CNC machinery becoming the norm, that expense would be a minimum.
Brad

[loco gringo]

The hard part about converting is getting past the conversion stage to the naturally using stage.

[Earl49]

In engineering school everything was metric (graduated 1983) and I was fluent with either system. Since being out in the industry I rarely see any metric measurements. Personally I could go either way -- just pick one. Imperial gallons (as used in Canada and the UK) is different from the US system. It is akin to knots versus mph and nautical miles versus statute miles. I can do the 15% conversions in my head while flying, but it forces a change of mindset.....

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

I seem to remember in the US effort to go metric that folks doing cooking in the early 70s had a particularly hard time with all portions or measurements being metric. Ounces and cup measurements were what cooks were used to in the US while ml was what you used in a chemistry lab.

I bake bread, and I converted my recipes from Imperial volume based measurements (e.g. 3 cups flour, 1 cup water, 1 tsp salt) to metric weight based measurements (435g flour, 235g water, 6g salt). The recipes are now 100% consistently repeatable and easily scalable. Flour especially should always be measured this way, because inconsistencies in how densely it packs can affect how much actual flour is in one cup.

Some of you may be surprised at that, given my defense of Imperial earlier in the thread. Metric measurements have their strengths too, and this is one of them. Recipes are essentially chemistry formulae, and science is better in metric.

My wife still bakes using old-style volume measurements, and her results are usually delicious but considerably more variable.

[Dru Edwards]

+1 on all counts. I convert a lot of stuff roughly in my head (i.e. 2.54 cm/inch, 2.2 lbs/kg) and it has helped me get along, especially since I worked in the US 10 years.

As someone who recently had a new house built ... yep, 16" stud centers and drywall is 4x8, and the 2.5" screws I used for my Hercules hangers.

Originally Posted by PHJim

<<snippet>>
Canada converted to Metric in the early to mid-seventies, but even now lumber is still sold by the foot. We still have 2 by 4s and houses are built with 16" stud centers and drywall still comes in 4 X 8 sheets.

Temperature is always given in Celsius and speed limits are in kph. The doctor measures your height and weight in metric, but most folks still think Imperial for height and weight.
You can see that even after nearly 50 years, we're still not completely converted.

<<snippet>>

[Mirosh]

The old system is so pervasive, it'd be more hassle than it's worth to undo it. Bicycles, for example use ball bearings of 1/4", 3/16", 5/32" and 1/8" and have for well over a century. In time more and more bearings will be sealed units, replaceable but not repairable, so it won't matter what's inside as long as the bearing works. Bicycle wheels and tires have switched over to metric designations in the last 30 years or so, but some inch-based rims and tires are still made.

On guitars, string gauges also are measured in inches, but using a decimal rather than fraction. That works well for measuring relief (in fact I use a piece of .010" guitar string as a feeler gauge.) But I prefer mm for measurements like nut width and string action height. Some number of millimeters, with a decimal point when needed, makes for easier comparisons than 8ths or 16ths or 32nds or 64ths of an inch.

Tradition and long-time practice have a lot of value and utility. So does the metric system. So it makes sense to use both, have your preferences, and choose your battles. For me, there's no battle here.

[guitargabor]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

The metric system appeals to my sense of logic, it makes more sense to me. Not hard to use both but the only real argument for Imperial is “cause I don’t want to change”. Not all that compelling but I’ll grant most in the US fall into that camp with regard to weights and measures.

I was in school in Canada when the conversion to metric was taking place.
To me the metric system was so much easier to understand and use.

Look at this observation:"Pint. ... The imperial pint is equal to approximately 568 mL. In the United States, the liquid pint is approximately 473 mL while the dry pint is 551 mL."

Just goofy IMO

When will the US get it?

Gabe

[JonWint]

Get used to multi system use. Some measurements will never change systems.

Martin nut widths will always be inches-fractions. Do you prefer a 42.9mm or 44.5mm or a 43.7mm nut? Shellac will be mixed in pounds/gallon proportions. Guitar body dimensions will be in inches-fractions. Top thicknesses will be decimal inches. Sorry, pyramid bridges will always be 7/8”, 15/16”, or 1” wide.

I use whatever system is more convenient. Car frame fabrication was easier in metric versus feet inches-fractions for my old brain/memory system. Engine building is metric on the newer stuff. Bucket tappet shims come in 0.5mm increments.

I prefer buying gasoline in US gallons. It is often cheaper $ per gallon than € per liter.

I do like the 508mm (or are they 20”) wheels on my vehicle.

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

The Hemi in my Ram is 345 cubic inches and makes 375 horsepower.

Liters reminds me of 2 liter Cokes bottles, when all the other ones are in ounces. Why is that?

So you have a 5.6 litre making 280 kilowatts.
If you've been around motorcycles you'll notice many model designations are based around the engine capacity in c.c. - Cubic Centimeters - a metric measurement.
e.g. Honda 750 - so named as it has a 750cc displacement engine.

Now here's the beauty of metric - 1000cc = 1 litre
so a 750cc is 0.75 litre.

It's been around us in car models too.
e.g. - The Datsun 240Z has a 2.4 litre engine, the 260Z went 200cc larger with a 2.6 litre engine.

The BMW 2002 is a 2.0 litre 2 door.

[loco gringo]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

Now here's the beauty of metric - 1000cc = 1 litre
so a 750cc is .075 litre.

I think your decimal place is showing.

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by loco gringo

I think your decimal place is showing.

Ha, you're right!
750cc - 0.75 litre.