Why METRIC!!!!!!
02-15-2005, 01:13 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Grants Pass OREGON
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why METRIC!!!!!!
Why is it Dodge & Ford have gone to Metric everything. What happened to the good ole days of 1/2", 9/16, etc..... Now it looks like I have to buy a metric tool set!!!!!!!
02-15-2005, 03:00 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ramsey, MN
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a conspiracy propagated by Snap-On, Craftsman, S-K, and the rest of the toolmakers to force us buy more tools. That's why there are specialty tools you need to buy for specific make/model/year vehicles. At least that’s what I tell my wife whenever I want/need to go buy another tool…
02-15-2005, 07:44 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Western New Mexico
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the American way. Keeps everybody working and creates new markets.
Think about it this way, if all fasteners were SAE and the engineers designed things to be repaired easily with std tools, and the auto companies built cars to last 30 years and 1,000,000 miles, Think about the money you would save!!!! The down side to that dream is nobody would be working either so you wouldn't have a job or anything to save.
Think about it this way, if all fasteners were SAE and the engineers designed things to be repaired easily with std tools, and the auto companies built cars to last 30 years and 1,000,000 miles, Think about the money you would save!!!! The down side to that dream is nobody would be working either so you wouldn't have a job or anything to save.
02-15-2005, 08:21 PM
#7
Administrator
On our trucks anyway, they are built in Mexico by a German company.
(well, mine is of mexican decent).
Nothing SAE about that marriage.
I had a 1974 Plymouth Fury that had metric scattered here and there in it.
Apparantly it was of Canadian ancestry.
If it wasn't for this mix, we'd have pretty empty toolboxes now wouldn't we.
phox
(well, mine is of mexican decent).
Nothing SAE about that marriage.
I had a 1974 Plymouth Fury that had metric scattered here and there in it.
Apparantly it was of Canadian ancestry.
If it wasn't for this mix, we'd have pretty empty toolboxes now wouldn't we.
phox
Trending Topics
02-15-2005, 09:37 PM
#8
The main problem with the metric system is it isn't based on every day use. The S.A.E. system was picked because it was made of easy to use increments. The metric system? Bah. "And then we take the Earth's diameter and divide it by 10 million...".
I mean, two feet. Very very useful and easy ito estimate. Now, what is two feet in metric? is it .34 meters, or 340 centimeters, or 3400 millimeters, or what? What is it? It's 34 millionths of the diameter of the Earth, that's what!
Metric weights and other stuff suffers from the same problems.
The best is temperature... About the time after all the school teachers finish saying "This is celcius. This, is God..." they continue to say "now, celsius is in fact worthless.... This! is Kelvin..."
I mean, two feet. Very very useful and easy ito estimate. Now, what is two feet in metric? is it .34 meters, or 340 centimeters, or 3400 millimeters, or what? What is it? It's 34 millionths of the diameter of the Earth, that's what!
Metric weights and other stuff suffers from the same problems.
The best is temperature... About the time after all the school teachers finish saying "This is celcius. This, is God..." they continue to say "now, celsius is in fact worthless.... This! is Kelvin..."
02-15-2005, 10:08 PM
#9
I find it very annoying as well.... Just hand me a 9/16" please....
However the advantage of metric is everything is easily divisble by 10.
ie. 10 mm in one cm
100 cm in one metre
1000 m in one kilometre
1000 grams in a kilogram
1000 kilograms in one tonne.
1000 millilitres in a litre
0ne militre of water weighs one gram and occupies one cubic centimetre.
So............. if the whole world actually followed one system, life WOULD be easier.
But for now, I think I'll go to the hardware store and buy a 2"x4" (that is actaully like, 1 11/16" x 3 13/16" that is 312 cm long......... 
However the advantage of metric is everything is easily divisble by 10.
ie. 10 mm in one cm
100 cm in one metre
1000 m in one kilometre
1000 grams in a kilogram
1000 kilograms in one tonne.
1000 millilitres in a litre
0ne militre of water weighs one gram and occupies one cubic centimetre.
So............. if the whole world actually followed one system, life WOULD be easier.
But for now, I think I'll go to the hardware store and buy a 2"x4" (that is actaully like, 1 11/16" x 3 13/16"
that is 312 cm long.........
02-15-2005, 11:12 PM
#12
Chapter President
The arguement about temperature made me laugh.. . What is the freezing point of water??? Ummm 0°C. Good place to start now we can go up and down from there. Whats that 32°F???? Sure cuz salt in water freezes there Great if you want to know when the ocean freezes, but of little use to me on the pond, or when my sled is gonna be in the slush...
Boiling.. 212°F. Sure, sounds like a nice number..
100°C, sounds reasonable to me to be a whole factor of 10's above freezing..
Thats a Canuk for ya..
One way to secure a shipment to the States (I learned this). Use Robertson head screws on the lid.. Seems like its not a readily available screw driver end??
J-eh
Great if you want to know when the ocean freezes, but of little use to me on the pond, or when my sled is gonna be in the slush...Boiling.. 212°F. Sure, sounds like a nice number.
.100°C, sounds reasonable to me to be a whole factor of 10's above freezing..
Thats a Canuk for ya..
One way to secure a shipment to the States (I learned this). Use Robertson head screws on the lid.. Seems like its not a readily available screw driver end??
J-eh
02-15-2005, 11:58 PM
#13
Registered User
It's all about what you're used to. I find the metric system easier to use and much easier to learn. Everything is based on powers of 10. Our system is based on inches, feet, yards, rods, miles, chains, and whatever else they had to measure against.
Here's an interesting bit on the spacing of railroad tracks:
Railroads
Does the statement, "We've always done it that way" ring any bells? Read to the end.
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?
Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built the US Railroads.
Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did "they" use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And bureaucracies live forever.
So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's *** came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.
Now the twist to the story...
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ***. .... and you thought being a HORSE'S *** wasn't important!
Here's an interesting bit on the spacing of railroad tracks:
Railroads
Does the statement, "We've always done it that way" ring any bells? Read to the end.
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?
Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built the US Railroads.
Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did "they" use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And bureaucracies live forever.
So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's *** came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.
Now the twist to the story...
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ***. .... and you thought being a HORSE'S *** wasn't important!
02-16-2005, 09:22 AM
#15
Registered User
Originally posted by spunbearing
Look on the bright side. My land rover requires not only metric but also " imperial measure" tools.
Look on the bright side. My land rover requires not only metric but also " imperial measure" tools.
Rusty