why is the US not Metric

[forrestc]

What I'm doing here is not "criticizing" the US' "position and stance on the metric system". What I'm doing is trying to determine the truth in the assertions given.

The US is really behind in terms of metrication when compared to the whole world. Metrication there goes at a sluggish--almost indolent--creeping pace. This is a fact. This is true, and is admitted by many in the US. Of course that's an embarrassment. Having two competing systems of units in a globalized world is ridiculous. Especially when one of them is outdated, based on principles and concepts obsoleted long ago.

Here's something for you to think about.

For pretty much every other country on the planet, metrication made a lot more sense and benefit to the average Joe.   For instance, if you're a rather small country there are great benefits to trade by standardizing on the system your nearby trading partners were using.  In Europe, in particular, there seemed to be such a hodge-podge of units that picking a single system was a great benefit.  It didn't really matter which one you chose, and since metric had various benefits over the more traditional systems, it sort of won.

In the US the situation was different.   Way back in 1793 the US realized that there was a need for a standardized system among the states since they were too using their own horrible mixture of units, largely imported from the various countries that the residents came from.   In fact, the secretary of state at that time, Thomas Jefferson, was in fact interested in this newfangled metric system and requested information from France.   France thought it was a great idea and sent a scientist and a copy of a kilogram to the US.  Unfortunately, said scientist and kilogram were intercepted mid-route by a raiding party of British Privateers who ransomed the scientist and auctioned off the kilogram.

At some point shortly thereafter, not having a proper kilogram reference, we standardized on our own version of the British system of inches and feet and miles and pounds and so on.   

It should be clear at this point that for the next couple hundred years or so, all of the major trading partners with the USA were on the same system, so for the average person, there wasn't much reason to switch.  Even if you were exporting/importing the need for metric was minimal.   We built all of our own stuff and exported largely non-mechanical items.   If you look at things which were manufactured even 50 years ago you'd find that most of them were made in the US.  So, the reason why we went to the moon on customary measures is that's what our industry was tooled up for, and what everyone was familiar with.  Doing that work in metric would have been much riskier.

Instead of thinking "why hasn't the US moved to metric", you need to think about this more like the following:   Until 50 or so years ago, largely the systems dominated and trading with Europe were using the metric system, and North America's and Britain's trading partners were all using the customary system.  There were, of course, some exceptions.    And the majority of the trade was done in each zone in those units.

So now we need to move to the '60s-'70s.   At this point, the government has decided that it would be better to be on Metric.   So they start spending money on converting.   Britain, under pressure from the EU also caved about the same time.   Canada got tied up in the whole thing too since they were close to the US and also was a British commonwealth.   A lot of people seem to think that Britain and Canada are fully metric, and although they are far more outwardly metric, they certainly are not 100% metric.   In fact, if you look at the history of Metrication in both Canada and Britain you'll find very similar situations to what we have here, with metrication not really being fully completed in any of these countries.   Yes, they're both farther along, but not nearly as metric as some would think.

A lot of the active resentment in the US encountered during this big push is exactly the same resentment that would have been felt if the US tried to impose it's measurement system on the rest of the world.     There was a system in place which worked for hundreds of years and now the government wants to cram this new system which has no real benefit for the average joe down his throat.   People didn't like it, and the US at that point didn't really have any financial incentive to do so since the number of things being imported/exported for which metric mattered was minimal.   The US taxpayers also really don't like to see taxpayer dollars being thrown down the tube.  The idea that large amounts of money were being spent to change all our road signs to a unit that no one in the US really wanted or cared about caused a lot of taxpayers to give their elected politicians an earful.  This pretty much resulted in that part of the experiment being shut down.

Imagine for a minute that metric was the inferior system - how would you feel about being forced to change from something which has been working perfectly well for years?

So, we're pretty much stuck where we are.   The roads are not getting metric signs anytime soon.  We'll buy gas in gallons, and a lot of things will pretty much always be customary because the average person sees no reason to change.   Houses will still be built using feet and inches because that's what the building materials are.   And forcing a change those would not be politically wise since those are visible changes, and people don't like change..   What is really happening though, and as we've been trying to explain, is that pretty much everything else is being converted to metric slowly but surely.   I'm not going to rehash the last however many pages of what is and isn't converted, but I see more and more things which are metric every day.

[SilverSolder]

So if I come here dressed like this no one will believe me.

I'd believe you, depending on what you were saying!

[boffin]

I find it interesting that Japan, a very isolationist country (even more so than the United States) decided to switch to Metric in the late 19th century.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I once read a book about plastic injection molding, that gave all temperatures in "degrees"? It didn't say anywhere what sort of degrees, though. One degree of global warming is much less in the USA than anywhere else. Good for them!

[Cubdriver]

I find it interesting that Japan, a very isolationist country (even more so than the United States) decided to switch to Metric in the late 19th century.

Perhaps their having a lot less to 'switch' at that time may have played a part, as it pretty much coincided with their becoming much more industrialized?  In other words, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, if countries have little that is locked into a system of measurement it is far simpler to change course than if there is already a large established base of equipment and infrastructure in an existing system.

-Pat

[Mr. Scram]

Anonymously bashing a particular country?

Nobody is forced to post on an internet forum.
 
If a person has a concern about privacy, this person should not post on an internet forum.

 

What's your home address?

[bsfeechannel]

Here's something for you to think about.
[snip]

Thank you for the time you spent writing your post, but I've known all of that long before I came to this thread. And when I say long I mean years. Perhaps decades. In this thread we've shown that it is expensive to maintain two systems of units. The tax payers do not realize that they are already paying more for that exclusivity. I know that from experience. But we've already discussed that.

[Mr. Scram]

Gents, I agree that in some discussions the home country of a poster may provide useful context. And I understand that bsfeechannel's posts in this thread may have annoyed some of you, resulting in an interest to obtain more context.

Nevertheless, I think we should respect bsfeechnnel's wish not to disclose his (or her?) home country. To my knowledge, he has never mentioned it in a post. And the somewhat unusual approach to his Youtube videos suggests that he is concerned about privacy.

May I suggest that you remove the above posts disclosing or speculating about bsfeechannel's home country? It's a very mild form of doxing but I still think it's not appropriate. Thank you!

Just when I thought this thread couldn't be more disappointing it devolved into doxing.

[KL27x]

The US is really behind in terms of metrication when compared to the whole world. Metrication there goes at a sluggish--almost indolent--creeping pace. This is a fact. This is true, and is admitted by many in the US. Of course that's an embarrassment. Having two competing systems of units in a globalized world is ridiculous. Especially when one of them is outdated, based on principles and concepts obsoleted long ago.

Firstly, BSFEEChannel, this is great improvement. I was skeptical as I started. But you are becoming way more reasonable in this exact post, anyway.

I will agree that the US is way behind in metrication. But would you agree that the US was WAY ahead of 94% of the globe's population in terms of STANDARDIZATION since the early 1900s when people starting the whole idea of mass manufacturing? And that the US built up a massive amount of this stuff compared to anyone else other than the losers of the WWII. Standardization... in its measuring system. In its tooling. In stadards used for production. In actually not just making standards. But selling them. Spreading them. Making them popular. Despite not being metric, early on, and dealing with imperial/USC and later metric, as well. 

To mitigate that discomforting predicament, assertions like "the US is metricated where it makes sense", "no country is fully metricated", "metrication is expensive" or "shut up because we landed on the moon" are designed to persuade people inside and outside the US that the state of affairs is not that absurd as it really is.

Yes, eventually one day we might have everythign in metric, here. But it's a natural course, following the money and the market. It's not efficient to force it. There's a lot of yarn in the ball, and a lot of people are using that yarn to make a living. We can't change just one piece at a time without fucking up other things. And compared to Australia just "getting 'er done," Australia's metrication was like excising a wart vs US would be like separating Siamese twins, in terms of cost/scope and what WILL go wrong.

And i don't know how many times we can apologize for rstopher. I'm personally sorry for everything he posted in this thread.

But we are engineers, and we smell bullshit 20,000 km away. So this kind of argument can't survive here. We like to vapulate them without getting tired, and some of us even do that for a living. Here it is better to admit the truth than try to cover it up with that vacuous rhetoric that no one is buying.

I disagree that what you think is important is the same as 99% of humans. We go with the market/money. Easiest way to make the most people happy. We don't do stupid stuff so BSFEE doesn't have to use a calculator. 99% of Americans will not have increased happiness or quality of life because their taxes went up to pay for this change they don't care about. They will lose real purchasing power and capital/wealth in exchange for... one set of wrenches and an abstraction that doesn't concern them.

[SkyMaster]

Just when I thought this thread couldn't be more disappointing it devolved into doxing.

Yet, you wrote this in Reply #1310:

What's your home address?

 

[forrestc]

In this thread we've shown that it is expensive to maintain two systems of units.

Let me ask you what you're advocating here, so we're clear:

Take building lumber.  Today in the US, the most commonly used building stud size is 38x89 mm.   Are you advocating just labeling it 38x89 instead of "2x4" which really means "1.5inx3.5in" (don't get me started)?   Or changing to some metricated "rounded" dimension like 40x90 and 40x140?

If you look at the building specs in our "metricated" neighbor to the north, you'll find that the stud sizes and things like minimum spans are listed in metric dimensions which are oddly not even.  Such as the maximum stud spacing is listed as 406mm which just happens to be 16inches converted to metric and rounded to the nearest mm.

Because there are two completely different things going on here.   If you're labeling the exact same things and just calling them by their metric sizes instead of their inch sizes, that's an entirely different thing than what most people think of when they think 'go metric'.   The average Joe thinks about having the government forcing them to use 40x90 studs now and abolishing their traditional bolts and screws they've used for many many years.   

[KL27x]

I find it interesting that Japan, a very isolationist country (even more so than the United States) decided to switch to Metric in the late 19th century.

I find it was more interesting that Japan's own customary system goes by factors of ten. And before they officially adopted metric, they adopted and legally recognized english units, in 1909.

Did Japan make english units officiallly legal/recognized because they made more sense? They liked the 12, 3, 5280 so much better than their factors of ten? Or was it for practical reasons?

Who do you think has more practical reasons to use english units? 1909 Japan or current day US?

[twospoons]

and people don't like change.. 

That's it in a nutshell. Everything else is merely justifying that statement.

[KL27x]

^Hello, Boffin Jr!

And around we go. 

[ebastler]

Just when I thought this thread couldn't be more disappointing it devolved into doxing.

Yet, you wrote this in Reply #1310:

What's your home address?

 

What emoticon would it have taken to make you understand the sarcasm in Mr. Scram's comment #1310?

[Tepe]

Take building lumber.  Today in the US, the most commonly used building stud size is 38x89 mm.   Are you advocating just labeling it 38x89 instead of "2x4" which really means "1.5inx3.5in" (don't get me started)?   Or changing to some metricated "rounded" dimension like 40x90 and 40x140?

Would 40x90 be within the present acceptable tolerances? If so, then call it 40x90 (or 90x40).

In these parts we actually have dimensions like 57x38, 75x47, 47x100 and other funny values.
At least 2x4 sounds a lot better :-)

[xrunner]

What emoticon would it have taken to make you understand the sarcasm in Mr. Scram's comment #1310?

Now you're just being sarcastic.

[KL27x]

(from forrestc: If you look at the building specs in our "metricated" neighbor to the north, you'll find that the stud sizes and things like minimum spans are listed in metric dimensions which are oddly not even.  Such as the maximum stud spacing is listed as 406mm which just happens to be 16inches converted to metric and rounded to the nearest mm.

...And if you go up there and watch a house being built in Canada, you will see that everyone in the construction industry uses an imperial tape measure. Because that just happens to make it easier. If they used metric tape measure, these numbers will be retarded. Most these guys continue to use imperial when they build things at home, even knowing how quirky, obtuse, backwards, and other adjectives that BSFEE knows, because despite all that, it works just as well for this.   

This situation is created by history. But there are also industries where the numbers in imperial work out better just because of the real world. E.g. machining and manufacturing. It just so happens that our ability to make things that don't require mega time and money from skilled human hands and eyes and the resolution which actually matters comes down to a thousandth of an inch or three, in many cases. Another example is firearms. Bullets will come in different sizes for barrel variation. And they will make and sell them in 1 thous increments of diameter. That is just a good step size for this. So sometimes it's random chance what makes one more useful in some context than the other.

Would 40x90 be within the present acceptable tolerances? If so, then call it 40x90 (or 90x40).

This "wrong naming" of the 2x4" we have is more an anomaly than anything else. So take this exmaple and apply it to air filters, door sizes, window frames, everything we make and buy that is listed by dimensions. Are you going to just rename everything by rounding up down to nearest 5 or 10 or more mm? (And will the industries also round DOWN when it goes over by some amount? Or will they always round up, for marketing/psychological reasons or whatnot... like everything costs 19.99?). And so we live in a world where dimensions don't mean anything until you look up the datasheet?

And besides. We know that to get the true nominal dimension of this lumber, we subtract exact half an inch. So a 2x4 is nominally 1.5 x 3.5". A 4x4" is 3.5x3.5" A 2x8" is 1.5 x 7.5". If we do this mm rounding... well, then you would have to either look up the actual "datasheet," or have a great memory, or convert it into imperial to see what that comes out to in imperial and round to the nearest half and inch. Then convert back to metric?

I posit it is easier to just leave it in imperial, even if you use metric tape measure in your shop.

[forrestc]

...And if you go up there and watch a house being built in Canada, you will see that everyone in the construction industry uses an imperial tape measure. Because that just happens to make it easier. If they used metric tape measure, these numbers will be retarded. Most these guys continue to use imperial when they build things at home, even knowing how quirky, obtuse, backwards, and other adjectives that BSFEE knows, because despite all that, it works just as well for this.   

I was in hopes that I'd get some clarity from the metric advocates on the list about exactly what they're advocating, because doing things like they've done in Canada with the building code is somewhat silly.   If all you're going to do is to go through the official documents and anywhere you see "inch", convert it to mm in the spec, then what you've done is introduce additional complications.   Now you have to deal with 404mm on centers, and odd specs for dimensions of 2x4's and so on.   So you've got a mm tape measure, and somehow have to put something on 404mm centers?   For things like this, it is definitely easier to just leave it alone.   Which is what has happened in the US and Canada, with the caveat that the Canadians have oddly converted their building codes in at least some of the provinces to metric.   So the building codes spec 404mm on centers, and everyone knows that's 16" and they continue to use their inch tape measures.

If you were really going to metricate the building industry, you'd want to switch to something like 50x100 studs, and hopefully a larger 50x100 stud would permit you to use 500 mm centers.  Your board lengths would move to meters, etc.    I don't know if any of the numbers I just spouted make any sense, but laying out studs on 500mm centers is a lot easier than laying them out at 404mm (I'm ignoring that 404 is close enough that you could just use 400mm to make my point).  BUT - doing that now causes the whole nightmare of how do you deal with the fact that newer houses are all on the new stud size, and the older ones are on the older spec.   So that isn't a good option either.

[tooki]

...And if you go up there and watch a house being built in Canada, you will see that everyone in the construction industry uses an imperial tape measure. Because that just happens to make it easier. If they used metric tape measure, these numbers will be retarded. Most these guys continue to use imperial when they build things at home, even knowing how quirky, obtuse, backwards, and other adjectives that BSFEE knows, because despite all that, it works just as well for this.   

I was in hopes that I'd get some clarity from the metric advocates on the list about exactly what they're advocating, because doing things like they've done in Canada with the building code is somewhat silly.   If all you're going to do is to go through the official documents and anywhere you see "inch", convert it to mm in the spec, then what you've done is introduce additional complications.   Now you have to deal with 404mm on centers, and odd specs for dimensions of 2x4's and so on.   So you've got a mm tape measure, and somehow have to put something on 404mm centers?   For things like this, it is definitely easier to just leave it alone.   Which is what has happened in the US and Canada, with the caveat that the Canadians have oddly converted their building codes in at least some of the provinces to metric.   So the building codes spec 404mm on centers, and everyone knows that's 16" and they continue to use their inch tape measures.

If you were really going to metricate the building industry, you'd want to switch to something like 50x100 studs, and hopefully a larger 50x100 stud would permit you to use 500 mm centers.  Your board lengths would move to meters, etc.    I don't know if any of the numbers I just spouted make any sense, but laying out studs on 500mm centers is a lot easier than laying them out at 404mm (I'm ignoring that 404 is close enough that you could just use 400mm to make my point).  BUT - doing that now causes the whole nightmare of how do you deal with the fact that newer houses are all on the new stud size, and the older ones are on the older spec.   So that isn't a good option either.

I also broached the question of relabeling vs. physically re-sizing things somewhere earlier in this thread, but of course they never responded...

Anyway, as an American living in Switzerland, I can weigh in with some observations on this, because Switzerland has done some of each.

On the one hand, many things in Europe are simply "old sizes written in metric", and while it's been long enough that most folks don't remember the old units, nonetheless this is common. Examples include screwdriver bits ("6.3mm", which is 1/4"), electronics components ("2.54mm pitch", aka 0.1"), and countless other items whose sizes were standardized ages ago, be it on UK, US, or pre-metric European standards.

On the other hand, Switzerland often had its own standards, at odds with European standards. A great example of this is the standard widths for built-in kitchens, and the appliances that go in them. The European standard is 60cm, the old Swiss standard is 55cm. Until around 20 years ago, kitchens here were built to the old standard, meaning you (as an individual or a manufacturer) couldn't import cheaper 60cm appliances, because they physically could not fit. This left you at the mercy of the 55cm appliances made specifically for the Swiss market, necessarily at a higher cost. Newer kitchens are all built to the 60cm standard, and most appliances sold here are, too, though the Swiss manufacturers (or Swiss subsidiaries of foreign ones) still make a handful of 55cm appliances for retrofitting (at least those they can also sell with a trim kit for 60cm kitchens).


Also, no longer talking about Switzerland, some other situations:

A third category would be things that are commonly written in customary units but whose controlling dimension is actually metric, like the 3.5" floppy disk (whose dimensions are actually 9cm), and TVs and computer displays.

The final category is things commonly written in customary units in USA, in metric elsewhere, but whose actual controlling dimension was neither metric nor customary, where the marketing dimensions are really more of a named size than an actual reflection of the physical dimensions. I guess many old tooling sizes were like this. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I've seen things like this.

[TimFox]

Tooki:   I believe that the nominal size of floppies, e.g. 5.25 and 3.5 inch, comes from the “U” dimension (1.75 inch) for 19” rack panels, dating back to telephone relay racks.  This quantum persists, even for racks tapped with metric threads.

[tooki]

Tooki:   I believe that the nominal size of floppies, e.g. 5.25 and 3.5 inch, comes from the “U” dimension (1.75 inch) for 19” rack panels, dating back to telephone relay racks.  This quantum persists, even for racks tapped with metric threads.

Why would the size of the disk be multiples of the rack size? That doesn't make sense.

And again, the 3.5" floppy isn't actually 3.5", it's 9cm.

[ebastler]

Tooki:   I believe that the nominal size of floppies, e.g. 5.25 and 3.5 inch, comes from the “U” dimension (1.75 inch) for 19” rack panels, dating back to telephone relay racks.  This quantum persists, even for racks tapped with metric threads.

Why would the size of the disk be multiples of the rack size? That doesn't make sense.
And again, the 3.5" floppy isn't actually 3.5", it's 9cm.

Also, how would 8" floppies fit this size scheme?

[TimFox]

3.5 inches is the “nominal size”.  Despite their actual dimension, I have never heard them called anything else.
The “U” is one of those practical international standards, like the M6.3 camera tripod screw and 2.54 mm pitch that originated in inches.

[TimFox]

8 inch floppies:  I thought about that, maybe they were short for 8.75 (far-fetched) ?