Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

The Junk Drawer is for those Off Topical discussions where we can ask questions of the community that we feel might have the ability to help out.

Moderator: Harold_V

Post Reply
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by SteveHGraham »

People on another forum are having the "metric v. imperial" discussion again.

Here's how I feel: asking an average American whether imperial or metric is better is like asking a three-year-old who makes the best spaghetti. The answer will always be, "My mommy makes the best spaghetti!"

People love what they're raised on.

Even though imperial is, objectively, stupid and insane.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20226
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by Harold_V »

While I'm remotely familiar with both systems, the problem I have with metric is that I have little consciousness of relative size. I normally convert metric to imperial, regardless of type (distance, volume, size) in order to get a mental picture. 13 mm simply has little meaning to me, unlike the mention of .511".

I am perfectly comfortable with the imperial system, so that it isn't as easy to use as metric makes no difference, as it's the devil I know. Beyond that, the idea of converting to metric makes little sense for a country that is filled with machine tools and metrology geared to imperial. Those who are involved in the manufacturing industries are, for the most part, comfortable with the system in use and have little need to change. It has served us well since its inception.

I agree that the metric system is superior. I just don't think everyone concerned benefits by switching from one system to the other, regardless of which one would prevail.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
10KPete
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:29 pm
Location: Nordland, WA, USA

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by 10KPete »

The only real difference is, obviously, one in totally base 10 and the other is a mess. I don't care what the units are called or
how they are derived but the only thing that makes sense is base 10. I grew up with Imperial and sorta got used to Metric
as I went along. But for as long as I have been machining, designing, engineering I've used decimal Imperial rather than the
fractions bother. I suppose I must admit that for carpentry I use fractions..... But really, I've become so conversant with
Metric I don't really care which system I'm using as long as I'm using base 10.

Let the discussion begin!!

Pete

EDIT: Harold and I were typing at the same time but he did bring up a point that was very strong in my mind back in the '70s
which is why the countries that made the industrial revolution happen, and also provided most of the worlds 'things mechanical'
early on were using Imperial, yet were being forced to change all that to go to Metric? Not that Imperial is easy to use unless
it's in decimal form but very early on Imperial machine tools were 'graduated' in decimal. ??????
Just tryin'
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by SteveHGraham »

I don't know if it's my imagination, but it seems like machines that use metric fasteners are less likely to require dozens of wrenches. Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems like when you find one 10mm bolt or nut, you usually find a lot of others, instead of one 1/4", five 3/8", three 7/16", fourteen 1/2"...

I always hated the metric system. Then I started studying physics, and I found out what working with imperial is like! That's when I defected.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
User avatar
10KPete
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:29 pm
Location: Nordland, WA, USA

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by 10KPete »

I think that the reason there are so many fastener, and wrench, sizes on older equipment is that until the '40s there didn't
seem to be much concern about it. But after the war, especially in Japan where they literally started over, costs and time
in manufacturing became very important. Refer to the Demming system. One of the big sticks I used to beat designers with
was keeping the parts count low and the diversity low. Metric really took off after WWII with the new growth and so I think
that's why you see much more efficient designs these days. My big gripe was in the '70s and '80s when US auto makers
were 'trying' to adopt metric. You'd find both systems, in the same assembly, on one car!! What a mess.

Pete
Just tryin'
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by SteveHGraham »

I remember my first real experience with Japanese cars. I thought they looked kind of stupid, and I assumed they were cramped, but my opinion changed when a friend came to visit me in college, in a 4-door Accord. I was impressed with the low degree of hassle compared to an American car. A few years later, I got a Toyota Camry because of that.

Once I had it, I kept noticing that the Japanese did a lot of seemingly obvious things Americans were too complacent to do. The car had one key for the trunk and doors, instead of two keys. There was lots of room around the engine; everything seemed to be arranged to make the car easy to work on. The car was smaller than my dad's Lincoln, but you could get things into it that wouldn't go into the Lincoln. It had a neat cup holder that worked really well and disappeared when not in use. They put a bar in the engine bay which (according to the salesman) was supposed to divert the engine beneath the passenger compartment in a crash, so it didn't end up in the driver's lap.

It was as if the Big Three tried to pack cars with useless crap that looked good in showrooms but didn't help the consumer much in the long run, while the Japanese filled cars with thoughtful stuff people would really appreciate after a few years of ownership.

The kind of thing you're talking about--cutting back on "diversity"--seems to fit in with that philosophy. You shouldn't have to get out from under a car and go to the toolbox 12 times to deal with 15 bolts.

On the other hand, my dad's Infiniti Q45 has been kind of a crapheap.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
User avatar
mklotz
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by mklotz »

Most machinists have a very narrow view of the metric/inferial comparison. Their whole world revolves around the conversion of linear measurement in one system to the other, a simple multiplication by a constant.

It's only when one gets to actual work with the measurement system that the idiocy of the inferial system raises its ugly head. Here's an example, one that doesn't rely on all the dumb measures of convenience that exist in the inferial...

In the firearms world, bullet weight is traditionally measured in grains and muzzle velocity in feet per second. Muzzle energy can then be obtained via the following equation:

Energy (ft-lb) = (muzzle velocity (ft/sec))^2 * bullet weight (grains) / K

where K is a numerical constant. Your job is to calculate the value of K without recourse to any references or the internet. Show your work.
Regards, Marv

Home Shop Freeware
http://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz
User avatar
warmstrong1955
Posts: 3568
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Northern Nevada

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by warmstrong1955 »

SteveHGraham wrote: You shouldn't have to get out from under a car and go to the toolbox 12 times to deal with 15 bolts.
12 times.....??? :shock:
Put a clutch in a '92 Ford F350 4WD. This one was a crew cab.
12 trips would have been a pleasure.
Metric.
Weird metric....like 15 & 16mm...not normal stuff you use all the time like 13 & 17mm.
Metric Allens....
Imperial Allens....
Torx.
Imperial....and some 12 points.... surprised there weren't any 19/32" heads in the mess.

By the time I was done, my entire tool box was on the floor. No idea what to grab....

Talk about torx....I was sure $%&%# torqued !!!

Bill
Today's solutions are tomorrow's problems.
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by SteveHGraham »

Man, I hate Torx. Almost as much as Robertson screws. Maybe someone can help me understand why any manufacturer would use a Torx bolt.

Marv, your point about linear dimensions is one I made earlier today. Slugs, grains, hogsheads, bushels, drams...

I still remember the rare occasions when my physics professors brought imperial measurements to bear on me. Gave me nightmares.

One nice thing: all our electrical units are metric. They snuck that in on us.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
User avatar
mklotz
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by mklotz »

SteveHGraham wrote: Marv, your point about linear dimensions is one I made earlier today. Slugs, grains, hogsheads, bushels, drams...
One doesn't have to resort to the obscure units to highlight the difficulties of the inferial system. Just ask the inferial fan to calculate the number of gallons in an acre-foot of water without using any references. Gallons, acres, and feet are all common units in everyday use so the calculation should be simple, right?

The equivalent problem in metric - liters in a hectare-meter - is trivial.
Regards, Marv

Home Shop Freeware
http://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz
User avatar
warmstrong1955
Posts: 3568
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Northern Nevada

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by warmstrong1955 »

We are creatures of habit.
My brain....can think in thousandths, in inches...in feet....that's what it has done for so many years.
0.1mm ??? :shock: What the heck is that ???
Grabbing calculator..... oh..... .0039"

It's what you are accustomed to, and have been using.
Metric may be better, probably is...10's and 100's etc....makes sense...but it's no matter after a lifetime of being 'corrupted' and thinking in imperial dim's.

I deal with both....when machining....but I convert from metric to inches to do it.

Furthermore.....
You should see what happens in a machine shop, when the engineering department decides to go metric, and sends 'em revised drawings. Talk about a joke. It's not 'real' metric. It's whatcha call 'soft' metric.
In the US, we designed machines with 1/2", 3/4", 1" plate etc, and pin's & bushings the same....1", 2", 3" etc.
Those dim's don't directly translate to metric.
You can get TG&P in 24, or 25mm....but 24.5mm?? Ummmmm.....No.

To change....there is a lot involved....besides just what you are accustomed to. Been there.....

My take...if a company wants to go metric, fine, but don't go semi-metric like a '92 Ford F350. It's one thing to use a European engine in an American built machine....I've dealt with that for 40+ years, and it was easy. Workin' on the German made engine....grab the metric stuff. Transmission, or anything else, all 'normal'.......but a US built machine with 5/16" U-Joint bolts and 10mm on the other end of the same driveline.....and the other driveline has torx on one end and Allens on the other....please.... I wave the BS flag. Stupid.

Pick one. I can deal with it.

:)
Bill
Today's solutions are tomorrow's problems.
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Why People Prefer Imperial to Metric

Post by SteveHGraham »

mklotz wrote:
SteveHGraham wrote: Marv, your point about linear dimensions is one I made earlier today. Slugs, grains, hogsheads, bushels, drams...
One doesn't have to resort to the obscure units to highlight the difficulties of the inferial system. Just ask the inferial fan to calculate the number of gallons in an acre-foot of water without using any references. Gallons, acres, and feet are all common units in everyday use so the calculation should be simple, right?

The equivalent problem in metric - liters in a hectare-meter - is trivial.
It makes total sense to me that our basic unit of lot square footage is 43,560 square feet instead of 10,000.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
Post Reply