JohnS of Michigan,

From your experience in the automobile industry, what can you tell us about automobile rims? Have you seen any mechanical drawings of rims to be able to tell us to what extent they may still be in FFU today? Is the inch name a real dimension or is it just a trade name and a close approximation?

Is the auto rim just like bicycle rims and tires that have a metric design and manufacture based on an ISO standard?

I'm sorry but I don't know. It is a part of the car that my work never interacted with in any way. Even if it were sized in FPS, we would have drawn it in metric, so you'd have to look at actual dimensions on the drawing. Of course with 25.4 mm/inch, no great error would be made sizing to the nearest millimeter.

I did some searching on the web, but I didn't find anything conclusive either way. You'd have to look at the rim, the hole for the hub and the diameter of the bolt circle.

I did some more searching. There are metric rims (wheels) but they don't seem common. Like your note on bicycle tires, they have a different bead seat so there is zero interchangability of tires and rims between the two systems. In spite of the "inch" rim diameters, the bolt circle for mounting the wheel is generally metric, so clearly wheels are hybrid. Two links confirming there are metric diameter rims and tires (but not much info)
http://www.yokohamatire.com/utwheels.asp
<<<An example of a proper application would be to use a 15" x 6" wheel for a 205/70VR15 tire. Never attempt to mix millimetric wheels and tires with standard inch wheels and tires. An improper application would be mounting a 200/60R390 size tire on any 15" wheel. A 390mm tire is designed to fit on a wheel with a diameter of approximately 15.35" with a non-standard bead seat.
>>>

http://www.dunloptire.com/care/sidewall.html
<<< SIZE
All tires sold in the United States must meet the size standards for bead shape, width, diameter and other parameters established by a recognized standardizing organization. World leaders among such organizations are the European Tire and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) and the U. S. Tire and Rim Association (T&RA). Both use a partially metric-based system. Virtually all passenger tires on the market today use the rim and tire sizing, load and inflation system established by these bodies. All U. S. highway tires must also meet U. S. DOT standards as indicated by the letters 'D.O.T.' on the sidewall. . . . 15 RIM DIAMETER
The "15" indicates the rim diameter in inches. It is the diameter of the tire bead seat ledge in the rim. Most tires are built to inch standards for rim diameters. However, some tires are built to millimetric rim dimensions. Always match the tire's rim diameter to the wheel rim diameter. This is important for safety.
NOTE: A millimetric rim has a different shape than an inch rim; they are not interchangeable. >>>

You might learn more if you could track down the two main tire and rim specs mentioned in the Dunlop article. I found another article indicating there is a 2 mm tolerance on the rim diameter, so don't take the inch dimension too literally. (I failed to jot down the link). I imagine the inch standard is retained mainly for its bead seat design.

Erin

Does it really matter if some things are still sold in imperial sizes?

The aim of metrication is not to needlessly obliterate all trace of any other system previously used.

I don't know Erin's motivation for asking, but I thought it was an interesting question. Why does a metric industry retain this odd convention? I at least answered it to my own satisfaction, and concluded it was for the bead. The fact that a tolerance on an "inch" dimension is in millimeters says something too. (probably something different to pro-metric and pro-Imperial debaters here)

They experimented with metric wheels in the late 80's early 90's.

The Rover range (then the metro, maestro and montego) had them.

Fitting imeprial tyres on imperial new wheels happened when the first tyres wore out.

The problem is, only Michelin and Dunlop produced the tyres, and since it was for so few cars in the world they had to charge a premium.

So new imperial alloys and tyres were actually cheaper than the replaceement tyres (And of course when they ran out the replacements were cheap)

They were also very difficult to fit and many tore during the process. This is because the "kiss of death" was to have them double rimmed so they could run flat.

A great safety idea but again very expensive and a brute to fit.

This is why metric wheels and tyres came and went.

You can measure them with a metric tape and quote a metric diameter (a bit like you can with a vinyl record) but this merely supplies one with the metric equivalent of the tyre (or record).

Don't worry though folks, imperial tyres are not "horrible" or "sour" or anything like that - they're merely a black grooved rubber "shoe" that you put on your car so that you stay on the road.

According to these sites the tire sizes for the Rover are metric.


http://www.1010tires.com/tire.asp?tirebrand=Dunlop&tiremodel=Radial+Rover+A%2FT

http://www.rangerovers.net/outfitting/tires/mkiiitires.html

http://www.roversnorth.com/RRD04/RRD04_8_11/RRD04_page9.htm

http://www.roversnorth.com/giftshop_html/HF04_pages9_12/giftshop_pg9.htm


The following site is an FAQ site for Land Rovers:

http://www.roverparts.com/faq.html


Q. What size tires should I use on my vehicle?
A. Click here to view the correct tire sizes for each vehicle

Click here takes you to this site:

http://www.roverparts.com/faq_TIRE%20SIZE.html

All the tires listed are metric.




So telling us that Rover "reverted" to non-metric tires is not borne out by the facts.

"""You can measure them with a metric tape and quote a metric diameter (a bit like you can with a vinyl record) but this merely supplies one with the metric equivalent of the tyre (or record)."""


One can also go to the factory where they are made and see the metric dimensions on the mechanical drawings and the metric dimensions displayed on the computer displays.


"""Don't worry though folks, imperial tyres are not "horrible" or "sour" or anything like that - they're merely a black grooved rubber "shoe" that you put on your car so that you stay on the road."""


Except that they don't exist. The factory that makes them makes them metric. That is the joke played on the imperialists. Make them think it is FFU, but make it metric.

<<http://www.roverparts.com/faq_TIRE%20SIZE.html

All the tires listed are metric.

So telling us that Rover "reverted" to non-metric tires is not borne out by the facts.>>

All those sizes are metric width/Imperial (inch) rim which is what the vast majority of tires are. The links I posted mention a metric rime size where 390 would be a 390 mm rim, but the bead design is different and apparently it is not used or very rarely used.

"""All those sizes are metric width/Imperial (inch) rim which is what the vast majority of tires are. The links I posted mention a metric rime size where 390 would be a 390 mm rim, but the bead design is different and apparently it is not used or very rarely used. """


The question I've been trying to get answered is whether the so-called inch rims are really inches just because they have an inch trade name. If they are designed, engineered, manufactured and quality tested in metric, wouldn't that make them a metric product despite the name? With a 2 mm tolerance stated for rim diameter, it tells me the actual design, engineering, manufacturing, and quality specs are metric. You don't dimension a product for manufactuering in inches then use metric tolerances. If you are using metric tolerances, that in itself says the rest of the drawing dimensions are metric too.

There then exists the possibility that the so-called rim sizes on the drawings are as follows;

13 inch ---> 330 mm
14 inch ---> 355 mm
15 inch ---> 380 mm
16 inch ---> 405 mm
17 inch ---> 430 mm
18 inch ---> 460 mm
19 inch ---> 480 mm

That is in rounded numbers ending in a zero or a five.

I wouldn't expect 390 mm to be any more or less metric then 380 mm. I wouldn't consider either to be a "metric size" if the product was manufactured in inches, but do consider it a metric product if the entire manufacturing process is metric.

Does an inch trade name make it an inch product? Where is the line drawn? Of course if you are an imperiaslist and you see metric increasing in use around you and the products you thought to be FFU because of the trade name usage were the only thing FFU about them, then you would use this basis as a means to declare the product imperial.

It would hold true if a piece of wood was made to an exact 4 cm x 9 cm but called a 2 x 4 and thus considered an FFU product, because A.) it once was and B.) it still is called by an FFU trade name.

As for the Rover, if the car is fitted with the P-metric tire series, I consider the tires to be metric.

Erin

"""Does it really matter if some things are still sold in imperial sizes?"""

Yes, it matters. What is the purpose of setting up standards if some don't follow? Where do you draw the line as to what stays and what goes? If something is made metric, and everything should b,e it should be reflected in its description. If someone wants to call something by an imperial name, fine, as long as they also refer to the true size and know the true size is metric.




"""The aim of metrication is not to needlessly obliterate all trace of any other system previously used."""


I disagree! The aim of metrication IS to eliminate all traces of the old system from the commercial and industrial sectors of society. Albeit, in a time frame. All former systems are reduced to museum pieces. Interesting tokens of history, but removed from present usage.

Should all houses designed in imperial be torn down? Should the wrecking ball tear down all imperial buildings so that they can be reconstructed in metric?

This would definitely solve the unemployment problem.

SI is incapable of making legislation ergarding the use of units.

BIPM (www.bipm.org) who are responsible for maintaining SI make recomendations (nut not legislation) regarding the use of units.

In the case of the EU, the EU directive instructs member states as to what should go into their legislation. Of particular interest to this thread is Article 4 of the EU directive on metrication - see
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1980/en_1980L0181_do_001.pdf

<<There then exists the possibility that the so-called rim sizes on the drawings are as follows;

13 inch ---> 330 mm
14 inch ---> 355 mm
15 inch ---> 380 mm
16 inch ---> 405 mm
17 inch ---> 430 mm
18 inch ---> 460 mm
19 inch ---> 480 mm

That is in rounded numbers ending in a zero or a five.

. . . .
As for the Rover, if the car is fitted with the P-metric tire series, I consider the tires to be metric.
>>

I think it is a safe bet that drawings from auto OEMS are metric, even if showing a nominal inch size. Aftermarket drawings prepared by the wheel manufacturers could be either.

I wouldn't place so much faith in magical properties of multiples of 5 mm. Some of your figures exceed the 2 mm tolerance. IF they are drawn to whole millimeters, I suspect the series would be 330, 381, 406, 432,457, 483. Note that 432 is exact, others have slight (<0.4 mm) rounding. But I don't know that for a fact. You'd really have to get hold of the industry tire and rim specs. But on an engineering drawing, 432 is no harder to write than 430.

Rover is the same half metric/half Imperial tire that (nearly) every other brand appears to use, the P-Metric spec includes inch based rim, and the "inch" unit is also "code" for the bead seat design. It should be noted that Land Rover (the "truck" operations) are a division of Ford Motor Company, and Rover (the car operations) are owned by some group that also owns the MG brand and is currently in bankruptcy proceedings.

What I was trying to point out is that Rover went "all metric" with their tyres in the late 80's

These were scrapped in the 90's, they DCO and the prices were too high (plus only two tyre firms would make them).

Erin (ie John) will never be able to accept this thus the post about his fantasy land is true.

Simply measureing things in metric, whacking some sums into a calculator, or pretending to have visited factories DOES NOT make something "metric".

Either that or the whole world is wrong and Erin is right! God - would that be scarey or what?


Andy - I think you got your answer from him - I hope that his well thought out, moderate, calm, non-mallet-wealding answer confirms all your assumptions!

;-)

(That's what makes the pro-metric posters to this site entirely different to old NoMates)

OK!

Can you show me a list of the tyres used on the vehicles?

Such as model numbers?

I don't care what names I get called but I add my voice to the argument that going metric means all measurements in industry, commerce, public services etc should be metric.

The world doesn't need imperial or USC, they only duplicate what can be done in metric and it makes no sense to me to retain them.

That doesn't mean pulling down houses built to non-metric standards it means using metric exclusively for all new work and accepting that imperial/USC has to go. If you try to sound agreeable by pretending it's OK to retain non-metric for some things then you condemn society to dual measures where everyone has to learn two sets of units so everyone has to do things the hard way.

<<I don't care what names I get called but I add my voice to the argument that going metric means all measurements in industry, commerce, public services etc should be metric.>>

Under most circumstances, I would agree with you. Here, for some reason, ETRTO, T&RA, JATMA all accept this standard of designating a metric width and an inch rim diameter. I would want to understand why before jumping to change it. Unfortunately, all three organizations are focused on selling their standard, so I can't find the answer free on the web. While it perplexes me, It doesn't perplex me $50-75 worth.


Erin: In my searching, I found a small detail view of the bead seat and side flange area of the rim. It is fully dimensioned and toleranced in metric, but the same wall detail applies for different rim diameters, so it didn't show that.

<<
The world doesn't need imperial or USC, they only duplicate what can be done in metric and it makes no sense to me to retain them.
That doesn't mean pulling down houses built to non-metric standards it means using metric exclusively for all new work and accepting that imperial/USC has to go.
>>

Stan, where do you draw the line between what is new and old? Old houses in imperial can stay. How about old equipment, such as a machine that produces something to inch specifications? Do you abolish this equipment and replace it with metric? If so, what if the old houses need a little work?

Saying "it means using metric exclusively for all new work" is easy enough, but there is an overlap between old and new work. Sometimes the same equipment is used for both, and sometimes compatibility is needed between old and new. So no matter where you draw the line, there will be some additional cost that either industry or government must come up with in order to pay for the duplication.

"""How about old equipment, such as a machine that produces something to inch specifications?"""

I know of no old machine that can not produce a metric part. Old machines can also be fitted with modern numerical displays and positioning equipment that can display and position in metric. Machines from the '70s had metric capability so the chances of finding a machine that can't produce a metric part are close to zero.

There are a lot of American industries that have closed their doors in the last 20+ years and moved the work to metric countries. Many parts that were made in inches in the US are made metric elsewhere. There are always those who love to whine about the cost of replacing machines and tools if metrication was enforced, yet no one seems to utter a toot when a business go metric through the back door.

The Mexican's, Chinese, Indians and others don't mind taking the metric jobs Americans don't seem to want. Maybe if there was a more positive attitude towards metric in America, industry wouldn't be in such a hurry to go elsewhere.

"""Under most circumstances, I would agree with you. Here, for some reason, ETRTO, T&RA, JATMA all accept this standard of designating a metric width and an inch rim diameter. I would want to understand why before jumping to change it. Unfortunately, all three organizations are focused on selling their standard, so I can't find the answer free on the web. While it perplexes me, It doesn't perplex me $50-75 worth."""


What is the determining factor as to a rim diameter being in inches? Is it these organisations that you mention which the ones using an inch rim diameter or is it after-the-fact marketing? If the drawings are in metric, the rim diameter is too, thus the inch trade name is just an anomaly. If a drawing were to show a rim diameter as 380 mm (a round, whole number) and the trade name is 15 inches (another round, whole number), what would make the rim diameter be considered an inch part, if the metric dimension is equally round? Is it the roundness of the numbers or the manufacturing process that determines if a product can be considered metric or FFU?

If the word inch never appears on the drawing and the entire manufacturing of the rim completely ignores any reference to "inches" and uses only metric dimensions then how can anyone consider the rim to be an inch part?

<<What is the determining factor as to a rim diameter being in inches? Is it these organisations that you mention which the ones using an inch rim diameter or is it after-the-fact marketing?>>

They are the standards setting bodies for tires and rims. They are referenced in FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) rules for examples -- tires and rims have to be approved combinations, rated for vehicle load etc, size designations have to be molded into part, etc.

They use and set these designations. Without access to the standards, I don't understand (for sure) the reasoning. I suspect it is to make the distinction between them and the bead seat design of the metric rim tires, which seem to not be generally available. Multiple sources pointed out that crossing the inch and metric bead seat designs on tires and rims would cause the tire to fail and possiblly explode, so creating confusion is a safety risk and that may preclude change.

Unless someone has access to the standards, we probably won't get to the bottom of it. I would especially like to see the JATMA and ETRTO standards as I am almost positive they would convert the inch designation to metric in the drawings, but I'd like to see the words around doing that.

Who cares?

There is a recognised standard for tyre/wheel sizes, and one of the dimensions is universally given in inches. Countries in which people have no clue what an inch is, use it without any problem because it is just a number.

Advocating standardisation just for the sake of standardisation only gives ammunition to the anti-metric brigade and does our cause more harm than good. This is how Britain has made a complete balls up of metrication - no progress in areas where metric is really needed (road signs) and "little hitler" style over-regulation in other areas (fruit & veg)

The focus of pro-metrication groups needs to be on the important issues - where failure to use a consistent system is costing us money, causing confusion and adversely affecting our childrens education.

Erin,

You assert that the inch designation of the rim is just a marketing ploy. That would suggest that in some countries, this would be a disadvantage, and in those countries, the rim diameter would be given in millimeters.

I managed to find a spec sheet for a BMW offered in South Africa. (if you read German, you might want to look at BMW in Germany). Note that BMW is a Germany company and presumably is fully SI, conforms to DIN, etc. South Africa does not allow nor does BMW show supplemental Imperial info on any of the other specs. Note the tire lacks the P and is therefore an ETRTO tire. It is designated in metric width/Imperial rim, and the wheel diameter and width are both designated in inches (well, if they are metric, BMW uses really tiny wheels).
http://www.bmw.co.za/Products/Automobiles/X5/Specs_X53.0d.asp

Like you, I find it hard to believe the engineering drawings are really in inches, but there is a reason for the inch designation being standard throughout the world and it is NOT "marketing ploy." (I specifically avoided data sheets for US, UK, where inches could be an advantage).

If you can find any counterexamples on currently offered OEM vehicles, please offer them up, but I have yet to find any references to the "purely metric tire" other than the Rover/BMW fiasco of the early 90's. Unless you have a current counterexample, I really believe we have beaten this to death.

I'm with Andy on this one.

God! This is getting tyring.

Tyres and wheel - inches. End of story. Get over it.

They tried out metric tyres and wheels in the 80's. It didn't work . The industry could not have a "new comer" in this case as it was so well established - think of it in the same way as aviation being imperial (mainly) plus there really really is no advantage in having tyres in metric OR imperial.

They are black rubber and go round your wheel FFS !

Stop measuring things for the sake of saying metric words!

Get a life!

and get over it.

BTW - once again my grin is a mile wide!

Do the "records are metric" thing for us again Erin...

[Audience: Noooooooooo!!!!]


(that's opposed to "yesssss" you understand;-) )






Stan - I would post a response to your post but I've had enough of talking about standard issue grey uniforms.

"""They tried out metric tyres and wheels in the 80's. It didn't work . The industry could not have a "new comer" in this case as it was so well established - think of it in the same way as aviation being imperial (mainly) plus there really really is no advantage in having tyres in metric OR imperial."""


What tires are they using now? If I wanted to buy one, what model/part number would I use? Would I have to special order these non-metric tires you speak of or get them from a special shop? The tire shops in my area don't carry any tires other then the P-metric series. So where would I get this supposed non-metric tire that the Rover uses?

<<The tire shops in my area don't carry any tires other then the P-metric series. So where would I get this supposed non-metric tire that the Rover uses?>>

No one is claiming they use "pure" Imperial, but P-Metric is half metric/half imperial like every other tire (including ETRTO), even if metric countries, rim diameter is quoted in inches, to separate the tire from the design problems of the metric bead design. But in the early 90's, Rover used a "pure" metric with 390 mm rim, and a problematic bead design. Reread the posts above. I think this is laid out pretty clearly.

<<
I know of no old machine that can not produce a metric part.
>>

Erin, since when were you an expert on machines?

Most machines in factories produce only one size product. For example, if you have a factory that produces milk bottles of the one gallon size, you can't just tell it to start producing 4 litre bottles. You would need to replace most or all of the mechanical parts, and it might just be better to get a new machine.

<<For example, if you have a factory that produces milk bottles of the one gallon size, you can't just tell it to start producing 4 litre bottles. You would need to replace most or all of the mechanical parts, and it might just be better to get a new machine.>>

I know more about injection molding than blow molding, but I assume you just make a new mold; the basic molding machine should be fine, and capable of making a bunch of different parts.

"""Most machines in factories produce only one size product. For example, if you have a factory that produces milk bottles of the one gallon size, you can't just tell it to start producing 4 litre bottles. You would need to replace most or all of the mechanical parts, and it might just be better to get a new machine."""



Who produces milk in bottles anymore? Milk comes in plastic containers that come out of plastic injection molding machines, that have an interchangeable die. You don't spend millions on a machine that can only do one thing unless you want to go out of business quickly. What happens to the machines if no one is buying milk bottles of the type you make? since, according to you they can't produce anything else, then they are now just an expensive pile of junk. Thank God you don't run a business, or else you and it will be spending a lo of time in bankruptcy court.

Plus, I was thinking more along the line of lathes, boring mills, presses, etc.

In the case of your milk bottle, the easy solution would be to shut the plant down, sell the machines for scape and move the production to China where producing 4 L milk bottles wouldn't be a problem.

"""No one is claiming they use "pure" Imperial, but P-Metric is half metric/half imperial like every other tire (including ETRTO), even if metric countries, rim diameter is quoted in inches, to separate the tire from the design problems of the metric bead design. But in the early 90's, Rover used a "pure" metric with 390 mm rim, and a problematic bead design. Reread the posts above. I think this is laid out pretty clearly."""

I would beg to differ that having one component of the description spoken of in inches as constituting half. If the width is pure metric, the aspect ratio (thus the section width is metric), and the tire is produced in metric from metric drawings, where even the inch rim diameter appears as a metric value, then the ratio of metric to inch would be more like 95 % metric to 5 % inch, if that.

If a rim of 16 inches appears on the production drawing as 406.4 mm, an exact conversion, then one can say the inch number is important. If the 16 inches appears as 406 mm or even 405 mm, the inch value is nothing more then an anomaly appearing in the spec for no other reason but maybe historical. If the inch value was important then the tires would be made exclusively in inches and not in millimetres.

As for the 390 mm bead design and its supposed problems, that is a moot point. Whether one would label a tire as P195/65R15 or P195/65R380 would not change one thing other then expressing the same dimension in either inches or millimetres. If Rover would have stated a tire size with a 380 mm rim which would have been the same as a 15 inch rim, is anyone going to tell me that would result in a problematic bead design?


My whole point is that giving something an inch name but ignoring it in the design, engineering, production and quality phases, does not make it an inch product. If a CD, which has 100 % metric specs and is made 100 % metric were instead called a "120 mm disk" and be made to 100 % inch specs and design, would you call the CD a metric device still because it carried a metric trade name or would you consider it a inch product because that is how it would be made?

There are two forms of manufacturing in metric: Soft and Hard conversion. Hard conversions means all the dimensions on the drawing are rounded metric or close to it. Soft conversion means that the dimensions in other units are converted to metric and not modified so the original dimensions are intact. In either case the production is done in metric.

A tire and/or tire rim still can be considered fully metric because it is made that way and if one component is just a soft conversion or hybrid-hard (rounded to the nearest whole number, not necessarily one ending in a zero or a five), then it isn't really a matter of the product being part metric versus part imperial, but part rounded versus part non-rounded numbers in metric.

Not surprisingly "Erin" finds himself on one side of the debate, whilst pro-imp, pro-met and pro-choice find themselves on the other side of the fence.

Again.


Get over it Erin - you are wrong.

Again.


I was brought up on the black stuff (I don't mean I ate tyres, by the way), but this is immaterial - you are once again blatantly applying the (what I call) "vinyl" argument. It's quite obvious where the facts lay and you don't like it. Even bad-losers will gently fade away from an argument once they are proven clearly wrong - but you still hang around for the punishment! Bizzare!

Get over it, have a rest, and come back with another traditional imperial item and try to convince us that its really really metric. Maybe pick trousers? Tell us about your rounded 85.9443 cm trousers (covert to yottometres or whatever if you want to make it look round).


Ok back to something more interesting and less (as mallet boy mentions) 'boring'...


Forgive me if I am wrong but don't delivery milkmen still use the pint glass bottle and not the carton?

I don't get deliveries (we simply don't get through enough milk) - but I'm sure I've heard the 'chink' of the milkman go by in his electric van in the morning.

Someone enlighten me (except for his royal wronglyness who once again proves he hasn't a clue about Britain!!)

<<Forgive me if I am wrong but don't delivery milkmen still use the pint glass bottle and not the carton?>>

Perhaps in the UK. See what happens when you let a bunch of Americans argue on a UK board!

In the US, I haven't seen milk delivered in a least a decade, you get it at the supermarket. Plastic bottles are used for half gallon and gallon, waxed paper cartons for half gallon and quart. (Anything smaller is an "individual serving" generally associated with cafeterias, restaurants, although cream comes in pints and half pints)

I'm not entirely sure that the glass milk pints are still delivered - cartons are very popular in the shops though. But I'm sure returnable glass bottles still get used.

BTW - 'Erin' has palmed himself off as Australian before (but I believe he is an american) that's not to say that glass milk bottles are not available in Australia either.

I shall have to peer out of the window in the wee hours of the morning.

Dammit! I have a rear facing bedroom. Ah well, better stay in bed then :-D

<<
I know more about injection molding than blow molding, but I assume you just make a new mold; the basic molding machine should be fine, and capable of making a bunch of different parts.
>>

You have to make a new mold. You need a new quantity of plastic, so you have to adjust the rate of plastic production. And finally you have to reprogram the machine that fills the bottles.

It's not as cheap and easy as you make it out to be. And when you multiply this by the number of machines in all the factories in the country, you just drained millions out of the economy.

Bud said

"Most machines in factories produce only one size product. For example, if you have a factory that produces milk bottles of the one gallon size, you can't just tell it to start producing 4 litre bottles. You would need to replace most or all of the mechanical parts, and it might just be better to get a new machine."

I haven't been in a large dairy in a while, but was in a distillery recently. They have one production line and one filling machine. On my most recent visit, they were packing 750ml bottles for export to the USA. They were using the same filling machine that is usually used to fill the 700ml bottles for the UK market. Filling machines are adjustable.

I'm aware of one distillery that has webcams showing their production line - bizarrely, the CIA got in touch with them a couple of years ago, claiming that it looked like they were producing chemical weapons!!! (Well, how else would you describe whisky!)

It's not a bad website - and shows the actual bottling going on - Google on "Bruichladdich" (and pronounce it Brew-ich-laddie)

"""BTW - 'Erin' has palmed himself off as Australian before (but I believe he is an american) that's not to say that glass milk bottles are not available in Australia either."""


Milk is sold in a 600 mL size in Australia.

<<It's not as cheap and easy as you make it out to be. >>

I'm not saying it is trivial. However, a lot of American industry has wised up to the advantages of flexible manufacturing and fast changeover so they can make a multitude of different products on a given line, have small lot sizes, and changeover several times per day, in minutes. Rigid, overcapitalized, dedicated lines with long changeovers are the pathway to hell, or, at least, bankruptcy.

Some places have achieved lot size one, the ultimate. In automotive, either in paint, or molding in color, I can tell you we are not there yet. On the assemble line, every vehicle is theoretically different for option content and in many cases we can mix two or more completely different models on a line.

For the case under discussion, I think the only significant cost would be new molds. The logistics of ordering the right amount of plastic and physically executing changeover should be trivial. After all, Coke could afford 16 oz, 0.5 L and 20 oz. If the costs were as staggering as you imply, they could only afford one of these "close" sizes. I'm surprised they are not bankrupt with all their sizes.

Steve,

What tyres is Rover using now on their cars? You keep saying they used metric in the '90s, but don't now. Can you direct me to a web site showing Rover's inch series tyres?

I'd also like to know what size tires are on your car. I don't mean rim diameter either. I mean the actual tire size or model.


Now for a prediciton....Steve won't answer either question because he knows the tyres on both the Rover and the car he drives are metric. I can just imagine Steve going to a tyre shop and avoiding the "What size tyres are you interested in purchasing, sir?" question the clerk asks, because Steve can't dare utter a metric size.

I'm not saying it is trivial......... I'm surprised they are not bankrupt with all their sizes.


John,

It is obvious Bud is trying to compare an ultramodern metric factory with an Xcole era FFU factory of yesteryear.

Bud,

Even the Amish use metric. I've been in an Amish workshop and saw metric wrenches hanging on the wall, next to the air compressor that runs all of the machines.

Bud,

There is a thread from around mid-March on the USMA list server archive about milk containers. It makes the interesting assertion that the one gallon container used in the US is already actually 4 L, but the "dimple" on one side reduces it to 1 gallon.

I never paid attention before, but indeed the container in my frig has a dimple. I have not done any calculations but it looks like it "could be" the right size to do this. My understanding is Canada uses a similar plastic container for 4 L. It would be interesting to compare dimensions, and see if the dimple is lacking.

It makes sense to provide containers with metric capacities so they can be used world-wide. If you insist on using FFU in the US then you under fill it. For the rest of the world, you give the full measure.

How many smoking holes in your foot now Erin?

Check it out, no one believes you except yourself. Take a tip - give up!



Berenger - you might be able to answer my question about pint glass bottles (I cannot say why!!) - do you know if they are still used by families up and down the land?



P.S. I hear that in Australia they have varying size milk containers - shame we don't have anyone from Australia on this board to confirm this.
Still - in some areas they serve "real pints" (imperial, not USC). I know this coz my other half lived there for a while.

As in "lived there" - not "visited an australian website" ;-)

P.S. The best milk containers come in sizes of 36C, 34D etc.
;-)

Steve

I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw a glass milk bottle over here! They are far less common than they used to be. The only dairy in my locality uses metric plastic containers.

I buy my milk at the supermarket. However, my father (on the other coast) still has his daily pinta delivered (in a traditional glass bottle!)

Steve,

What tyres is Rover using now on their cars? You keep saying they used metric in the '90s, but don't now. Can you direct me to a web site showing Rover's inch series tyres?

I'd also like to know what size tires are on your car. I don't mean rim diameter either. I mean the actual tire size or model.


Now for a prediciton....Steve won't answer either question because he knows the tyres on both the Rover and the car he drives are metric. I can just imagine Steve going to a tyre shop and avoiding the "What size tyres are you interested in purchasing, sir?" question the clerk asks, because Steve can't dare utter a metric size.

<<
the one gallon container used in the US is already actually 4 L, but the "dimple" on one side reduces it to 1 gallon.
I never paid attention before, but indeed the container in my frig has a dimple. I have not done any calculations but it looks like it "could be" the right size to do this.
>>

If you do the calculations, you will see that this is quite impossible.

Agreed. I measured mine and it reduces the volume about 33 mL, much less than the (roughly) 215 mL required.

Given that, I wonder what it is for. It could be a mold insert that adjusts specific cavities to the required volume, which would mean it is not the same on all milk cartons, or it could be some other purpose.

Actually, some regions of the US already have a 3 L milk carton.

The 3 L bottle is more then just a metric jug, as it has additional features.

1.) easy to grip handle, thus less spillage
2.) smaller amount then the gallon prevents spoilage as milk goes bad fast if the container is opened and not used quickly.
3.) Resistance to damage by being made to block out certain types of light radiation that causes the vitamin D in the milk to break down in other bottles.


See page 2:


http://www.extraordinarydairy.com/archive/dairy_dollars_02_04.pdf

''''The 3 L bottle is more then just a metric jug, as it has additional features.

1.) easy to grip handle, thus less spillage
2.) smaller amount then the gallon prevents spoilage as milk goes bad fast if the container is opened and not used quickly.
3.) Resistance to damage by being made to block out certain types of light radiation that causes the vitamin D in the milk to break down in other bottles.'''''



Point 1, the current 1 gallon jub has an 'easy to grip handle', and I don't ever spill any.

Point 2, the 1 gallon size doesn't spoil. If you can't drink enough the current 1/2 gallon size is nice.

Point 3, Since when is 'harmful light' going to leach the vitamin D out of the milk in an icebox? (Or do you think the light stays on when the door is closed?)

(By the way, bring on the 3 litre bottles! Sounds great to me, but I don't think those 3 points are very good ones; they don't make it appear better than the current 1 gallon or 1/2 gallon jugs)


P.S. SteveH, notice that milk doesn't spoil as fast in metric sizes!

Another point about 'metric milk', in my area milk prices seem to be followed almost as close as gasoline prices. Price per gallon is posted outside of a lot of stores. Trying to compare price per gallon with price per 3 litre would be difficult. (unless everyone changed to litre at once)

<<Trying to compare price per gallon with price per 3 litre would be difficult.>>

If your state has a "unit pricing" law, the burden is on the retailer. He has to pick a unit, and convert ALL prices to unit pricing in that unit, on the shelf labels. The retailer would not be able to argue that milk in quarts and liters aren't "like product."

Thanks Berenger - I reckon the pint bottles are almost replaced my pint / half litre milk cartons.

That's a shame if its true.

P.S. 1 - Can anyone smell a smoking gun in here?
P.S. 2 - Can someone here confirm if imperial milk tastes sour and regularly spills, whilst metric milk tastes fresh and lovely for months after opening and if spilled immediately bounces back into the carton whilst self-cleaning itself?

What did that doctor say?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=209958&messageid=1113562667&lp=1113823659

<<P.S. 2 - Can someone here confirm if imperial milk tastes sour and regularly spills, whilst metric milk tastes fresh and lovely for months after opening and if spilled immediately bounces back into the carton whilst self-cleaning itself?
>>

No, I can't confirm that. Between the wife, me, and two cats, we manage to drink the (little US) gallon before it goes sour. I can confirm it costs more than gasoline here, by about +45%.

We are apparently not one of the areas where they are piloting 3 L milk. I'd never heard of it until the thread. If price competitive, I'd give it a try as the gallon does quite a few days.

I hope when I kick the cat's dish in the middle of the night, the metric milk jumps back in.

lol! nice one!

BTW - you mention "I'd never heard of it until the thread."

Please bear in mind that "Erin" has posted the "3L milk carton" claim - so realise that about 80% of what he posts is inaccurate - it could just be a lie. It's difficult to say with him.

I followed the link, which includes a picture. It seems real. The cap/spout is near the edge of the bottle, it has a bigger handle. It looks a little less space efficient and a little more costly to mold. If they try to sell it as a "premium" way to sell milk, it will fail. At price parity, I think it would do OK.

hey, maybe its a "trade name" !


:-D

"""I followed the link, ..."""

Steve doesn't visit the websites provided. He is afraid he might get a jolt of reality.


BTW, the spillage problem with gallon jugs is a common occurrence with children. Less weight and a better handle on the 3 L eliminates this problem. The people who designed the bottle came up with the size and features based on market research.

The company that came up with this container is Wegmans.

Here are their locations: http://www.wegmans.com/about/storeLocator/

I believe the USMA website claims that 3 L milk bottles are used somewhere in the US, I don't remember where. Everywhere I have been, it is gallons and quarts.
But the three reasons Erin posted enough were quite funny. Maybe they will be incorporated into the government's propaganda brochure if the US decides to try to go metric again.

<<I believe the USMA website claims that 3 L milk bottles are used somewhere in the US, I don't remember where. Everywhere I have been, it is gallons and quarts.
>>

Me, too. Erin's link shows the company has stores in NY, PA, WV, NJ. That puts it 600-700 miles away. A bit too much of road trip to see a 3 L milk bottle.

Pints are the handiest containers of all.

Just right and impossible to spill a drop.

Everywhere in the world uses pints because the litre one's are just afterthought brand names.

I managed to put a pint into a carton today, so it must be a pint regardless of any brand naming the container used.

lol! Nice one!

Is that Erin?

"""Pints are the handiest containers of all."""


Which pint? The 473 mL US pint, the 500 mL pint used for alcoholic beverages and soft drinks, the 568 mL UK pint, the 600 mL pint used in Australia? There are at least 4 different sizes nick-named pint, all can't be convenient. Which one is it?

You forgot the 550.6 mL (US) dry pint, used for berries, and the like. It's the handiest of them all. With holes in the bottom, you can wash the berries and drain them right in the container. Of course, it is a very poor choice for one's beer.

"Which pint? The 473 mL US pint, the 500 mL pint used for alcoholic beverages and soft drinks, the 568 mL UK pint, the 600 mL pint used in Australia? There are at least 4 different sizes nick-named pint, all can't be convenient. Which one is it? "

Bruv, I'm talking about the only pint. The one that is used across the world.

I can't say what that is in litres because litres don't exist.

As your twin, but mirror, brother this is how my mind works.

Remember?

Hmmmmm, "pint" - drooool!

And it *is* a Friday!