The California DOT has issued a memorandum stating the decision to revert all future planning and implementation of measures to English measures and has created a project team to implement the changes. This appears to follow the move of several other US States to make the same reversal.

The memorandum setting this move into motion is found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/design/metric-to-english-transition.pdf .

The document lists the decision options and the resulting selection of a single option with the reasons for that choice and is found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/metric/decision-document.pdf .

This pair of documents illustrates the growing move to reject metric measures througout the USA despite central government pressure and the teaching of metric measures in schools to the exclusion of English measures.

It will be interesting to see the response this pair of documents produce.

Well, Governor Arnie seems to have proved this particular prediction (posted on a U.S. website) wrong...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 08:21:06 - 0700

Well, I have just seen “Enemy at the Gates,” and I must say that, despite the sappy romanticism regurgitated by Hollywood, it was an entertaining version of a reluctant war hero during World War II from the Russian perspective. One of the most entertaining parts of the movie might just have added an air of machismo to metrication.

In an Eastwood-esque scene, the protagonist, played by Jude Law (The Talented Mr. Ripley), and his “Political Officer” comrade, Joseph Finnes (Shakespeare in Love), huddle amid a bomb-riddled building in order to find a hapless German soldier for them to snipe. While Jude Law’s character scopes around the ruins, he spies a German telegraph wire and plots to shoot it so that a grunt German “repairman” would attempt to undo the damage and play as a target to hone Law’s snipping skills.

Finnes, too, sees the wire and asks, “How far is it? 180 metres?” Law’s stoic-stone looks harden as his eyes focuses on the black telegraph wire, takes a controlled inhalation, and pulls the trigger splitting the wire in two. Jude Law slowly puts his camouflaged rifle down on the crumbled concrete and answers his comrade’s query, “155.” Finnes face stretches in smiling pride of his companion’s abilities.

I’m still not sure if audiences will equate muscles with metres. Most likely what the director and the producers of this film had in mind, was to be as historically accurate as possible. The then Russian government had already been using metrics for some time; therefore, Finnes’ character wouldn’t have asked his question using yards. Whether or not the makers of “Enemy at the Gates” were trying to be historically accurate or trying to throw in a leftover from the spaghetti-westerns isn’t important: it’s the fact that they exposed American audiences to metrics.

It’s this type of exposure that will germinate seeds of curiosity, which might lead people to wonder, ”Just how far is 155 metres?” Watch any type of science fiction on television, you’ll be bombarded with “kilometres,” “metres,” and “nanometres”, adding an entertaining twist to metrication. Who knows? Maybe we’ll see a future Arnold Schwarzenegger movie with him saying in his sonorous voice, “I’ll be back in a nano.”

______
ENDS

Tony,

You reply quotes a review of a Hollywood production. What does this have to do with the California Department of Transport?

Did you even follow the links to read the documents on the DOT website? These are pdf files of real California Government memos with signatures and email addresses of the principals involved, and that clearly state the decision to return to using English measures. The latest of these is dated August 20th 2004.

I don't see what your movie review has to do with it. If you are just citing the use of 'metres' in an American film as justification that the US is moving towards accepting metric measures, I think you are burying your head in the sand. THe NFL game on late night satellite TV last night was still on a field marked in yards, the commentators still talked of 'yardage' and a first down still needed a team to move 10 yards downfield. Even some replays were sometimes referred to as 'footage'. You have a long way to go yet.

Ray,

You may not be able to see the point of my posting. Others may be able to

Tony

Unless Tony's suddenly seen the light I think he's on your side buddy

By the way, going metric doesn't mean you can't use words like 'footage'

Do you think we advocate inventing a new word for those things on the end of our legs as well?

...like "not having a gramme of intelligence" (BBC quote)

sounds ok that one, I think that one must have naturally evolved as I'm sure I've heard it before

When they start saying 'give him a centimetre and he'll take a kilometre'....

are you kidding? that sounds totally mumbo jumbo politically correct.

The commentator obviously *DIDN'T* have an ounce of reality (let along sense)

no I'm not kidding, I've heard that one before in normal conversation

The main reason 'kilometre' or 'centimetre' sound awkward in phrases like that is because they are long and awkward words. 'gram' can easily be substituted for 'ounce' without sounding odd. I doubt if many people would notice which one you said.

..unless of course you have a dislike for certain words ;-)

Are you claiming that I've put my "foot" in it?

Sorry Tony,

I seem to have missed the "wrong" in your post and believed you were using sarcasm. Comes from staying up too late and being hurried to come to bed!!!

re (Ray Greaves): "...seem to have missed the 'wrong' in your post and believed you were using sarcasm. Comes from staying up too late and being hurried to come to bed!!!"

REPLY: 'Being hurried to come to bed', eh? Even Steve H hasn't mentioned that one. At least it's a better excuse for misunderstanding a posting - or posting rubbish - than admitting to having had 'a gram of Coke'

Sorry Tony, but I don't find your comments at all amusing. I tried to correct my mistake and apologized, but you have gone too far with that reference to "Coke".

re (Ray) "Sorry, Tony, but I don't find your comments at all amusing..."

REPLY: No offence meant, Ray - you will find that in the history of this bulletin board, some people have indeed posted rubbish or abuse and it's turned out later that they'd had 'one over the eight' - or there have been references to 'a gram of Coke'. I was simply referring to an array of excuses/apologies/reasons that some have given in the past on this board for having posted up messages when they were, shall we say, a touch tired and emotional

OK Tony,
Understood.

Good also because I do think we have some views in common regarding metric versus imperial measures and the right to choose.

My own view is that neither system is ideal and that a new system combining the best qualities of both is what we you be aiming for. The fact that one system is 'officially' adopted in most parts of the world does not mean it should remain so forever. History shows that changes are made, but sometimes over hundreds of years. Look how long it took to replace Roman numnerals with the Hindu-Arabic system.

It is also an eye-opener for the dedicated metricists when US states syuch as California take the enormous step of going back from metric measures to Imperial/US Customary measures.

Drop me an email if you want to talk in more detail.

<<or there have been references to 'a gram of Coke'>>

I don't think there have ever been references to indulging in a 'gram of coke' [?looks quizical?]

Virtually all states have reverted to IP according to this summary by the FHWA. (Only 5 are dual or SI)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/metric01.htm

Meanwhile, the FHWA will work only in metric.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/0601metr.htm
(quoted). . . In the future, the use of metric measurements in documents prepared by the State DOT's will be optional. I am, therefore, rescinding the following prior guidance memoranda on this issue:

"Metric Conversion in Environmental Documents," December 13, 1993.
"Metric Use Requirements," May 6, 1999.

We are not, however, changing our policy on the use of metric measurements in documents prepared by the FHWA. In accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418), we will continue to use metric measurements in our daily business activities. As in the past, documents intended for a broader audience, such as the general public, may use dual units with the metric value first followed by the inch-pound value in parenthesis. . . .(endquote)

It shouldn't take us long to rival "A Very British Mess."

"""We are not, however, changing our policy on the use of metric measurements in documents prepared by the FHWA. In accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418), we will continue to use metric measurements in our daily business activities. As in the past, documents intended for a broader audience, such as the general public, may use dual units with the metric value first followed by the inch-pound value in parenthesis. . . .(endquote)"""


When dual units are used, are they roughly converted from rounded metric to rounded FFU (Fred Flinstone Units) or are they the exact conversion resulting in non-rounded inch values? I was once told that inches other then fractions that are powers of two are not real inches. Thus would a person reading a federal document that used dual units be able to use numbers that didn't equate to some fraction?

<<I was once told that inches other then fractions that are powers of two are not real inches.>>

That's not correct. Most industries that are NOT metric use decimal inches for drafting and design because fractions are a major PITA. In electronics, Dual-In-Line packages are largely obsolete now, but they had two rows of pins 0.3" apart, 0.1" between pins. Or look at the specifications ( in inches) for American Wire Gauge. Whoever told you that was blowing smoke. Precision machining is usually to 0.0001"

As to your other question, it depends on the purpose of the document. I just posted some material from MUTCD (specifies traffic control devices). It is a design guide and both English and metric values are "rounded" to rational values, roughly equivalent. You are supposed to use one or the other throughout, not pick and choose.

In other documents, one dimension is measured or calculated, the other version is obtained by conversion. ANSI SI10 has a good section on rules for rounding in that case (for $50; NIST SP811 is free download, and nearly as good, although focused on metrology, less on engineering practice.

FFU eh?

And smelly too, no doubt.

"""That's not correct. Most industries that are NOT metric use decimal inches for drafting and design because fractions are a major PITA."""

I agree, but there are those users of FFU who do not work in decimals and support the 1/2^n series. Even when they have to complete the division and express the fraction as a decimal they see no problem in 5 or 6 digits because that is what you get. Significant figures means nothing to this group.


"""In electronics, Dual-In-Line packages are largely obsolete now, but they had two rows of pins 0.3" apart, 0.1" between pins. Or look at the specifications ( in inches) for American Wire Gauge. Whoever told you that was blowing smoke. Precision machining is usually to 0.0001"""

JEDEC changed the rules circa 1990 on chip pin spacings. Any new design since then has to have their pins spaced in a "rounded" millimetre distance. In the form of X.YZ, where X & Y can be any number, but Z can only be a 0 or a 5.

When 0.1 inches (2.54 mm) was replaced by 0.05 inches (1.27 mm) this was before the ruling. The next generation would have been 0.025 inches (0.635 mm), but is violated the new rule, so it became 0.65 mm. Now it is common to see pin spacings of 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm, but no inch series.

The comment came from an American who insisted on seeing inches on drawings and was upset when the inches were rough translation of standard metric values (like expressing 50 mm as 1.97 inches). The person was insisting that the dimension be rounded to the closest 1/16-th inch. I told him I can express it any way he wishes, but it wouldn't change the actual size of the parts being made.

I've seen CNC machines that had a resolution if inch mode was selected of 0.0001 inch or in metric mode to 0.001 mm. The metric mode was twice as accurate as 0.0001 inch equals 0.002 54 mm. All the CNC machines actually "think" in metric utilizing metric feed back elements.

Ahh. you were just trolling for an imperialist. Sorry I damaged the bait.

While I live in the US, my engineering education and both my employers (an electronics company, and the elctronics division within a Big Three auto manufacturer) have been 98+% metric.

It is amazing that there are still some people today who would insist American made cars are NOT metric. Their proof is because they can use an FFU wrench on a metric bolt and it "works". Of course they don't know the bolt is metric, they just assume the bolt is inch because the inch wrench fit over the head. Ever come across this?

Yes, I have, and I just want to say that my Crescent wrench is bilingual, english/metric.

There are even a couple of holes (or even bolts) that the customer may interface with that remain English, things associated with mounting a trailer hitch are a good example.

Having worked in the industry, the vehicle is designed in metric and has a metric coordinate system. Packaging drawings for parts show 100 mm lines from the coordinate system so engineers can understand what part of the car the drawing represents. For parts, we have to report the location of the center of gravity of the part (for parts under a weight limit, we use the geometric center of the part) as packaged in the vehicle's coordinate system. Oddly, because of the importance of inertial weight classes in Federal test requirements for mileage, we report the weight in pounds though. Equally oddly for a metricated Federal government, emissions rules are in grams per mile. But the exhaust is collected in bags from each of the three cycles in the emissions test (on a dyno) and moles of pollutant computed. Mileage is inferred from CO2 in the bag and carbon content of the fuel. (It gives a new meaning to "Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full.")

We, of course, convert and put whatever Imperial measurements are required in the brochure and owner's manual. The customer is always right. For the Canadians, we use the metric info, and provide a French translation. I assume most industries that have gone metric have a similar issue and basically conceal the fact from their Imperial customers.

<<
We, of course, convert and put whatever Imperial measurements are required in the brochure and owner's manual. The customer is always right. For the Canadians, we use the metric info, and provide a French translation. I assume most industries that have gone metric have a similar issue and basically conceal the fact from their Imperial customers.
>>

In Europe, car manufacturer-supplied handbooks appear in many languages, but all measurements are in metric units - at least that is what I saw in my VW Golf handbook (2001). [I think that the Golf is marketed as a "Rabbit" in the US].

[I think that the Golf is marketed as a "Rabbit" in the US].


VW stopped selling Rabbits in the US a long time ago. Their feature cars now are the Jetta, the Passat and the new Beetle (Käfer). They are made (assembled) in Puebla, Estado Tlaxcala, México, which is about 130 km directly east of Ciudad de México.

It is amusing that the imperial roads the states are so valiantly defending have nothing but metric cars driving on them. (less a very small number of historic vehicles that predate about 1975)

The MPH marks painted on the speedometer dial are defined on a metric drawing. :)

I wonder how much the auto industry's metrication has affected other industries. Do you have any insight as to how deep the auto metrication penetrates into other areas of the US economy? How many businesses were forced to go metric just to serve the auto industry?

what reaction is there from the shop floor to working in metric?

Good question, but hard to answer. We require the part to meet the metric print and we require all the required QC data to be supplied in metric. The Big Three consolidated a lot of their requirements via the AIAG (Auto Industry Action Group) which also includes many suppliers. There is a lot of QC data that has to be supplied on first production parts, what we call PPAP or Production Part Approval Process.

As a minimum, I think a supplier would have to have a metric QC department. The possibility exists of producing on imperial machines and taking the QC data, SPC charts, and other things required for the quality plan in metric. I think many started that way, but found it easier to buy new metric machinery. Most auto. suppliers are pretty dedicated to automotive, and don't do much other business. The suppliers I personally dealt with appeared to be "genuinely metric."

I will say years ago, the steel industry went to Congress and whined about how expensive it would be to go metric. When the auto industry said it wanted metric coils, the answer was "What size." (Obviously, they supply steel to everybody). I saw a recent article saying they just converted, ran in inch-pound, and supplied metric QC data. But the article was about the fact one of them just opened a true metric mill. (bastards deceived us for years!)

On the other hand we had a "technology exchange" with an aircraft manufacturer years ago (just a pair of visits, no one gave away any real secrets). They were at the opposite extreme, 100% inch pound, and convinced it would be horribly expensive to go metric. My impression was that their suppliers were as captive as ours, and the costs would have been near zero if they were assertive and committed. They clearly didn't see it that way.

I think industry is divided into a metric circle and an inch-pound circle with not tremendous cross-over. But some numerically controlled machines switch easily; a few people cross over. My guess is that's a minority.

Sorry I can't give a really concrete answer.

Actually, your answer was very informative.

I read some years ago, about the time LTV shut down that the auto industry was buying a lot of "speicality" steel from Belgium and Germany. The article didn't say what was special about it, I just assumed it was metric. With the US steel industry hurting, some having closed for good, others bought out by foreign groups, China selling a lot of steel in the US, one would see a perfect opportunity for someone to make an issue of producing and providing only metric steel for the US.


http://www.metricstainlesssteel.com/

Parker Steel in Toledo has been selling metric sized steel for years. Someone must be buying it or they wouldn't still be in business. The auto industry should put their foot down (pun intended) and reward companies like Parker who are metric and tell the rest that if they want your business, they beterr be metric 100 %. If the American steel producers were only metric, it would help push much of US industry that depends on inch sized steel forms to metricate if they realised they couldn't get inch sizes anymore.

I'm sure by now, though many companies produce both if they have to accommodate a divided economy, which has to be expensive. The running two seperate production lines. I just wonder how they keep everything seperate.

John

Check out this web site: http://www.metricmetal.com/DEFAULT.HTM

Parker Steel is the Largest Metric Metals Warehouse in U.S.A.

Parker Steel stocks ONLY METRIC sized carbon steel, stainless steel, alloy, brass, aluminum and copper including;

If you don't already, check them out and give them your business!

Interesting, but they are only a distributor. I doubt they could handle our volumes which usually require dedicated lines at steel mills.

I've heard the name though, and I suspect some of our suppliers of parts use them for raw materials.

Erin, I neglected your question about metric on the shop floor. I never saw any problem, but the company went metric before I joined in 1978. I estimate from conversion material still around when I joined, that occurred mostly between 1972-1975. There may have been some problems then, but not in my time there.

Also the companies are organized in such a way that assembly plants are just assembly of purchased and shipped in components. The workers do not use their own tools, they have automated lifting assist where needed, air guns to drive screws, nuts, etc, all supplied by the company. They may not even be aware they are working in metric. They don't need to "think metric."

GM and Ford both organized their parts divisions into standalone companies and spun them off in recent years. Chrysler sold theirs piecemeal. So the only parts manufacturing left are metal stamping for car bodies, and manufacture of engines and transmissions (each company buys a few low volume engines and transmissions, makes their high volume ones). Again processes are highly automated, workers use company tools for assembly and mostly "tend" the machines that actual "make" parts.

Automotive is very high volume. Station times in assembly plants are around 45-60 s depending on how high tech the plant is, and a new car comes off the line every 45-60 s. Each company has fewer engine and transmission plants than assembly plants, so those plant outputs (across all the lines in a plant) have to be faster for something that goes in every car, like an engine. There is no time for hand machining.

I was in the radio group. Our plants made 20,000 radios a day (just for US market) on parallel lines, each running ~100 radios/h, 17 h/day. You have to "feed the beast."

"""Interesting, but they are only a distributor. I doubt they could handle our volumes which usually require dedicated lines at steel mills.

I've heard the name though, and I suspect some of our suppliers of parts use them for raw materials."""


It would be interesting to know who their customers are. If they only sell/distribute metric sizes, they have to generate enough business in the US to stay in business. I understand 40 % of the American industry is metric. Have you heard this too?

If you go to your local Home Depot, or any similar store, you will see that they do sell metric fasteners. Which means there is a need for them and people do buy them. Which kind of proves the US is more metric then some would believe or want to believe. I know those home decorative room ceiling fans use metric hardware.

You brought up an interesting point earlier when you mentioned your industry vs aerospace. It makes me wonder how polarised the US market or industry really is and how much it affects the economy in general.

Do you ever come across vendors, suppliers or even users that complain or grumble about your industry being metric? Do you ever have someone try to speak to you in FFU when you want to hear metric? Do you ever encounter resistance when working metric? When or if you do, how do you handle it?

Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic.

<<<Do you ever come across vendors, suppliers or even users that complain or grumble about your industry being metric? Do you ever have someone try to speak to you in FFU when you want to hear metric? Do you ever encounter resistance when working metric? When or if you do, how do you handle it?>>>

A few years ago we had 6000 suppliers and set a goal to have less than 1500. Whether metric or something, troublesome suppliers got a standard litany, "You will, or my next supplier will!"

A supplier had to demonstrate he could comply with all terms and conditions, and that certainly included metric, and quality requirements such as APQP, PPAP, working on QS-9000 (an automotive superset of ISO-9000, etc.

As for users, the Big Three are all metric. If you didn't like it, what were you going to do, buy Japanese or European? :) Admittedly, that wouldn't solve a customer's desire for Imperial, but it did solve their desire for some other needs we didn't meet. In another thread, you've posted some articles showing the American auto industry is in trouble and that is certainly true. I doubt it had anything to do with going metric 30 years ago. If oil were cheap and big trucks and SUVs were selling well, we'd be in fat city. We never gave enough priority to small, fuel efficient cars and could never make much profit on them, compared to Japanese and Europeans, big trucks and SUVs carried the companies and we are paying the price.

"""In another thread, you've posted some articles showing the American auto industry is in trouble and that is certainly true. """

That was in response to a certain resident idiot who posts trash about the euro.


"""I doubt it had anything to do with going metric 30 years ago. If oil were cheap and big trucks and SUVs were selling well, we'd be in fat city. We never gave enough priority to small, fuel efficient cars and could never make much profit on them, compared to Japanese and Europeans, big trucks and SUVs carried the companies and we are paying the price."""


The troubles facing the American economy has a lot to do with the deficits, unlimited, uncontrolled and unsecured credit. As long as the petro-dollar exists the US will continue to deficit spend. The euro was brought into existence to end the petro-dollar economy (dollar hegemony). If you don't know how or why the US benefits from the petro-dollar economy you may wish to read these two articles:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

In order to keep the petro-dollar going, the US must export as much as its manufacturing as possible as well as any economic aspect that can be done overseas. This way the US just pays for the imports with printed fiat dollars. The receivers of these dollars recycle them back to the US in the form of buying treasuries (governement deficit bonds) and stocks. Paper that has no real backing is now worth "something". In the end the US got the goods for free, or so they think.

The euro damaged this system by offering an alternative to investing in US assets. Thus the fall of the dollar over the past 3 years and the concern over rising US deficits not being funded in the future.

As long as the US dollar is the oil currency there will always be a need for foreign central banks to hold and need dollars. However, because of the euro they are only holding what they need and diversifying the rest, thus starving the US economy of funds.

The oil price rise has to do with two factors:

1.) The loss of value of the dollar and
2.) The attainment of peak oil.

The second means the world's oil wells are all at or near their peak and the cost to get the oil out is more costly. The demand for oil has sky-rocketed in recent years pushing the peak originally from some 70 years in the future to 2012 just a few years ago to 2008 now.

If you read the one article: Day of Deficit Reckoning?, you will understand that governments pay no attention to crises until the damage is done and no corrective action can be taken. It would be political suicide if the government forced people to give up their middle class life style to save the resources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801571.html

If the US had a normal economy that did not depend on the petro-dollar and relied on earnings from exports, the governemnt would force the country to metricate and treat those that refuse as un-patriotic. But since it presently is not desireable for the US to be an exporter of goods (only printed fiat paper currecny) there is no need to push metrication.

Eventually the dollar and US economy will collapse. I predict sometime after Spring 2006. The opening of the Iranian oil bourse and the sale of Iranian (and others who want to use this bourse to sell their oil) oil in euros only will be the catalyst that brings the dollar down.

If in the future the US does recover, it will be a more humbled and fully metric nation.

<<The troubles facing the American economy has a lot to do with the deficits, unlimited, uncontrolled and unsecured credit.>>

Although these may be factors, I don't agree they are main causes and offered some analysis of why I think so in the other thread. We might want to keep this thread mainly about metric/imperial cars and roads, not economics. The title would not lead one to look here for economic analysis (except "cost" of metric roads, which is BS)

I think we all know that "Error NoBrains" is fervently anti-american. New posters should be made fully aware of this.

Anyhoo:-

<<<In Europe, car manufacturer-supplied handbooks appear in many languages, but all measurements are in metric units - at least that is what I saw in my VW Golf handbook (2001). [I think that the Golf is marketed as a "Rabbit" in the US]. >>

Not true Martin,
I've had a Lotus, a Jag and a Rover. All of them offer imperial and foreign.
But then, those companies are UK based.

"""All of them offer imperial and foreign."""


Imperial (FFU) is foreign. You repeated yourself. You should have said FFU and SI or obsolete and SI then we would have been correct.

No, they were labelled in imperial and foreign.

Or imperial and DCO units, if you like.

SteveH wrote

<<
Not true Martin,
I've had a Lotus, a Jag and a Rover. All of them offer imperial and foreign.
But then, those companies are UK based.
>>

In what year were your various cares built? I was talking about a 2001 model.

<<I've had a Lotus, a Jag and a Rover. All of them offer imperial and foreign.
But then, those companies are UK based.>>

Well, Jaguar and Land Rover are based in Dearborn, MI. Ford bought Jaguar in 1990 and Land Rover in 2000 from BMW. (Rover (car) and Mini were sold to some other group.) BMW had purchased all of Rover and Mini in 1994.

I'm pretty sure there has been more than enough time for the vehicles to become metric if they weren't previously. Of course, US manufacturers are well versed in providing dual units where required by the market (sometimes even when the market is opposed to them :) )

I don't know what is meant by:

I've had a Lotus, a Jag and a Rover. All of them offer imperial and foreign.
But then, those companies are UK based.


First of all calling metric "foreign" is derogatory. In truth it is your imperial that is foreign. What British person invented it? If it was invented elsewhere and imported into England, then it is foreign too. Metric is more British then imperial as many of the units are named for British scientists. Thus to be fair and honest, you should have said foreign and metric. But i would prefer it if you would stick to official names like metric or SI when referring to metric.

Second, it sounds like your saying these cars are offered in metric and English models. Like if I wanted, I could have a model with all metric or all inch based fasteners. This I highly doubt.

My guess would be the cars are fully metric like every other car made in the world and what may be offered in metric or English units are the information appearing in catalogs.

My guess is that the above is by Daniel.



BTW - I have a mini too (a proper one!)

I'm quite into cars.

It was me.

Now could you please clarify what you meant by "all of them offer imperial and metric"? BTW, I'm changing your incorrect usage of the term foreign to metric.

This is yet another example of where you post misleading statements. I'm sure you can see why.

The whole thread is about information to the driver about the specification of his/her car.

Not how big the nut sizes are.

To the right you will see a scroll area - try moving "up" to read some history

<<
Metric is more British then imperial as many of the units are named for British scientists.
>>

Six British scientists & engineers have gioven their names to SI units
Four German scientists & engineers have given their names to SI units
Three French scientists & engineers have given their names to SI units

and

Four scientists & engineers from other countries have given their names to SI units

You forgot to end with: "I see that as 6-3 to the British against the French" so that those who like imperial can suddenly see that metric is really really British and as such stop using imperial words such as "inch", "foot", "mile" etc.

The answer is simple: the US, Canada, and the UK, all the countries of the English-speaking world that have had such big trouble metricating or getting enough popular support to metricate properly ought to just cut their losses and fully revert to Imperial/US Customary weights and measures for eternity. The USMA and the UKMA could just wind up business and that would be the end of that. And the rest of the world can go hang. Would that make them all happy? I think not. Then there would be nothing to argue about.

Rip

<<The answer is simple: the US, Canada, and the UK, all the countries of the English-speaking world that have had such big trouble metricating or getting enough popular support to metricate properly ought to just cut their losses and fully revert to Imperial/US Customary weights and measures for eternity. >>

There are a number of US businesses that are fully metric and would go NUTS if anybody proposed that. And they would argue (correctly) that doing business metrically has been legal since 1866, and there is no basis for denying them the right to continue to do so.

They would promise to "make up" (by conversion) whatever Customary measures are necessary to satisfy the "common folks."

Oh, wait, . . hopefully, you were joking. :)

Metric has been legal in the US since 1866 and in the UK since 1896. Do anti-metric Americans blame metric conversion on the EU too? New subject: What do US small arms manufacturers use in producing firearms, US Customary units or metric?

Rip

No. Mostly, they blame the French, with who we aren't on terribly good terms after their position on the Iraq war (that and speaking French).

On small arms, I'm not sure. I don't have a problem with gun ownership or hunting, but I don't personally do either. From ads, it seems to be a mix of Customary and metric. Some "odd" metric calibers are really Customary converted to metric for the military, some are rounded metric, and some are Customary calibers that date back to the 1800's. It wouldn't surprise me if all the engineering drawings were metric, but I don't know it to be the case. Maybe more of a gun enthusiast knows the answer.

"They would promise to "make up" (by conversion) whatever Customary measures are necessary to satisfy the "common folks.""

Or just close the doors, move the factory to a metric country and let the "common folks" go work for Wal-mart stocking shelves with the metric goods they formerly made, now still made in metric but by someone else's hands.

Auto industry jobs, even line workers, pay pretty well and are quite sought after. I've NEVER seen a worker make a fuss about metric being required. So I don't think that is a very fair assignment of blame.

It seems to come from companies and branches of engineering where nobody is converted yet. We have some other American engineers and engineering students who post here. I am frankly amazed to see some of the anti-metric sentiments. I guess we really have a "Two Cultures" problem, english/metric. Not quite what C. P Snow had in mind in his book of similar title, but close enough.

I've seen pretty staunch opposition to metric from an engineer friend of mine as well. He works for one of the metric Big Three in Detroit to boot. From what I can gather from casual conversations about metric, most people don't seem to be against it. Some are wondering why haven't we converted yet. Much of the resistance comes from people of the conspiracy-theory/militia types.

<<Much of the resistance [to metric] comes from people of the conspiracy-theory/militia types.>>

In other words, fantasists.

A fantasist is someone who thinks that something is there when it isn't.

I'm not sure that conspiracy theorists fall into this catagory as its not as black and white.

eg - one could claim that a british pint holds 500ml, but one could easily fill a pint up and prove it's 20 floz.

now compare that to the idea that the pentagon was not flown into by a plane and that its a plot by the US government as a diversionary tactic.

How do you physically prove that person to be wrong?

The first is a fantasist, while the second is a conspiracist.

Also - most conspiracists don't mind being called a conspiracist, where as Danny definitely DOES NOT want to be called a fantasist.

<<I've seen pretty staunch opposition to metric from an engineer friend of mine as well. He works for one of the metric Big Three in Detroit to boot.>>

Any idea why he opposes it or what his issues? I suppose there is always an exception, but it is contrary to my experience. Most of the automotive engineers I've worked with would prefer the country to go metric, so they don't need to know two systems.

Makes of course eminent sense.

<<Any idea why he opposes it or what his issues? I suppose there is always an exception, but it is contrary to my experience. Most of the automotive engineers I've worked with would prefer the country to go metric, so they don't need to know two systems.>>

John, I've no idea. I often think he'll do this just to spite me. What I remember is that he made some fuss about cubic inches conveying more accurate information than liters. Same argument I've heard about the Fahrenheit scale from him.

<<What I remember is that he made some fuss about cubic inches conveying more accurate information than liters. >>

Well, it was "conventional" to specify displacement to the nearest cubic inch, and it was typically a 3 digit number. Displacement in liters is used specified to 0.1 L, and is usually two digits. However, if he actually looks at bore/stroke and computes the displacement, he can have more digits than he'll know what to do with.

Just knowing displacement isn't all that useful if you are comparing an old pushrod, carburetted engine against a modern 4 valve (per cylinder), overhead cam, port fuel injected engine anyway.

I suspect he is making the same argument on temperature. The degree Celcius is "too coarse." However, the National Weather Service logs all temperature data to the nearest 0.1 degree C, and converts for users who want F. They don't even measure in fahrenheit anymore. So if he thinks he is getting more resolution, he isn't.

I likes my cars to have cc engines and mph gauges.

How's that for a "British mess"?

Tee hee.

And I was so sure you'd be converting those cc's to cubic inches.
But it's OK, at least it is "incorrect metric" so you won't spontaneously combust. (s/b cm³) :)

If he hates metric that much, he should resign his job and go work as a greeter at Wal-Mart. They don't need to use metric as they say Good day and offer you a shopping cart.

Must be the pay is to good and having to use metric isn't as bad as working for less elsewhere. I hope he doesn't try and sneek imperialisms in now and then.

Who are you referring to (that 'hates metric').

Now I'm confused.

If you are referring to Tony then I really don't think he *hates* metric - just the imposition of it against people's wills.

I think he means the imperial automotive engineer. And if he brings up his metric reservations with his boss, he may be greeting at Walmart. All the automotive companies are looking to reduce staff due to loss of share to imports. "Volunteering" to be a reducee by being outspoken is something many employees consider the risk of.

Right.

I'm back on track now.

Thanks for clearing that up.