Metric vs Imperial units

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

Ya know, I think I have figured it out...This argument comes up from time to time and the bottom line argument from the pro metric side is.."Is simpler..it's easier"
It would appear that those in favor tend to be those that are lazy and not very good at math so want it simple. :lol:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
mep
29
Joined: 11 Oct 2003, 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

Jersey Tom wrote:Personally I'm a big fan of Imperial units.

1) They're easy.

2) When all your machine shop equipment and tooling is in Imperial units, that's what's practical.
I can say exactly the same for the metrical system.
Why you even say it's easy?
What can be easier then having everything based on 10. Every 10 steps you go to the next unit.

10mm = 1cm
10cm = 1dm
10dm = 1m
....and so on.

12 inch = 1 foot
3 foot = 1yard
?????
That doesnt seem to be very logical.


The big advantage of the metrical system comes into play when you need to divide anything.

10kg/cm² = 100g/mm²

Whats that in imperial units?

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

I'm surprised F1 isn't imperial, I gather Max was keen on the rod, pole, perch and chain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_%28length%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_%28length%29

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

xpensive wrote:Intersting measurement that, 760.643 mm, but with a +/- 2 mm tolerance...anyone of my designers putting that on a drawing would be fired on the spot!
That's funny. A few decades ago Canada went through the transition from Imperial to metric, but of course, there are always going ot be a few holdouts. One amusing thing that occurs regularly and to me is amusing is sometimes when the news reports an incident such as a traffic accident, and they refer to some arbitrary distance as (for example) 4.83 klicks. Now what really happened is that most likley some cop gave some reporter info, such as " 3 miles".

Geez, if you think that's difficult, I remember working on the Canadian version of the T-33 jet trainer. US construction, but RR engine. That meant that for the airframe we used US standards, and for the engine was used British Standard Whitworth.

These days I have a simple conversion app for my smartphone. It's always with me, and I can do any conversion in seconds, even down to that last .643 mm. lol.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.

User avatar
mep
29
Joined: 11 Oct 2003, 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

richard_leeds wrote:I'm surprised F1 isn't imperial, I gather Max was keen on the rod, pole, perch and chain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_%28length%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_%28length%29
hahaha
using such units is a punishment itself.
1 rod = 25 link = 5,5 yard= 16,5 feet= 198 inch = 5,0292 Meter

1 ch. = 4 rd. = 100 li. = 66 ft. = 20,1168 Meter

1 statute mile = 8 furlong = 80 chain = 320 rod = 8000 link

User avatar
jon-mullen
1
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 02:56
Location: Big Blue Nation

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

I like metric now because the derived units are easier, especially for thermo. Working a problem with pressure in psi, energy in BTUs, velocity in ft/s or mph, yet electrical input's in watts...it takes twice as long as doing the equivalent in metric.

On the other hand, it's taken me a while to get a good visual feel for millimeters (except for wrenches) and a lot of other things I still convert back before I have a good reference for them. It's a slight disadvantage for Americans but it goes away after a bit. There's a few conversions you memorize and then you're good.
Loud idiot in red since 2010
United States Grand Prix Club, because there's more to racing than NASCAR

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
556
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

IPERIAL SUCKS HARD for any form of calculation. The only things imperial is good for are measuring tapes, cutting two by fours, building a house and stuff like that. I really only use it for "light" work or projects.

Imagine working in fractions, then all of a sudden when the fractions get too small you have to switch over to decimal. Imperial is just annoying like that. I had to this countless times when I was into blueprinting packing (PET bottles and packaging etc.) Do not even think of calculating with it. LOL

The only good side is that is is somewhat easy when you are building non precision stuff. You know like "make this two feet wide" Or "That pipe is a six inch pipe" "it's about two miles away." The nature of imperial avoids precision. Yeah some might say, "but but but, you have hundredths and thousands of an inch!" Yeah, that's decimal! so might as well you go right back to metric right there.

Oh God, I am getting flashbacks of doing energy conversions with Imperial! LOL BTU's and Pounds (force? Or mass) inches, Gallons and ounces!.... nooooooooooo! get it away from me!
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

☄️ Myth of the five suns. ☄️

☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️
LxVxFxHxN

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

We are not going to eliminate the duodecimal base completely from our world, that is true. The clock is split in twelve hours, the year in twelve months and the circle in 360° polar coordinates. Those conventions were made before the power of the decimal system on metrics was fully appreciated. In the dark age of feudalism you had a different set of units when you crossed the border of one local aristocrat to the next. It is a shame that the British empire did not come across the elegance of the decimal system before they aquired the power to rule more than half the world. The Romans and Napoleon were a bit luckier in that.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
jon-mullen
1
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 02:56
Location: Big Blue Nation

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

n smikle wrote:Yeah some might say, "but but but, you have hundredths and thousands of an inch!" Yeah, that's decimal! so might as well you go right back to metric right there.
:lol:

And then a thousandth of an inch is called a mil, just to keep you on your toes.

I could get down with 10 months in a year...as long as my rent stayed the same!
Loud idiot in red since 2010
United States Grand Prix Club, because there's more to racing than NASCAR

imightbewrong
imightbewrong
17
Joined: 07 Aug 2008, 16:18

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

jon-mullen wrote:
n smikle wrote:Yeah some might say, "but but but, you have hundredths and thousands of an inch!" Yeah, that's decimal! so might as well you go right back to metric right there.
:lol:

And then a thousandth of an inch is called a mil, just to keep you on your toes.
Which gets a little extra complicated for us swedes where a "mil" is 10km.

xpensive
xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

DaveKillens wrote: Geez, if you think that's difficult, I remember working on the Canadian version of the T-33 jet trainer. US construction, but RR engine. That meant that for the airframe we used US standards, and for the engine was used British Standard Whitworth.
You know what DK, for hydraulic pipe-theads, Whitworth BSPP/BSPT is still the ISO-standard, to my knowledge mm-threads are only used in Germany for that purpose. NPT is verboten everywhere though!

The same thing goes for O-ring cross-sections, ISO-recommendation is 2.62/2.65, 3.53/3.55, 5.30/5.33 and 6.99/7.00, which is of course stemming from inches somehow. Again, Germans an Austrians prefer even mm, like 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0,
I remember when I was Design manager for an Austrian-owned machinebuilding company in Pennsylvania, what a mess!

For the record Jon, the French also had this idea about a ten-day week, how about that?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

Dukeage
Dukeage
0
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 21:28

Re: Flexible wings controversy 2010

Post

mep wrote:Maybe this explains why french people can only count to sixty and then start to calculate.

60 soixante
70 soixante-dix (60+10)
80 quatre-vingt (4*20)
90 quatre-vingt-dix (4*20+10)
Isn't that actually quite recent though? IIRC in Belgian and Swiss dialect French it's septante, huitante and nonante - would any Belgian or Swiss French-speakers be able to verify that?

I'm British and I don't like the imperial system, but what's even worse is the mish-mash that's used now. The stupidest is petrol being sold by the litre and car fuel economy being advertised in miles per gallon. You do occasionally even get people appearing on TV using miles and kilometres in the same sentence!

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

xpensive wrote:For the record Jon, the French also had this idea about a ten-day week, how about that?
Unfortunately nobody can change the fact that a year has 365 days give or take a few hours that have to be adjusted occasionally. So that lends itself to 360° polar coordinates and it should also have spawned the idea of twelve months and twenty four hours to a day. Personally I would have preferred 10 months of 36 or 37 days and days, divided into two times 10 hours, divided into 10 minutes, divided into 10 seconds and further down from there. Weeks could be 5 days making it 10 clock periods.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

That meant that for the airframe we used US standards, and for the engine was used British Standard Whitworth.
Reminds me of a Triumph I owned,,Needed three sets of tool to work on it..British Standard/Whitworth,,,Metric and SAE..
...Odd the directions we can take..You do realise that a very long time ago before the earth got nudged further out in it's orbit, that the year did have 360 days. :wink:
When they buy stock to turn into metric bolts,,they start with imperial sized rod stock.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
mep
29
Joined: 11 Oct 2003, 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Metric vs Imperial units

Post

Well we cant change the solar system but one thing definitely could be changed.
A minute should have 100 seconds and a hour 100 minutes. Or 10 like white blue recommended.
Think about the huge impact this would have with seconds related to almost all unit.

imightbewrong wrote:
autogyro wrote:
mep wrote:Maybe this explains why french people can only count to sixty and then start to calculate.

60 soixante
70 soixante-dix (60+10)
80 quatre-vingt (4*20)
90 quatre-vingt-dix (4*20+10)
The French thing goes back to the establishment of the prime meridian at Greenwich.
Have you ever tried navigating in metric?
What is your source on that if I may ask? Can find nothing on it here at least
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigesimal
I learned it like that and I double checked it here:
http://dict.leo.org/frde?lang=de&lp=frde

BTW. I found it even in the link you posted:
Twenty (vingt) is used as a base number in the French language names of numbers from 70 to 99, except in the French of Belgium, Switzerland, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, the Aosta Valley and the Channel Islands. For example, quatre-vingts, the French word for 80, literally means "four twenties", soixante-dix, the word for 70, is literally "sixty-ten", soixante-quinze (75) is literally "sixty-fifteen", quatre-vingt-sept (87) is literally "four-twenties-seven", quatre-vingt-dix (90) is literally "four-twenties-ten", and quatre-vingt-seize (96) is literally "four-twenties-sixteen". However, in the French of Belgium, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, the Aosta Valley, and the Channel Islands, the numbers 70, 80, and 90 generally have the names septante, huitante and nonante. So, the year 1996 is "mille neuf cent quatre-vingt-seize" in Parisian French, but it is "mille neuf cent nonante-six" in e.g. Belgian French.