I must say I was quite... surprised by this post of yours, Dennis! I feel I really need to address some of the points you raised (and please excuse me if I ever sounded "harsh" in my comments, they were not intended to be!), so here I go. >If there were really a big dollar savings to be gained by metricating >construction, I don't think the industry would be so incredibly resistant to >it (more resistant than any other major industry I know of)--particularly >with the federal incentives to metricate since the early 1990s. > Well... As a major grocery store's ad around here says: Believe it!!! Yes, this industry is indeed very resistant, but mostly because of the attitude of those working in it!!! If you followed my exchanges with that Mr. Naeyaert from Michigan, for example, you would have seen that attitude is unfortunately everything in this business. And I can only be extremely disappointed in these people's attitudes. They simply DON'T WANT TO GET IT, PERIOD!!! I've had several exchanges with ordinary people in this business and *PRACTICALLY ALL OF THEM* expressed the same kind of behavior to even utmost hostility towards me. So much so that I unfortunately developed very little respect for these guys (sorry...) with very few exceptions. >In construction, the main use of measurements on the job is not in >calculations, but in naming products and dimensions (especially orally) and >in physically measuring lengths. ??? Do you or have you ever had a chance to follow these guys' work *in the field*, Dennis? Well... I have, and I can attest to you that they do do a lot of calcs on the job. It's not as simple as you believe below, Dennis, fortunately for us!... (Most calculations are already done by the >designer. Workers just follow the blueprints.) Unfortunately, the inch-foot >names are usually simpler (easier to write and say) than the corresponding >hard-metric names, I beg your pardon??? What do you mean, Dennis? Are you saying that some 5'6" would be easier than, say, 1500 mm??? I cannot believe this is what you mean, my friend. I'm sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with you on this. How can "dual" names ever be simpler than single ones??? I don't see any shortcomings whatsoever with regards to metric "names", especially when we're dealing with *hard* metric values. and, to be honest, easier to read on a tape (because the >numbers are bigger). "Easier to read"??? I don't think so... I have a measuring tape with both systems on it and both have the same "size" (of fonts). When tapes are dual this is usually the case in metric countries. Perhaps the versions they've been producing in the US have this size disadvantage. But if one uses a pure tape, in either system, I can't see why they'd manufacture bigger fonts for ifp as compared to its metric equivalent. Besides what advantage they may have in font size is largely overcome by its disadvantage for reading, period! As reading fractions of 2 in tapes is much more difficult than reading decimals, no matter how skilfull one is in ifp. A more serious problem is that there are thousands upon >thousands of wombat building products but virtually no hard-metric products >available. True. But the solution is quite simple, stop labeling these things in ifp, period! Forget about 2'4 3/4", etc. Just give me 647 mm, whatever value may come and I'll handle it!!! That was my very point with Mr. Naeyaert. I don't care if I'm dealing with "soft metric" values. I can beat any ifp dead beat in this game, even no matter how "user friendly" these numbers in ifp may turn out to be, and that's a fact! (Tested, tried and done it, as I've demonstrated to some ifp workers in this industry several times - to their utter dismay and disappointment!... He, he, he... ;-) ) Building a metric building with inch-foot components presents all >sorts of problems. Not only do the parts not fit, causing extra labor >cutting and filling and unsightly connections, but you also have to >constantly convert back and forth. > First part, so far so good, but not the second part. One does NOT need to do conversions back and forth. Again, it would suffice for the entire job to be done in metric terms. Whether we're dealing with a metric building or not is irrelevant! True, there would be wastage (that's not my point of disagreement here), but no conversion would be necessary AT ALL if ifp parts were stated in metric to begin with. That's what happens in metric countries that sometimes are forced to deal with some ifp components. They simply ignore for instance that a pipe is 2", they just take it as 50.8 mm and use it as is, like this. >... >But calculations today are simplified by special builders' calculators and >CAD programs that automatically do fractions and inch-foot conversions, so >this is not the big advantage it once was. True, but only partly. The poor old fellow in the field still needs to do a lot of cutting and adjusting to make things fit a particular size that may be specified in the blueprints (especially if it's "custom made"). And these guys don't have access to such fancy tools, but only their "fraction ready" calculators, if at all! It is indeed unfortunate that >metrication didn't take root in the 1970s when it was supposed to, before >calculators and personal computers became common. >... True, but the fact remains as I described. There is still a significant amount of money to be saved by going metric. My example was just the tip of the iceberg actually. Marcus Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
