On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:48:34 Dennis Brownridge wrote: >As everyone on this list knows, I'm a strong supporter of metrication. But I >don't think it helps us to deny real problems and sweep them under the rug, True, but I certainly didn't do that! On the contrary I was (and always have been) willing to discuss them! >or to dismiss the legitimate complaints of people in the construction >business. Complaints which I feel could be adequately addressed. I've just highlighted some potential ones. Builders are not all dimwitted, reactionary clods. Most are quick >to adopt any shortcuts that save time, because construction is labor >intensive and time is money. Then laborers in this industry in the US are much more accommodating than the ones I meet here in Alberta. I stand by my earlier comments on this. Nearly all the ones I've met were very aggressive against even talking about it! Interspersed below are my responses to Marcus' >queries and comments in USMA 8746: > Fine. I have my "counter-arguments", too! ;-) >> Do you or have you ever had a chance to follow these guys' >> work *in the field*, Dennis? > >Yes, I worked in a variety of construction trades for 20 years and my father >was a contractor for 60 years. > Excellent, good to know about your background. However, it looks like we've had some different experiences though, as I did notice that (at least over here, anyways) they do do quite a few calcs on the job. Maybe in the US things are more... "ifp" rationalized than here. There is some indication of "abandonment" in Canada of ifp rationalization for instance in window sizes which are still (thank goodness...) hard rational metric (in millimeters) and some other components I can't recall now (but they are very few indeed). This may help explain some of these "differences" in experiences. >> Are you saying that saying 5'6" would be easier than, say, 1500 mm??? > >Yes. "Five-six" (two syllables) is twice as easy to say as "fifteen hundred" >(4 syllables) and three times easier than "one thousand five hundred" (6 >syllables)... And who the heck said one would need to say "fifteen hundred"??? It would suffice to just say one five, Dennis! Or just fifteen (but this could be a little ambiguous, so I'd prefer the previous one a lot better). Clearly no one would interpret it as 15 mm!!! The context in question is usually always unambiguous. In Brazil we do not use the mm in construction actually, but rather the cm and people there are very used to say things like "one fifty" (for a meter fifty centimeters). Clearly this is just "as easy/simple" than your five-six, is it not??? Therefore, I don't think you've convinced me of that point! Sorry... >> How can "dual" names ever be simpler than single ones??? > >See above. Ditto!... I agree that foot-inch conversion is awkward, but in practice >workers make measurements in cumulative inches more often than they do in >feet-inches. Hmm... I haven't paid much attention to this, but if my memory doesn't fail me I find that they still do most things in ft-in combinations over here, but I could be wrong, too. However, this doesn't change the fact that such combination is used no matter its frequency, and this is still "awkward" and silly. But it's something that is characteristic of ifp and can't be changed! In any event, calculation is rarely required, since the tape >has dual scales. Workers use whichever scale is most convenient. > Over here I'd say that it's sort of split. I've seen about just as many workers with dual tapes as with ifp only. And I don't recall people ever conducting "conversions" indeed, as it is over 95% ifp only anyway! >...Hard metric products aren't available. That's the problem. Agreed! But it doesn't mean they MUST be for "metric" construction to "work" so to speak. Even in "metric" construction there is still quite a few "ifp components" left, such as pipes, bolts, etc. And these do not pose any major difficulty for such workers over there (and I agree with the observation you've made later on concerning these components. :-) ). But even if they >were, names would generally be 2 to 4 times longer (more syllables) than the >corresponding wombat names (not counting the unit, which is unexpressed in >either case). > As I demonstrated above they don't have to be, Dennis. The label would indeed be quite long, if you settle for the mm exclusively. But in practice you can always find "language jargons" to overcome that as I showed above. So, this point is quite debatable. ... >On an inch-foot tape, the size of the numbers is limited only by the width >of the blade, whereas on a metric tape it is limited by the narrow (1 cm) >spacing between the numbers, regardless of the blade width. ??? I didn't quite catch that, sorry. Perhaps the problem has been with tape manufacturers. In any case I still can't see why font sizes could not be comparable. And as I told you earlier they indeed are in the dual tapes I've seen in metric countries, like Brazil. More below. Therefore, the >numbers on a wombat tape are much wider, bolder, more open, and easier to >read than the condensed, narrowed, lighter face numbers on a metric tape of >the same size--even thought the wombat tape has two number scales and the >metric tape only one. If this is true of metric tapes in the US then I can only say that something is definitely wrong somewhere. I've NEVER EVER heard ANYBODY in ANY METRIC country complain about the inadequacy of sizes of numbers to read from their metric tapes. And that is a fact!!! Therefore, this must be a "problem" that tape manufacturers in the US may have created or something. Or this is perhaps just another lame excuse, as usual... The problem is magnified by the fact that most of the >wombat numbers are 1 or 2 digits, while most of the metric numbers are 3 >digits (on a centimeter tape). Ah-ha! Then there is indeed a problem here. The tapes I know (from Brazil for instance) rarely carry more than 2 digits! They do use the cm, but they do it like this: 10, 20,..., 90, then 1 (for meter) and repeat the 10, 20, etc pattern. So, as you can see, there is rarely 3 digits to be seen, unless your tape is 100 meters long!!! ;-) On a millimeter tape (4 digits required), the >numbers are even smaller and you have to truncate most of them, dropping off >the first 2 digits for the 10 mm interval marks. ? I didn't quite get the "truncation" part, but that's ok. I brought a tape from Australia which reads in mm and I honestly didn't find the numbers do be unduly small, but the width of the tape was also quite big (around 20+ mm), so the problem was perhaps mitigated somewhat. ... So if you compare a standard 1" (25 mm) >inch-foot tape side by side with an otherwise identical all-metric tape, you >will see that the numbers on the former can be read two to four times >farther away. ? But why would anyone measure things "two to four times" away? As long as the size can be read from a "comfortable distance" that's all that matters! I'm certain they could produce 25 mm tapes that can be comfortably read by any individual, nearsighted or not. As I said before this is actually a quite... bizarre complaint (please see my comments earlier). ... >> 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. > >Fractions are certainly more difficult to write and to calculate with. But >the fraction marks are farther apart than the millimeter marks and are also >distinguished by different length ticks. So many people would argue that >they are physically easier to discriminate than the millimeters, ??? How can that be??? If a tape has markings every 1/16 or something there would be 16 such marks to the inch (compare that to 10!) and size differences would mean 8 short marks and 8 long marks, so to speak (and the problem is worse/compounded by the fact that these markings in inch tapes are usually staggered). Sorry, but I cannot see this being "easier" to identify than the 4 small marks in between the 5 mm "identifier" (i.e. every 5 mm the tick is longer). I could certainly read a, say, 583, or 567 whatever in a metric tape without even blinking. It's "kid's game". and not >really difficult to read once you have learned the pattern. Certainly the skill required to read such tapes are more demanding than the one required to read a metric tape. I know both and I can attest that it's much, much harder for me to read fractions in ifp tapes than millimeters! But the problem is much worse when you meet "ignorant" people, i.e. those who don't have any measuring skills in either. When I show the two tapes to them most have much more difficulty reading from the ifp tape than its metric equivalent. And these are "ifp" people, mind you! That certainly tells something, does it not? But there are no >fractions in modular sizes, the dimensions on architectural plans are always >in whole inches, and even in custom fitting builders rarely measure closer >than halves or quarters, so fractions are not really the big disadvantage we >like to claim. > That's because of the very rigid compartimentalization approach present in this ifp industry! You just HAVE to do things this way to have some efficiency, otherwise, forget it! However, as I argued with Mr. Naeyaert, one can do just the same in metric. And discrete for discrete, my friend, I'd take the metric "version" any day, anytime, anywhere, anyhow!!! On the other hand one does not see this ridigity in "metric construction". There is A LOT more flexibility there, and yet people NEVER get confused or bogged down by it! Please, remember, metric is "continuous", while ifp is "discrete", so to speak (please review my essay on this I posted here a few times ago to see what I mean by these expressions). >> 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!!! > >There are no wombat products with awkward dimensions such as 2'4 3/4". They >are all nice round numbers. > ? Are you sure? Because there are quite a few in our "lumber stores" here in Canada! Especially equipment that are installed, like furnaces, fans, windows (hard metric, hence fractional in ifp), shelves, etc. We do find many products with fractions in them. I didn't make any estimate about their percentage, but I promise next time I visit my Totem store that I'll take a closer look, ok? Besides, as Greg commented here earlier, many of these so called "2 by 4", etc, are NOT hard rational ifp!!! Don't forget that! ;-) >> I don't care if I'm dealing with "soft metric" values. I can beat any ifp >deadbeat >> in this game, even no matter how "user friendly" these numbers in >> ifp may turn out to be, and that's a fact! > >No you can't, Marcus, and that's precisely why builders are so bitter about >metrication. I'm no liar, sir! I've had these "games" with construction people here and I won practically 10 times out of 10! (and I noticed that this pissed them off greatly! He, he, he... :-) ) But maybe you misunderstood what I meant. So, let me address your quote below. Probably there is something here. Suppose you have to lay out the spacing for standard 16" >concrete blocks, or studs placed three to a 48" plywood sheet. Which is >easier, marking every 16" (no thinking required, since the tape has a >special mark every 16"), or measuring off multiples of 406.4 mm? Can you >instantly multiply by 406.4 in your head? Can you remember all the multiples >of 406.4 up to 20 000 or 30 000? I can't. And no, you can't round that off >to 406 mm because the 0.4 mm would soon accumulate to a significant error >and the pieces would be too tight to fit. > Hmm... Now I see what you're getting at. True, once one builds this kind of rigidity into an industry it's tough to get away from it. And these smart guys cheated a little, too (markings are present every 16", eh?... Tsk, tsk, tsk). ;-) But wait a second here, what about "in between the spaces"? What about tolerances? Who guarantees that things will be *precisely* 16"? You were hinting that one could lay this thing for 20 meters or so, right? Why can't I "round it up" to 407, for instance? True, errors would accumulate but one could compensate by playing with the "in-between filling", could one not? As for studs why can't I change their spacing in favor of rational metric intervals? Say, every 400 mm. Why not rerationalize such kinds of operation (those that can) in metric? True, there would be wastage, but the question is, how much would that represent in the overall cost picture? Besides, weren't the original plans supposed to be rational metric in the highway industry in the first place? Make ifp pieces fit that, just like they do in metric construction when it comes to ifp components. True if soft conversion happened I concede it could be a little more hassle to work with "406.4", but do you believe that this hassle would be that inefficient to the point of simply going back to ifp? One can play with tolerances in a reasonable way to address this particular issue, can one not? More below. ... >I'm sorry, but if you're doing a "metric" building with wombat modular >parts, you DO need to do conversions--constantly. How so? If everything is *marked* in metric, despite the unfriendly numbers. First the building is >designed in wombat so the parts will fit. Then all the dimensions are >converted to metric for the blueprints. ? Why would they do such a thing? The building is metric, right? They'd use ifp parts, right? Fine, take the measurements of the ifp parts and "cut" them accordingly. Know beforehand what kind of procedures to do to make these pieces "fit". You do this only once. Once you know what needs to be done you're all set. Yes, this is wastage, but how much more expensive is doing this as compared to the laborious task you're outlining above and below? No wonder that Naeyaert guy was defending a return to ifp after all... Then on the job, they are all >converted back to wombat, for the reasons described above. This inefficient, >costly, and dumb, and builders know it. > Agreed! But what about my comments above? >Pipe is not a modular part, so is not an issue. And 2" pipe is called 50 mm >pipe, not 50.8 mm. The actual dimensions vary from 46 to 52 mm, depending on >the type of pipe, so 50.8 mm is falsely precise. Pipe size is a name, not >something that workers physically measure. But even in metric countries, >people often call it "two inch" (2 syllables) because that's 3 times shorter >and easier than "fifty millimeters" (6 syllables). > Ok. But they also call it 5 cm, which is just as "short" (at least in some languages)!!!... >It's important to understand how measurements are used on the job. Agreed! In most >trades, the vast majority of measurements consist of the following >activities: > >(1) Naming products by their nominal size (no physical measuring involved) > >(2) Measuring off a standard spacing for modular products (studs, rafters, >block courses, etc.). These are all marked on an inch-foot tape, so no >thinking or calculating is required. > A similar procedure could also be (and usually it is!) developed for its "metric" equivalent, mind you... >(3) For custom (non-modular) fits of large pieces, one worker measures the >dimension and calls it out to the other, who makes the same measurement on >the piece, then cuts it and tosses it to the first worker. This saves >unnecessary walking back and forth or scrambling up and down ladders. > True. The only thing is that they'd cut a lot of ifp pieces to fit metric designs, or in other words, practically every "metric building" would be considered "custom-ordered"!... Alas, if this becomes costly, start producing more rational metric products! Put pressure on the industry to do it! ... >I read the exchanges very carefully. Naeyaert said that, > >"Operating with a dual measurement system neither enhances quality >nor is it more efficient than a single measurement system.... > >This is true and quite logical. And I didn't disagree! The disagreement was over WHICH ONE! He gave more details, also true: > >"...the rest of the construction industry,... continued to >use English measurements. Michigan's highway construction industry has been >forced to work with dual measurement systems where back-and-forth >conversions from English to metrics occur... In the end, >Michigan's taxpayers are footing the bill for the direct (materials & >equipment) and indirect (loss of productivity & efficiency) costs associated >with maintaining a dual measurement system... > To which I offered the option of why not metric only, then? >It sounds from his comments as though Naeyaert was ambivalent about >metrication when it started, or even supported it. ??? Supported it? I don't think so. He never tried to explain why he would not consider metric only! He kept on insisting on the "dual" measurement issue, something which I always agreed *from the start*! He kept on dodging the question of metric only! But it gave them so many >headaches that they gave up on it. And now that you have railed against him, >he is so pissed off that he is vehemently against it. > Ah... Sure, blame me then, is that it? This is one of the problems with some people. You pose a direct question, why not metric only? And they "beat around the bush". It would have been more... "unbiased" on his part if he had given me arguments for NOT CHOOSING metric instead of ifp. But did he ever do that, Dennis??? When confronted with a difficult problem it's simpler and easier to just go back to the old status quo, when the right thing to do would be to evaluate ALL the options available and make an educated analysis of such possibility considering all potential costs involved. I tried to show that gentleman the there was a possible direction to follow which would involve doing a more thorough study on the subject, a one that should involve all players of the industry. But he never even bothered to consider going in that direction, so... If he ended up being pissed off, don't blame me! Marcus Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
