Two comments: 1) Why label every centimetre? I have a metre-stick that only has every 5th centimetre labelled. This creates plenty of room. In a recent email I suggested an 'American Construction Scale" for tape measures that labelled every 25 mm. That would make plenty of room for larger fonts. 2) Why have every mm on a tape measure? Most construction tape measures will only have 1/16 inch markings for the first 4 or 6 inches and then decrease the resolution to 1/8 ths. I have a framing square at home that is metric-only. The scale is in millimetres (10, 20, 30, etc), but only every second mm is marked. If one needs resolution to the nearest mm then one just places a pencil mark half way between mark on the square. This is close to 1/12 inch which is more precise than 1/8 inch and easier to read than 1/16 in. It would require a massive effort on behalf of the construction industry to introduce new metric dimensional lumber and techniques all at once, but it could be done if all were in agreement. I do have one question. How do the commercial builders in North America get along with non-metric modular components such as drywall, plywood, etc? greg > "Easier to read"??? I don't think so... 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. You can only squeeze in the full 4 digits every 100 mm. 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. For people who need glasses to read the metric tape (but not the wombat tape), the difference can be a big aggravation. It means that, using a metric tape, you have to put your glasses on and off every time you make a measurement. > 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, and not really difficult to read once you have learned the pattern. 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.
