Dear John,
Recently I discussed similar questions with my brother-in-law who is a
design engineer at Toyota in Melbourne (70 km from Geelong).
Some of the points he made were as follows:
. All parts in all models of Toyota's range are metric.
. It takes about 10�000 parts to make a car.
. The simplest part � a flat washer � needs at least three measurements
(inner diameter, outer diameter, and thickness)
. The most complex parts, body panels, might have as many as eighty or
ninety measurements.
. All dimensions on all drawings are specified in millimetres.
. The most common measurements are specified to the nearest tenth of a
millimetre, i.e., there is one digit after the decimal point.
He reckoned that, on average, each part has about 10 measurements, so this
makes a total for each car of about 100�000 measurements.
On these figures and assuming that the car is then dumbed down by having its
tyre sizes changed to inches, its tyre pressure changed to pounds per square
inch, and its odometer and speedo changed to miles and miles per hour for
the new owner. This means that four measurements out of 100�000 are
sufficient to give the illusion that the car owner is safe and secure in a
colonial world.
On my figures the car I described above is 0.004 % old units and 99.996�%
metric. Perhaps we could use the food marketing technique where a food is
97�% fat free) by saying 'All American cars are 99.996�% metric and they
have no more than 0.004�% imperial contamination.'
I hope this helps with your deliberations.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
--
on 2002/01/28 13.02, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
USMA:17691
> 2002-01-27
>
> Joe's comments about the auto industry bring up an important question. Are
> the industries that went metric 20-30 years ago still that dedicated to
> metric today?
>
> I really don't think so. I've seen lapses that should send up flags.
> Concerning the auto industry, I have come across many instances where metric
> is not used. First of all, there is the every-now-and-then argument by Joe
> Home Automechanic that his 1999 whatever still has non-metric parts on it.
> How he can tell, except for nuts & bolts is beyond me. Just by looking at
> the car, how can anyone tell if the fender, or hood, or doors, etc are
> metric or not? But, most of all, they are referring to the nuts & bolts.
> Do they really know or are they assuming a bolt is non-metric because they
> can fit an English wrench on it?
>
> Second, is the after market parts makers. Do they adhere to metric when
> making after market parts? A few years back I was in line at the local auto
> parts store, behind a guy who wanted to return the after market part he
> bought because he thought it was defective. Seems the bolts wouldn't go
> into the threaded holes. The clerk tested the guys bolts in his unit and
> they fit, then into the new unit and it would not thread in. The clerk went
> over to his parts bin and picked 4 new screws and Voila they went into the
> after market part but not the OEM part. The old bolts were metric, the new
> ones were not.
>
> Third, a neighbour who works as an inspector for Ford Motor Company claims
> metric is not used where he works. Is it possible the drawings are
> "converted" for the sake of the Americans at American plants? I can't
> imagine hundreds, if not thousands of union factory workers of the same
> mentality as Jim Elwell's "plumber", happily using metric on the job.
> Somehow these people must be shielded from metric, but how? Since I have
> never seen an automotive drawing, I can't say for sure what goes on in these
> plants. If anyone knows, can they enlighten us?
>
> For whatever reason the auto industry went metric in those days, and other
> industries too, like soft drinks, one must wonder if the use of metric is
> still strong and uncompromising in these industries? Even though the soft
> drink industry introduced metric sizes in that era, we have seen reversions
> back to FFU since. When some of us asked Coke and Pepsi why they introduced
> 20 and 24 ounce bottles, all we got was that same old tired "market-forces"
> excuse.
>
> Let's face it, the people who worked in those industries 20-30 years ago and
> introduced those changes, are either retired or dead by now. The newer
> generations hired on since don't have that feeling for metric as the
> previous managers did. I'm sure many of the present work force would rather
> return to all FFU. I'm sure this new generation is not metric fluent and to
> them metric is a nuisance, and thus are more tolerant of contractors or
> vendors who don't stick to the strict use of SI.
>
> Any comments?
>
> John
