G'day Pat,
Wasn't the original plan of the shoe 10 times original size? 2800 would then refer to 280mm actual size? Regards, and Merry Victorian Christmas (don't overdo the VB). Mike | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:57 AM | Subject: [USMA:23901] Shoe sizes | | | | Dear All, | | | | At our local 'Officeworks' store I found a copyright leaflet near the | 'Copy | | Centre' that used a drawing of a running shoe as its principle | illustration. | | | | A shoe was shown as a line drawing in plan and side elevation views. It | was | | the dimensions that attracted my interest. | | | | The plan view showed the shoe to be 2800 long; the toe was 700; from the | toe | | to the top of the tongue was 1100; and from the top of the tongue to the | | back of the shoe was 1000. There was no reference to any units on the | | drawing at all. | | | | My guess is that the units are tenths of millimetres (decimillimetres ?) | as | | a shoe could reasonably be 280 millimetres long. | | | | It looks to me like the running shoe manufacturer is designing and making | | their shoes in tenths of millimetres and then advertising them to the | public | | in the size numbers that we know are based on the lengths of barley | grains. | | | | It's an odd world! | | | | Cheers, | | | | Pat Naughtin CAMS | | Geelong, Australia | | | | |
