Dear Jim,

Many thanks for this information and for the link.

As you suggested I went to:
>  http://www.cabelas.com/
but then I went:
Home > Customer Service > Sizing Charts > Men's Clothing

When you scroll down the page you will find references to:

'extra 2" added to body and 1 1/2" sleeve length.
and
Men's Regular 5'8" to 6'0"; Tall 6'0" to 6'4"

Following this are two detailed charts of men's sizes under the headings:

Measurements are in inches
and 
Measurements are in centimeters

It looks like a bit of a measurement mixture. A quick examination reveals
that all of the measurements are really the inch measurements converted to
exact centimetre values (to two decimal places!) for the table.

While I was thinking about this strange way of running a business it
occurred to me that there are four main ways to approach metrication.

I suspect, and I know from Australian experience that the Cabela's company
is using one of these four approaches to 'metrication'.  In my
classification, below, the Cabela company is using 'Approach 3'.

The four main approaches to metrication are:

Approach 1
Keep all design and manufacture in old measures and communicate with the
public in old measures.

This is the approach recommended by the BWMA and the Wild West Hall of Fame
- enough said!

Approach 2
Do all design, processing, and manufacture in metric units and then
communicate with the public in old units.

The automotive industry in the USA designs to the nearest tenth of a
millimetre, builds to this precision and then sells to the public with a mph
speedometer, ml odometer, in. tyres with psi pressures. Although a car might
have its 10�000 parts measured some 100�000 times using only millimetres,
only four names, mph, ml, in., and psi are needed to convince many lucky
punters that they are driving an English units car in an English units
world.

Road makers in the UK use this approach. Roads are designed and constructed
in kilometres and millimetres and then labelled (signed) with mileposts and
furlong markers. Again, many lucky punters believe that they are driving an
English units car, on an English units road, in an English units world.

The world gold industry mines in tonnes, refines in grams, and milligrams,
and then sells to the public in troy ounces.

Approach 3
Design and manufacture in old measures and then use conversions (always?
soft conversions) to communicate with the public.

This is Cabela's approach with their clothing sizes. It is an attempt to
convince the public that the company is progressively metric while not
having to spend a red cent on retraining in the factory because there they
are still using inches and half-inches for all of their design and garment
making. 

This is also the approach taken by the menswear industry in Australia.

I think that many air-conditioners are built using horsepower, therms, and
BTUs as design elements and then sold to the public in kilowatts.

Approach 4
Design and build in metric, and communicate with the public in metric.

This is the simple and easy approach taken by the Australian building
industry, when they decided to design, build and communicate with the public
in millimetres.

Other approaches
Although it is easy to identify the four main approaches to metrication and
to identify many companies and industries that use each approach, it is
sometimes more difficult to classify groups who have chosen (mostly by
default) to use a somewhat messy range of these four approaches.

Consider the cost of the confusion at Kodak where the film division used
Approach 4 to complete metrication in the 1910s while the photographic paper
division is still puddling along with a sort of combined Approach 1 and
Approach 3 in the 2000s  -- 90 years later -- and they've still got a long
way to go.

I won't even comment on NASA, except to suggest that various parts of that
organisation are using all of these approaches, often in conflict with each
other.

Timing
The timing to complete metrication using each of the four main approaches is
interesting:
Approach 1 -- never, the muddle continues.
Approach 2 -- metrication is completed internally in the industry within a
few years, but the public conversion is designed not to happen until metric
measures have developed to a point where it is OK (morally right?) to
discuss metric measures in public.
Approach 3 -- very slow conversion will take place as a back-conversion from
the company's public 'metric' position, Typically, you should expect this
type of conversion to take at least 100 years.
Approach 4 -- quick and easy metrication, with a time of about two years
being typical.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin LCAMS
Geelong, Australia

Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication
matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words
subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

on 2004-02-02 05.49, James Frysinger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Here's a rather long link to web site for Cabela's, an outfitter selling in
> several U.S. states. This page describes their Jon boats and if you click on
> the link under each picture, you come to a detailed page giving critical data
> about each design, with metric quantities in parentheses.
> http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/community/aboutus/
> retail-detail.jhtml?detailedInformationURL=..%2F..%2F..%2Fcontent%2Fcommunity
> %2Faboutus%2Fretail%2Fretail_stores%2Fboat_2%2Flowe%2Fjons.jhtm
> 
> If this link does not work, try going to

> and then clicking, in order,
>  About Us >  Retail Stores >  Boats and Trailers >  Lowe > Jon  boats
> 
> One might fuss about lack of leading zeros or spaces before unit symbols or
> one might champion a chain with only U.S. stores, which provides metric
> information. They even give maximum engine ratings in kilowatts (though they
> forgot to put the W in uppercase and wrote kw instead of kW). I'm in favor of
> applauding them, for the most part. I have also commented on the above
> technical points via their web page.
> 
> I note with pleasure that Cabela's also provide their clothing sizing charts
> in metric units.
> 
> Jim

Reply via email to