Some sports like golf, without fixed playing field dimensions, can easily
use metric units. Football has a fixed dimension filed which would create
havoc with rules and statistic. Baseball on the other hand could keep its
playing field the same but it could convert distances to the fence and other
records to metric without changing basic competition measurements. New
swimming pools should all be built to metric since that's the Olympic standard.
50 m inserts can be placed in 50 yard pools; our community pool does this for
its swim meets.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:57 PM
Subject: [USMA:45386] Re: Speed in metres per second
I don't see why metric golf would be problematic. Every course is
"random length." You would merely have to get used to hole lengths in meters,
and be able to select the proper club given remaining distance to hole. I'm
sure metric golf is played in metric countries.
Metric football could be a problem. The notion of 10 yards forward
progress for a first down is key to the game. A game could be played on a 100
m field, with 10 m for a first down but strategy and mix of running/passing
plays would change. You could not bounce back and forth between it and a 100
yd field, and play at a professional level..
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Howard Ressel <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Howard Ressel <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:45376] Re: Speed in metres per second
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>, "John M. Steele"
<[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 12:06 PM
Well said, my thoughts too. Lets concentrate on conversion issues that
can make sense to the general public. Telling them they have to go
metric and on top of that now have to plan trips in meters per second
vs. something more akin to what they are used to would be more of a
disaster than a help. Golf and football in the US will still be in
yards
no matter how metric we are.
--
"Go for a Metric America"
Howard Ressel
Project Design Engineer, Region 4
(585) 272-3372
>>> On 7/15/2009 at 9:29 AM, in message
<[email protected]>, "John M. Steele"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe the reverse is true. I believe the SI Brochure has
embraced the
> idea that certain commercial situations and everyday life are so
committed to
> some special units that it is senseless to attempt change. These
include the
> liter, metric ton, hectare, minute, hour, and day (they did kiss the
stere
> goodbye).
>
> We should not change for change's sake, we should change to solve
problems.
> So, before we can discuss change, can we define the "problem" of
people using
> km/h in everyday life? It seems like it is . . . ., Well, what is
it? I
> don't know.
>
> Engineers need to know they need pure base units for calculation,
but
they
> already know this. In everyday life, few people do such
calculations.
> Mostly, they want an estimate of how long it will take to get
somewhere.
> While they could probably convert the kilometers to meters, they
frankly
> don't want the answer in seconds (except possibly in a race).
>
> Cars haven't been around the whole time, but in over 200 years,
metric
> countries seem to have gravitated universally towards kilometers per
hour for
> boats, trains, cars, planes, and no country sets m/s speed limits or
marks
> speedometers thusly. In countries not already metric, such a
proposal would
> simply add to any existing "the metric system is inconvenient"
sentiment. I
> don't think it would be well-received in metric countries either.
Why rock
> the boat?
>
> --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Pat Naughtin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>
> Subject: [USMA:45365] Speed in metres per second
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 8:47 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I wonder if we will ever be ready to embrace the idea of using the
SI
unit,
> metres per second, for speed in everyday conversations.
