The one thing I've never understood is tire sizes, where you have the tire's width measured in millimeters, but the wheel's diameter measured in inches.
Why America is anti-metric
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
The one thing I've never understood is tire sizes, where you have the tire's width measured in millimeters, but the wheel's diameter measured in inches.
that was a car talk puzzler @ one time; it appears Europe has not completely converted either; so an argument really comes down to the 'degree' people have abandoned the "English units" lol
The one thing I've never understood is tire sizes, where you have the tire's width measured in millimeters, but the wheel's diameter measured in inches.
that was a car talk puzzler @ one time; it appears Europe has not completely converted either; so an argument really comes down to the 'degree' people have abandoned the "English units" lol
I find it interesting that almost no one is engaging with the actual argument in the article QP posted.
I think it's an interesting take on the matter. Hadn't thought about how intuitive it is to keep dividing things into halves and threes. I do think metric is better in the final analysis; dividing by 10 or 1000 is annoying, but not nearly so annoying as dividing by 12 or 1760. But now I see another side of the matter.
I think it's an interesting take on the matter. Hadn't thought about how intuitive it is to keep dividing things into halves and threes. I do think metric is better in the final analysis; dividing by 10 or 1000 is annoying, but not nearly so annoying as dividing by 12 or 1760. But now I see another side of the matter.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
About 2.5 times more precise.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
About 2.5 times more precise.
804.672 Kilometers Away From Home.......It just doesn't work!
Hope everyone is enjoying the weekend.
Hope everyone is enjoying the weekend.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
Have you heard of a decimal point? You can use .5 if you really want to, but I'm not really sure it's needed in daily life. Can your body really tell a difference between 80 and 81 degrees F, for example?
Quote:
About 2.5 times more precise.
How did you calculate this?
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
Have you heard of a decimal point? You can use .5 if you really want to, but I'm not really sure it's needed in daily life. Can your body really tell a difference between 80 and 81 degrees F, for example?
Quote:
About 2.5 times more precise.
How did you calculate this?
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
Have you heard of a decimal point? You can use .5 if you really want to, but I'm not really sure it's needed in daily life. Can your body really tell a difference between 80 and 81 degrees F, for example?
Quote:
About 2.5 times more precise.
How did you calculate this?
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
Have you heard of a decimal point? You can use .5 if you really want to, but I'm not really sure it's needed in daily life. Can your body really tell a difference between 80 and 81 degrees F, for example?
Quote:
About 2.5 times more precise.
How did you calculate this?
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
I think its because most old timers/ mechanics will not change. My Dad hated the metric system, I hated the SAE system. I guess they won.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
LOL
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
LOL
Originally Posted By: Leo99
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
lol
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
lol
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
Seems like a high price to pay when everything else is worse, the translation to Kelvin doesn't make sense, etc.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I like the metric system. But temperature scales is another story. Farenheit rules king there.
What is so special about Fahrenheit scale?
More graduations. The Celsius scale is too grainy.
Seems like a high price to pay when everything else is worse, the translation to Kelvin doesn't make sense, etc.
re the "folding things by 10" argument, when the system is 10 based, it's simple moving a decimal point.
If you need to visualise folding things two or three times, then you will need that under any system.
Got something 140mm long, a tenth is 14, a fifth is 28, 3/10 is 42, etc. etc. Most primary school kids can do that with centimetres, a lesser number with millimetres.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Leo99
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
lol
Ain't it what ???
But then we go to l/100km, which I don't like at all.
If you need to visualise folding things two or three times, then you will need that under any system.
Got something 140mm long, a tenth is 14, a fifth is 28, 3/10 is 42, etc. etc. Most primary school kids can do that with centimetres, a lesser number with millimetres.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Leo99
(212-32)/(100-0)= 1.8
That's pretty close to 2.5
lol
Ain't it what ???
But then we go to l/100km, which I don't like at all.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Oops. I added 32. You get a gold star. I'm hardly ever wrong.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
SHOZ said:
Oops. I added 32. You get a gold star. I'm hardly ever wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
