The American Library Association lists over a dozen page sizes for books, ranging from the (approximately) 3-inch high sexagesimo-quarto to the 19-inch high folio and beyond, so I don’t think the government committee is successfully cramping people’s style or aspect ratio too much, especially if they consider printing on some of the dreaded ISO- or even Japanese-sized sheets.
And remember, just because we go metric, doesn’t mean that everyone goes metric. We still have a first amendment. You can tell me that I have to label my lumber in metric units, but there’s no way you can prohibit me from also labelling them in US customary units. The same goes for cook books, gallons of milk, and so on.
The fact is, we’re already metric. The people simply choose to use customary units.
I remember when the Navy made a half-assed attempt to go metric for construction. For awhile, the Builder school was giving students drawings in metric measurements, but then teaching them how to convert them back to English measurements, which of course completely defeated the effort and caused massive confusion. :smack:
Things like road signs are the easiest. the only important thing is for the first few years after conversion, be sure to label them as “km” so anything not km can be assumed to be miles. Then each city, township, or province can inventory and convert signs. A lot of money for a while, but not something that has to change on day 1.
After a decade or so, you can drop the km for distance signs.
For construction - the numbering may change, but the material stays the same size. even changing by say, half an inch of stud spacing means that old 4x8 sheets won’t butt up against each other properly; if you change the sheet size they wont work for old construction repairs and lumberyards have to carry two sizes (or maybe for use in old buildings, every sheet will need a half-inch shaved off the edge of every sheet of plywood as part of the construction job.) By now, construction is a precise pattern of standard sizes which it together perfectly - 3 16-inch stud spacings hold a sheet 4 feet wide, so all studs are neatly spaced. Walls are typically 8 feet high to hold a sheet of 4x8 with no tiny gap to fill at the top (or 9 feet or 10 feet) In fact a vertical stud is actually 3 inches shorted than 8 feet to allow for top and bottom plate 2x4’s… etc.
So there’s no upside in creating a whole new different set of standards. Especially in Canada, where the USA has no intention of changing, all nominal and actual sizes are in inches and feet. In fact, I’ve never seen wood sold by the meter. Even where it does not matter, such as random hardwood planks, it’s still measured for sale in board-feet. This is opposed to something, like say, soft drinks or beer - where converting fl ounces to ml did not matter if the size was rounded - i.e. 10oz approx. 280 ml, 12oz approx. 330ml - where as long as the can stayed pretty much the same size it didn’t mess up vending machines.
(Perhaps in Europe or somewhere they have the vertical wall height in metric, but not in North America. Or maybe in Europe it’s random “whatever the Renaissance builders felt like doing” height.)
Short answer - inertia and extreme need for consistency, so no change.
In Europe we have all kinds of construction techniques, as they are much more linked to local conditions than in the US. For example, pladur (drywall) being used for permanent internal walls is still considered a novelty in Spain; we still think of brick as the standard building material, although for example in my grandparents’ 1936 flat the internal walls were plastered-over woven canes. And yes, we measure heights in metric units, as does most of the world when using modern materials and techniques.
Official data show that about 30% of the US workers in constructions are people of Central and South American origin, where everybody uses the metric system. I think (1) anybody in the US should be able to emulate their successful adjustment, and (2) they should have made a ‘Seinfeld’ episode on this topic.
When I was in architecture school at Waterloo University in Canada in 1982, we were told that we were going metric!!! and as such all our dimensions were to be based on a multiple of some number of millimetres (300 mm?), instead of feet and inches. In first year, there is not the design rigour that we may need later, so that wasn’t a problem. We did out engineering calculations in SI metric units as well (newtons for weight and force, pascals for pressure, nothing along the lines of kilograms-force). A little later I [del]flamed out[/del] left architecture school and switched to electronics.
And then in 1984 the Mulroney Conservatives ended the metric conversion effort.
We have been stuck midway between the three worlds of measurement ever since. Three worlds of measurement: Imperial units, US units, and SI units.
Much later, I did some drawing work and calculations for various houses, and everything was in feet and inches… but the building code is in metric. Thermal calculations were done in metric for ease of calculation and converted back to Imperial at the end. Room air changes were in litres per second (I think) calculated for room volumes that originated in feet. Heat output of furnaces is labeled in British Thermal Units (BTUs).
It’s a mess, because most units in everyday use (temperature, road speed and distance, amount of rain, etc) are in metric… but many aren’t. I go to the store and ask for 150 grams of sliced meat, and that’s how it is measured out, but we still get groceries advertised in pounds. Many containers are in even metric sizes (a 500 mL bottle of Coke), and many aren’t (paint comes in 3.78-litre cans: 1 US gallon). Water cisterns can be specified in Imperial gallons or litres or even size (in feet or metres). People still speak of their height in feet and inches, and weight in pounds (even at birth)… but my driver’s licence says I’m 175 cm tall.
Edit: commercial drawings I’ve seen are all in metric. It’s the residential construction that is still in feet and inches. And a few weekends ago I was helping someone drywall a cottage, and the recently-built wooden framework of the walls was so far off from any standard that we basically had to cut everything to fit…
Whatever you do, don’t end up like us.
However, the government may be able to prevent you selling items with non-standard labeling, which has the effect of preventing people from buying items with non-standard labeling.
“Weights and Measures” has been an important government function for a very long time. I don’t know what the equivalent USA function is, but I know that you do have some forms of labeling regulation.
I’m not so sure that “free speech” applies to a technicality such as this. Legislating which measurement system is in effect doesn’t inhibit the substance of your speech at all, and differing measurement systems are a hindrance to trade and to society.
I think it would make sense to allow advertising (signs, print ads, or announcements) to use unofficial units as long as the official ones are stated too, but to require labels and invoices to show only the official units. Dual labelling is a mess in practical application.
If the US does “go metric” for real, I hope they follow the general plan I’ve seen described: Set a “Metric Day” years in the future (let’s say July 5, 2025). On that day, everything and everyone is fully metric, no exceptions unless you prove before the end of 2018 that it really will be more than 7 years’ work for you to switch. And let people and businesses mostly work out for themselves what to do between now and then - as long as everyone meets the deadline, they can get there however they want.
Thanks for all the responses. I get the idea that the metric system notwithstanding, there are other standard practices that won’t go away any time soon.
IMHO, I don’t think that the US will hurry along to metrication very quickly, but we’ll grow into it slowly. We now have multiple measurement options, and we’ll muddle along with the whole collection until some of them wither away. At that, we’re not the only country working it that way, not while the UK is still using miles and stones, and Canada is stuck with its southern neighbor <grin>.
A lot of lumber I deal with is actually metric in size; half inch OSB is 12.5 mm. The conversions are not prefect but it really doesn’t matter as the tolerances involved are pretty large.
Even the non metric sizes are not really what they are - a ‘3/4’ inch sheet of tongue and groove OSB is 23/32". Finish material sheet goods are usually 49" x 97" (so you can cut off the damaged edge). A lot of trim is 11/16 rather than a true 3/4". Sure a 2x4 is 1 1/2 by 3 1/2, but they are also 1 7/16 x 3 7/16 or even 1 5/8 x 3 5/8. Dimensional lumber is not a high tolerance product. Around here with our very dry winters the studs in the exterior walls of my house shrink in width by more than 1/16" every winter.
In Canada plans submitted for permitting purposes are in metric. Often when building a house the plans are entirely in metric. You are supposed to take your measurements with a scale ruler anyway and the ruler doesn’t care what system the plan is in just that is is scaled properly. Metric plan, houses built in inches and feet.
Cabinet making is often all done in metric because frankly mm are a lot nicer to work with than '32s of an inch. I usually will do cabinet work in inches because that is the system the tape on my belt is in, and I don’t feel like going and digging out the metric tape.
Ultimately it is all just numbers though, I really do not understand the hang up with either system. Measure, mark, cut it is the same length no matter what system you use.
Well, it would be possible to mess things up real good by requiring factories to stop making 4’ x 8’ sheets and make everything in 1m x 2m sheets instead. But nobody wants that and it’s not going to happen.
Why ever would they do that? 1200 x 2400 works just fine. If you are building, put the studs at 300 centres.
What kind of construction do you use?
Everything in grocery stores is dual-labelled today.
I’d been wondering about shipping containers lately, they seem to use a combination of metric for the width, and imperial for the height. Imgur: The magic of the Internet Imgur: The magic of the Internet I’m pretty sure there’s a reason behind this, I just don’t know it yet! anyone?..
He already said, brick.
The 2x4 frame and 4x8 sheets of plywood or sheet-rock (gyproc, plaster board…) is a modern and more North American standard. 8 feet high was a convenient exact standard for wall height because of the material. I imagine a lot of European building was more haphazard non-standard, especially if earlier than WWII. Plus, the frame house (or frame inside brick) is more suited to places with a lot of timber and a need for good insulation. When the walls are solid brick plastered over inside (like much European construction) then it really does not matter the choice of ceiling height. North American wall studs (2x4, 2x6) are typically sold pre-cut to standard building sizes because that’s what people typically use and therefore that’s what people typically use.
Whether you call it by metric or imperial, the point is the standard construction sizes stay the same. There was no need and no demand to introduce a completely new set of standard sizes in nice round metric measurements. (I.e. 4x8 sheets were fine, no need to change everything to 1.5mx2.5m sheets.)
Similarly, the tolerances may be there for lumber etc. - but they cannot exceed a certain amount. A wall of studs is measured and put up on 16-inch centers. If the size of sheets typically exceeds 48" then the joint will “creep” until the last few don’t align with a stud, and having to shave an inch or a fraction off an 8-foot sheet is extra work and a pain especially when the biggest cost nowadays is getting to be labour.
Invisible bricks
