Metric VS Standard fasteners
- Thread starter Matt018
- Start date
slipjointed
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 665
You do realize that fractional inches have to be converted over to decimal format just to make them usable, right?
You also realize that most engineers worth their salt use decimal inch scales and decimal inch tape measures?
Metric is already in that format. The fact that fractional inch has to be converted into the same format metric already comes in by default, should be explanation enough for anyone.
BTW, I don't need to be told a single thing about measurement. I've based my entire career upon it. I work in R&D for military and science, and deal with the headache of two competing measurement systems on a daily basis... the problem is, I'm stuck in about the only country on the whole damn planet that seems to think SAE is somehow superior, when it CLEARLY isn't.
dankicksass
Well-known member
It's not even just the hardware stores, it's the distributors too. I used to deal direct with Hillman, changing over to Midwest Fastener this week (guy is just going to relabel and restock my bins) and the selection just plain isn't there in common distribution channels for quickness. A castle nut is pretty simple, but the only way to get a metric one here in three days is thru a GM or Ford dealer, or hope Fastenal can get it at 7-10 times the cost of a comparable SAE castle/slotted nut, plus shipping. Hillman doesn't even make one. May as well just cut my own at that rate.
Last edited:
AZ_Catskinner
Well-known member
No, I didn't realize that. Apparently I missed that meeting. I've gotten by just fine with fractional measurements for years, expressed as fractions - I didn't know I was doing it wrong.
I'm sorry, but I'll reiterate. Metric superiority begins and ends with people that can't figure out fractions.
Shipfittin
Well-known member
I use Standard exclusivly at work, we don't use any Metric what so ever. It is pretty nice only having to have one set of wrenches and so forth. People who come up with saying do 9/16 + 3/32 real quick are just trying to come up with excuses for the system being bad. It's easy, multiply 9 x 2 = 18 + 3 = 21/32. If it's something you train yourself to do in your head it's no big deal.
The only thing that drives me nuts (no pun intended) with the SAE system is when I get a blue print that a machinist engineer drew out. They are quick to use the 1/10" scale here. Which is fine because I do have a scale that measures in 1/10" but it's only 12" long. And I can get by with it but I would always certainly prefer 1/8", 1/16", or 1/32" scale. (1/32" is the tightest tolerance I work to) For as often as I deal with it, I wish I could find a tape measure that was in 1/10", but I've never seen one before.
The only thing that drives me nuts (no pun intended) with the SAE system is when I get a blue print that a machinist engineer drew out. They are quick to use the 1/10" scale here. Which is fine because I do have a scale that measures in 1/10" but it's only 12" long. And I can get by with it but I would always certainly prefer 1/8", 1/16", or 1/32" scale. (1/32" is the tightest tolerance I work to) For as often as I deal with it, I wish I could find a tape measure that was in 1/10", but I've never seen one before.
BrokewrenchLS1
Well-known member
There's not a single thing imperial can do that metric can't, and metric is more precise to boot. Metric is inherently a decimal; fractions are decimals converted to an asinine, arbitrary division of whole numbers. Why in the hell would anyone use something like 1/64th when they can use decimals instead?
slipjointed
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 665
You do realize that the fractional measurement 1/10th only happens to coincide with ONE decimal measurement, and does not represent the whole decimal system, right?
You've gotten by fine with fractions, but you had to mention the decimal conversion of the inch system in your previous post as "working just fine"?
Riiiiiighhhht.
Last edited:
malibu101
Well-known member
Well how about that!
I never but the 2 things together. 
I'm no pro but I've wrenched on quite a few varied GM vehicles model years from the mid-70's through the mid-90's.
I've often noticed some bolts having a blue coating, especially the undercarriage and suspension. I never really thought about it other than it must be a coating of some sort. Who knows why the factory does some things. They are metric and usually have metric ID marks on the head.
Thanks for the info on the blue bolts.
Educate me, please. The whole less-than-base-unit portion of the decimal system represents a tenth of a unit, or a tenth of a tenth, etc.; the greater-than-base-unit represents ten times, or ten times ten times, etc.
1/10th only "happens to coincide" with 50% of the decimal system... and unless you use fasteners sized at 10m or more, it "happens to coincide" with everything we're discussing in this thread.
BrokewrenchLS1
Well-known member
Thing is, the majority of fractions are not in tenths, which inevitably leads to strange fractions, which result in abnormal decimals. If all fractions were based on tenth-divisions, they would be equatable to the metric system; as it is, the fractional system is based on one-half of a whole, and one-half of a half, and that is the problem.
slipjointed
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 665
Thanks.
The bottom line is that fractions aren't scalable, and decimals are. That right there is why the decimal system is used in science and industry. It makes dealing with very large and very small numbers possible.
Can you imagine what math would look like if we were forced to use fractional only? We'd be lucky to have created fire by now, let alone have sent a man to the moon.
Buckgnarly
Well-known member
Those that actually like the standard (i.e. obsolete) system, read this....just because you are used to using a system and have the senseless conversions memorized does not make that system better.....
http://www.metric4us.com/why.html
For those that think the standard sytem is more accurate, what is the equivelent of the metric yoctometer?......
http://www.metric4us.com/why.html
For those that think the standard sytem is more accurate, what is the equivelent of the metric yoctometer?......
garfunkle24
Well-known member
You're completely wrong. That is all.
Ditchdigger
Well-known member
Buckgnarly
Well-known member
So you are saying it is easier to convert 1,200,345 inches to miles than 1,200,345cm to meters? Show me........
How about .0004576 miles to inches as opposed to .0004576cm to km?........
Shipfittin
Well-known member
Funny how people can get all wound up over something that they have absolutley no control over one way or the other.
byoungblood
Well-known member
btw.: the 24 hour system is better too
Agreed. I've been slowly making my wife a convert as well. Of course I work at a job where all we use is the 24 hour clock.
Adding 13/64 and 9/16 and one sees quickly how decimals work better.
If it's any consolation, I'm more comfortable in SAE units too, because that's the system I grew up using. I can estimate inches, feet, gallons, quarts, pounds per square inch, and foot-pounds a lot better than centimeters, meters, liters, deciliters, kilo-pascals, and newton-meters. But, I'm adaptable.
If it's any consolation, I'm more comfortable in SAE units too, because that's the system I grew up using. I can estimate inches, feet, gallons, quarts, pounds per square inch, and foot-pounds a lot better than centimeters, meters, liters, deciliters, kilo-pascals, and newton-meters. But, I'm adaptable.
Moose-LandTran
Well-known member
Edit
Last edited:
AZ_Catskinner
Well-known member
I don't see why y'all are getting so wound up over how great metric is. There is no way to show any superiority, other than the decimals are easier than fractions argument. Pulling a new prefix out of the French guy's *** occasionally doesn't make anything simpler.
Again, both are based on completely arbitrary numbers, one from average British shoe size, one from Pepe LePew's imagination. So why is one "better" than the other?
This whole thing reminds me of my ex Mother-in-law. She got it in her head that everything from Ikea (even if it was clearly garbage) was somehow superior to everything else on the market because it was "European". I'll hand it to Ikea, they do have functional products at very good prices, but the quality usually leaves something to be desired.
Again, both are based on completely arbitrary numbers, one from average British shoe size, one from Pepe LePew's imagination. So why is one "better" than the other?
This whole thing reminds me of my ex Mother-in-law. She got it in her head that everything from Ikea (even if it was clearly garbage) was somehow superior to everything else on the market because it was "European". I'll hand it to Ikea, they do have functional products at very good prices, but the quality usually leaves something to be desired.
Buckgnarly
Well-known member
I really don't think you get the WHOLE metric system...it is FAR from an arbitray thing....some science examples....one CC= one cubic cm = one gram.....a calorie is the energy it takes to to raise one CC of water one degree Celcius.....nowhere in the Standard system will you find relationships like that. The old Standard system is truely random and arbitrary.
Now using it for other things like fastener sizes, tools, etc, I can see how people do not know the relationships and ease of conversions.
garfunkle24
Well-known member
Only when referring to water, but yes, it is much easier for equating between weight, volume etc.
Buckgnarly
Well-known member
BrokewrenchLS1
Well-known member
Metric is easier to work with (whole numbers and normal decimals, over fractions that are simply decimals converted to an arbitrary fractional system, then converted back to decimals - which always induces error) and more accurate. Add 10mm to 0.3cm to 1.3km, and the answer is a hard, set number. Add 1/32dn to 3/8ths to 11/64ths, and you always wind up with conversion error, especially if you have to convert the final fraction to a decimal. There cannot be conversion error in the metric system because there is no conversion between different measurement scales; everything is always in the tenth scale of a fixed number.
SAE is fine for general-purpose stuff, but in the scientific world, fractional numbers have no place whatsoever - and working in fractions is a lot more of a pain in the *** when it comes to measurement.
Metric isn't arbitrary, either; the imperial system is. If the imperial system was superior, we'd use it in science. We use metric. Not because the scientific community hates the US; because the metric system is superior in that is is more accurate, more scalable, and actually defines a measurement relative to that being measured (as referenced, the calorie, etc).
sports.racer
Active member
Virgil Cain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 406
I agree with most of what you say, but the metric system does have some arbitrariness about it. The fundamental unit of length (the Meter) is itself arbitrary. Likewise for the gram. There's nothing fundamental in nature that defines the length of the meter or the mass of the gram. The meter was essentially picked to be similar to the yard in length. Subsequently, SI units have been redefined in ways that tie them to fairly fundamental things but this is sort of a retrospective affair.
There are systems of measurement that are tied to fundamental constants of the universe called "Natural Units". Physicists use them quite frequently since they simplify many calculations (for example, E=mc^2 becomes E=m in many natural units systems since the speed of light "C" is 1 in these systems). Natural units are typically defined in terms of Plank's constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, the fundamental electrical charge, Boltzman's constant, etc.. Unfortunately the scale of these units don't typically lend themselves to measure macroscopic things like the size of a bolt.
While I was raised on inches, feet, miles, pounds and tons, I do agree that the metric system is easier to work in. There's no computation required to know what size comes between 13mm and 15mm, all you've got to do is count.
where do you get any conversion error? all fractional sizes have exact decimal equivalents. (.03125 + .375 + .171875 = .578125 or 37/64)
Right, forgot that stipulation of pure water..
And at standard pressure (sea level on earth), if we're picking nits.
BrokewrenchLS1
Well-known member
When you round to the second decimal - which is pretty much the standard when dealing with fractions in the real world, not a machine shop.
BrokewrenchLS1
Well-known member
Right but, there's only a single arbitrary unit - say, the meter - and all the derivatives of that meter are based on that specific unit. In the imperial system, almost every unit of measure is arbitrary even in relation to a unit in the same measuring system (inch, foot, yard, for example).
kythri
Well-known member
Except that we're talking tools here, and not "the real world", so those "machine shop" fractions are what matter, so, no rounding allowed.
BrokewrenchLS1
Well-known member
In that case, why not just go with decimals in the first place, instead of bothering with fractions?
Tools are used in the real world, and most people don't have the ability to accurately measure to 0.0001", thus, real world trumps paper logic any day of the week. Not to mention, the argument for fractions is completely invalidated the moment you have to switch to decimals for precision work - because as soon as you switch to decimals, you're not using fractions any more.
Last edited:
Input numerous common fractional values. Do arbitrary math in three dimensions. Produce results with zero rounding error, ready for conversion to code for grinding to micron accuracy. Not trivial to do with modern computer hardware...it requires careful data typing and so on. It was expensive to do with computers thirty years ago. Very easy to do with input that is integral and has expected integral output.
Calculate/analyze pretty much anything that isn't trivial on a sheet of paper. Do dimensional analysis on it in metric and US units. Tell me again there is no usability difference in the systems.
In short, there is little consequence to the wrench turner. For everyone else (aka the people making the decisions) the benefits are self evident. Deal with it, and try not to broadcast your ignorance so widely.