Jump to content

Imperial or Metric


Bigsmak

Imperial or Metric  

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we return to imperial measurements, keep what we have or go fully metric?

    • Keep what we have
      72
    • Go Imperial
      4
    • Fully Metric
      26
    • Other / St. Johnstone / I don't understand the question
      6


Recommended Posts

ericthepen

I don't think any "change" they try to implement, will make a blind bit of difference we'll never get away from asking for a pint or saying we traveled so many miles.

Biggest con though, was getting us to buy petrol in liters, as opposed to gallons, circa £1.75 per liter now which would be around £7 a gallon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • John Findlay

    6

  • ri Alban

    6

  • Bigsmak

    5

  • trotter

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, ericthepen said:

I don't think any "change" they try to implement, will make a blind bit of difference we'll never get away from asking for a pint or saying we traveled so many miles.

Biggest con though, was getting us to buy petrol in liters, as opposed to gallons, circa £1.75 per liter now which would be around £7 a gallon. 

It's strange how we buy petrol by the litre, but fuel consumption is still measured in mpg.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how much a gallon is - I can picture a litre as I buy drinks in that size - but no idea on a gallon 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bigsmak said:

I have no idea how much a gallon is - I can picture a litre as I buy drinks in that size - but no idea on a gallon 

Same. When folk go on about miles to the gallon I haven't got a scooby 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have TV screen sizes never been metricised?  Even countries which have never used imperial measurements use inches when it comes to selling TVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/06/2022 at 05:43, Harry Potter said:

Certainly easier to work with, still weigh myself in stones and pounds 😀.

metric better for working out an area for wooden flooring, tiles, can use both for fuel.

Both units of mass not weight funnily enough. Same applies to kg. 

 

Everyone thinks what they see on the scales is what they 'weigh', it isn't, it's how much 'mass' you have based on the local gravitional force. The scales have to add a fiddle factor to account for gravity in order to convert what it actually measures (force or 'weight' pushing down onto it) into the number you read (mass). Thats why if you took scales calibrated for Earth onto the moon and stepped on them it would read completely different. You haven't lost any mass, but the force pushing you down onto the scales is no longer there. Hence the idea of weightlessness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
5 hours ago, Bigsmak said:

I have no idea how much a gallon is - I can picture a litre as I buy drinks in that size - but no idea on a gallon 

If you've ever used a petrol can, that could be your point of reference.

 

I've converted myself to weighing in kg. Basically because 16st became 17st and I thought if I talked a different language, it wouldn't be so depressing. 

 

When I cycle, I use km, for a similar reason. 20km sounds more impressive that 13.5 miles. I'm less bothered when driving but my expenses are per mile so that makes more sense. 

 

As someone else said, the golf course comes in yards. I played Evian (on the Lake Geneva shoreline*) a couple of years ago with a French lad. He talked me round the course in yards, to my surprise. His explanation was that he follows so much golf on the TV, its his way to think of it. 

 

* - I know it's Montreux but that was my earworm on the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
3 hours ago, Jonkel Hoon said:

Whats 8 inches in cm?

 

Not asking for a friend

20cm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, John Findlay said:

20cm

 

6 hours ago, jonesy said:

Ha! I hiked the Great Glen Way last week and changed my map app from km to miles halfway through because I felt the 'smaller' numbers were somehow kinder to my mental notion of how far I had to go.

 

 

so 20cm is 8 inches

 

and 20km is 13.5 miles

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

I’d like to add that a Metric Star Destroyer just sounds silly.

 

Metric Leather sounds OK, though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo
31 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Metric Leather sounds OK, though.  


One of Judas Priest’s better albums, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:


One of Judas Priest’s better albums, IMO.

 

What is this "better" of which you speak?  :mw_confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo
9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

What is this "better" of which you speak?  :mw_confused:


Those who know, know.

 

Spoiler

I don’t know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter

Could never imagine talking about golf in metres, 300 yard drive,😏 not got a clue, always miles between towns. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Identity politics is everything that's wrong with the UK today harumph!"

 

"We're going back to Imperial measures, as part of Our Great British Identity, huzzah!"

 

:gok:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
13 hours ago, Bigsmak said:

 

 

 

so 20cm is 8 inches

 

and 20km is 13.5 miles

 

20km is twelve miles.

10km is 6 miles.

22.4km is 13.5 miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

20km is twelve miles.

10km is 6 miles.

22.4km is 13.5 miles.

20km is 12.4 miles

10km is 6.2 miles

22.4 km is 13.9 miles 

A mile is near as dammit 1.6km and the most reliable way to work it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Brown
5 hours ago, Tazio said:

20km is 12.4 miles

10km is 6.2 miles

22.4 km is 13.9 miles 

A mile is near as dammit 1.6km and the most reliable way to work it out. 

Going to confuse our athletes.

Running 100 yards instead of 100m

1500m? Where the hell did that come from.

3 miles instead of 5000m.

 

They would get better times as they are all shorter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/06/2022 at 09:58, Bigsmak said:

I have no idea how much a gallon is - I can picture a litre as I buy drinks in that size - but no idea on a gallon 

5 litres

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cade said:

"Identity politics is everything that's wrong with the UK today harumph!"

 

"We're going back to Imperial measures, as part of Our Great British Identity, huzzah!"

 

:gok:

Cultural ,identity politics is pretty much the only thing to separate the mainstream parties.

In so much as there's not much they all do in practice regarding the fundamentals.

They're no longer running the show in reality.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Wonfiveone said:

4.546 litres to be more accurate = 1 imperial gallon = 8 imperial pints.

 

1 imperial gallon is = to 8 pints...  - Didn't know this either. 

 

These numbers are all just really not intuitive.  This is why I prefer the metric system 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
15 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Going to confuse our athletes.

Running 100 yards instead of 100m

1500m? Where the hell did that come from.

3 miles instead of 5000m.

 

They would get better times as they are all shorter.

British athletes failing to take any medals as they stop a few cm short of the tape.

 

My guess is that 1500m is the "metric mile".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
1 hour ago, Bigsmak said:

 

1 imperial gallon is = to 8 pints...  - Didn't know this either. 

 

These numbers are all just really not intuitive.  This is why I prefer the metric system 

I knew that one well. In my student days, there was the 'gallon club' at the Diggers for those who could get outside of 8 pints of the good stuff of an evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Brown
1 hour ago, I P Knightley said:

British athletes failing to take any medals as they stop a few cm short of the tape.

 

My guess is that 1500m is the "metric mile".

yeah, but a mile is 1609m

 

4 laps = 1600m why not have this. Always thought it strange

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
4 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

yeah, but a mile is 1609m

 

4 laps = 1600m why not have this. Always thought it strange

If you ever saw me, you'd know that I'm in no position to speak authoritatively on matters athletic.

Other than the Athletic Arms, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

yeah, but a mile is 1609m

 

4 laps = 1600m why not have this. Always thought it strange

i think it is due to the french involvement of the oylmpic games. they preferred a 500m track and that would explain why it is 1500m as it would have been 3 laps, something that i think happened in the 1900 paris olympics as i believe the french actually made the tack 500 m long. the 400m was kept probably from either the length of track that us and usa etc used and it made sense with the initial doubling of race distance (100m, 200m, 400m then 800m)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Brown

When you work in engineering, you see lots of imperial

 

Pipe sizes and pipe threads are imperial.

 

Started as an apprentice in 1979, suddenly making parts in inches and imperial threads fter being taught metric from day 1.

you were taught feet and inches £/s/p, but it all stopped after decimalisation.

 

I assume the cost involved in road signs changed to Km outweighed it's use.

We were filling in gallons when I started driving 30+ years ago.

 

Still prefer my weight in Stones/pounds and my height in Feet/Inches. But happy at any other weights in Kg.

Prefer metric for measuring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
22 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Going to confuse our athletes.

Running 100 yards instead of 100m

1500m? Where the hell did that come from.

3 miles instead of 5000m.

 

They would get better times as they are all shorter.

 

The Olympic Games has always used metric measures in Athletics, while the Commonwealth (Empire) Games only converted to metric in 1970 at Meadowbank.

 

Prior to that, the events were 100yds, 220yds 880yds, 1 mile, 3 miles, 6 miles etc. Oddly, they ran 3,000 metres in the steeplechase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Brown
17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

The Olympic Games has always used metric measures in Athletics, while the Commonwealth (Empire) Games only converted to metric in 1970 at Meadowbank.

 

Prior to that, the events were 100yds, 220yds 880yds, 1 mile, 3 miles, 6 miles etc. Oddly, they ran 3,000 metres in the steeplechase.

Good stuff FF. 

70 Commonwealth Games is oldest I really remember. Stewart and McCafferty beating Kip Keino.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
27 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Good stuff FF. 

70 Commonwealth Games is oldest I really remember. Stewart and McCafferty beating Kip Keino.

 

Kip Keino won both the 1 Mile and 3 Miles events in the 1966 games in Kingston, Jamaica, before winning the 1500 metres gold at Meadowbank. 

 

Scotland's Jim Alder won the Marathon and also picked up a bronze in the 6 Miles.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

King prawn

Explained to 2 Venezuelans and an Ecuadorian in the office the other day about how we measure things. They were firing questions at me and I was responding - became ridiculous I have to say :lol:

 

Wheels on a car - inches

Grooves In between the rubber - mm 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ericthepen
On 06/06/2022 at 12:07, Tommy Brown said:

When you work in engineering, you see lots of imperial

 

Engineering inches tend to be in thous of an inch though, easier than 1/16th of an inch etc. Calculation for PSI, POM,steel camber, and the like, were still previous to 1971 in old imperial measurement. Thankfully changed to metric when I was doing engineering exams. South Africa and USA, poss Aus, I believe still use imperial but measure in tenths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Sausage
On 04/06/2022 at 12:55, trotter said:

Both units of mass not weight funnily enough. Same applies to kg. 

 

Everyone thinks what they see on the scales is what they 'weigh', it isn't, it's how much 'mass' you have based on the local gravitional force. The scales have to add a fiddle factor to account for gravity in order to convert what it actually measures (force or 'weight' pushing down onto it) into the number you read (mass). Thats why if you took scales calibrated for Earth onto the moon and stepped on them it would read completely different. You haven't lost any mass, but the force pushing you down onto the scales is no longer there. Hence the idea of weightlessness. 


I mean, this is not correct. Pound is used both as a measurement of mass and ‘weight’ (ie force). It’s a perfect case study in why imperial units are dog shit. An lb is both a kg and a N, which is awful.  
 

In engineering it’s critical you are able to track complex calculations using the units to ensure you’ve put all the elements in the right place. This is so simple in metric, but nearly impossible in imperial. 

Edited by Captain Sausage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Sausage said:


I mean, this is not correct. Pound is used both as a measurement of mass and ‘weight’ (ie force). It’s a perfect case study in why imperial units are dog shit. An lb is both a kg and a N, which is awful.  
 

In engineering it’s critical you are able to track complex calculations using the units to ensure you’ve put all the elements in the right place. This is so simple in metric, but nearly impossible in imperial. 

I remember that bridge in Italy collapsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Sausage said:


I mean, this is not correct. Pound is used both as a measurement of mass and ‘weight’ (ie force). It’s a perfect case study in why imperial units are dog shit. An lb is both a kg and a N, which is awful.  
 

In engineering it’s critical you are able to track complex calculations using the units to ensure you’ve put all the elements in the right place. This is so simple in metric, but nearly impossible in imperial. 

Yeah, the fact that both lb/lb(f) and kg/kg(f) are separate and distinct units is illogical at best and downright lunacy at worst. Don't even get me started on heat transfer coefficients: Btu/s-ft2-°F. It looks like a cat has walked across your keyboard ffs. 

Edited by trotter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ericthepen said:

Engineering inches tend to be in thous of an inch though, easier than 1/16th of an inch etc. Calculation for PSI, POM,steel camber, and the like, were still previous to 1971 in old imperial measurement. Thankfully changed to metric when I was doing engineering exams. South Africa and USA, poss Aus, I believe still use imperial but measure in tenths.

A mate of mine - an old school mechanical fitter - once told me that imperial units still exist because 'you can't see metric'. He sort of has a point. If I saw you in the street and I asked you how tall I was you would likely say 'about 6 feet' rather than 'about 1.8 m'. 

Edited by trotter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, trotter said:

A mate of mine - an old school mechanical fitter - once told me that imperial units still exist because 'you can't see metric'. He sort of has a point. If I saw you in the street and I asked you how tall I was you would likely say 'about 6 feet' rather than 'about 1.8 m'. 

I get that, I was taught imperial measurements at school but worked with men who still used imperial. I think in imperial still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, trotter said:

A mate of mine - an old school mechanical fitter - once told me that imperial units still exist because 'you can't see metric'. He sort of has a point. If I saw you in the street and I asked you how tall I was you would likely say 'about 6 feet' rather than 'about 1.8 m'. 

 

I'd say c.180cm personally. I'm 189cm, I never use feet and inches

 

Apart from TVs and tyres 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'd say c.180cm personally. I'm 189cm, I never use feet and inches

 

Apart from TVs and tyres 😂

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...