
It's time for the US to use the metric system - edward
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/29/5758542/time-for-the-US-to-use-the-metric-system
======
bostonpete
Contrary to what this article claims, I would say that the motivation for such
a switch has never been weaker.

\- The switch to metric has already taken place in science and engineering
(where it's most harmful to have 2 systems), largely because of the horror
stories from decades past mentioned in the article.

\- Packaging and labeling costs associated with having 2 systems is
effectively zero because it's all automated.

\- Everyone has a computer in their pocket capable of performing a conversion
if they really get in a bind (though this has literally never happened to me)

On the other hand, people are generally content with using the imperial system
so a switch would be met with a lot of resistance. This resistance, coupled
with increasingly vanishing costs associated with having 2 systems leads me to
believe that this switch is not going to happen in my lifetime.

TLDR; The metric crusaders need to find a new cause to pour their energies
into.

~~~
gaur
> The switch to metric has already taken place in science and engineering
> (where it's most harmful to have 2 systems), largely because of the horror
> stories from decades past mentioned in the article.

A nontrivial fraction of science and engineering is still done using an unholy
mix of US customary and metric units. For example: laser optics frequently
have diameters specified in inches and focal lengths in millimeters. Even for
science experiments, things like screws and threads are SAE/UTS and not
metric. Parts for machining are often specified in US customary units. Torque
requirements are often specified in foot pounds.

Non-metric units aren't dead in science, but I sure wish they were.

------
CapitalistCartr
Its been time for two centuries.

~~~
DrScump
One could argue that it is _now_ time to have measurements based on computer-
friendly _powers of two_ rather than ten.

------
unsignedint
Part of the problem of mixed system is lack of intuitions. I grew up in the
metric system, so I still struggle with intuitions from imperial systems.
(It's very hard for me to "feel" 10 feet, while I have an instant feel what 3
meters is like.)

Most cases, this won't cause issued beyond missed perceptions, but it can
hamper the ability to detect anomalies -- perhaps part of the reason what
caused some of the incidents described in the article as well.

Long ago, I once overheard someone's conversation, this was an architect in
the process of designing a home for foreign market, and he was designing
closets in some room too small, again, because he had to work with obscure
units (for Japan, they use "Tsubo," about 3.306 square meters / 35.58 square
feet -- and yeah, this is one of the few places that Japanese people are still
stuck with customary units...)

------
DrScump

      Congress could pass a new law with a hard
      mandate and a solid timeline to switch over
    

using exactly what _power_ granted by the Constitution?

Congress _could_ pass a law that government contracts must limit procurement
to metric-denominated products, but that's not quite the same thing.

------
DrScump

      Foreign manufacturers also have to modify products
      just for the US market (or decide that maybe it's
      not worth the bother)"
    

How so? I can't think of an industry that does this other than to make a
product _specifically for measuring_ , like tape measures.

A bigger trade issue is differing national standards, such as making left-
side-driver versions of vehicles for those countries that drive on the right
(much of the world that doesn't speak English or Japanese).

BTW, did anybody get that "Boeing 767 ran out of fuel midair" story link to
work?

------
hwstar
I really think the resistance to switching is political. America does a lot of
things differently than the rest of the world, and the people in power want it
to stay that way.

They see some advantages to keeping the general populace on the imperial
measurement system.

1\. They are afraid of problems which might surface during a conversion from
imperial to metric due to the large population.

2\. They want to make it harder for the populace to compare things in the US
to the rest of the world.

3\. They are lobbied to keep a non-decimal measurement system in place to make
it harder for customers to compare product sizes vs. price.

------
brudgers
The US has chosen an AP approach to the metric system rather than CP. As it
turns out, because there are AP approaches the rest of the world winds up with
AP rather than CP for it's measurement system.

And don't blame the US, the simplest way to lay out a futbol pitch is in yards
and feet.

------
redneck_
If metric were so superior people would just do it because it made things
easier.

People don't have incentive to switch, because most people don't have to do
math.

------
ddingus
Getting closer, but we aren't there yet.

Truth is, there is a TON of industrial machinery, tooling, fasteners, and more
centered on Imperial units. Increasingly, new projects are happening in SI
units too. This may start to snowball in the near future. Some of this is
driven by global networking effects. Common units are a must, and global
engineering efforts are less efficient with Imperial units.

Most of the new work in the major vertical industries is now Metric (SI).
That's been a long, painful transition. They still carry a lot of ongoing,
sustaining engineering and a supply chain supporting it and it's Imperial
units however. I'm not sure the author really appreciates the weight of this
legacy. It grows a little lighter every year, but it's still very significant
and very costly.

In the US today, there are ~200 to 250K small to mid sized manufacturers.
These remain all over the map, and they typically are the last to adopt new
units and technology. It's not that they are lazy, or unable, though unable is
a factor. It is all about that investment making sense for them. Often, it
just doesn't. If what they have works and they can compete they will do that.
Machinery investments are often significant and multi-decade long service life
is expected.

Older machinery often doesn't work in dual units, and when it doesn't,
conversions are error prone and confusing to everyone in manufacturing, which
leads to the problems of dual units, duplicate drawings, etc... It's often
easier to either continue with Imperial units, or target some switch over date
to minimize the problem, and when older machinery remains capable, incentives
to phase it out are low. Incentives to rework / upgrade it can be attractive
though, depending.

It's a lot better than it was in the 80's and 90's, when I began to have some
direct familiarity with manufacturing. Back then, I was a prototype mechanic
for a while, and maybe 1 out of 100 jobs was metric. Back then, the first
thing most often done was a conversion and check. It was rare to work in the
Metric units directly. Most test and measure equipment in use, as well as the
machines, were Imperial units and often didn't even have the capability to
switch.

I just toured a nice mid sized shop recently. Almost all the equipment in the
building was dual unit capable, with a nice mix of units seen in the drawings
and data on the shop floor. Some older machines were running new, reasonably
advanced controllers too. (Yes, I looked some of that over out of interest as
I will be sending that shop some work in Metric.)

The company I manage has just started it's first couple of Metric projects.
Reason: comparability with robotics, where Metric dominates.

If you ask me, my hunch is that we will see a more significant incentive to
switch formally when robotic automation has matured in the small to mid-sized
manufacturing market, and the last of the old guard machines has gone past
it's useful service life and is phased out.

This may be accelerated by new, small, lean, localized manufacturing coming on
line about now. It's growing more practical to setup shop and serve niche
ecosystems and still make money. This is a ripe target for new business, new
machinery, and that's all very highly likely to at least support metric (SI)
units.

All of the useful software is dual unit now. That has been a non issue for
well over a decade. Legacy software can take forever to cycle out of
manufacturing, and it's finally happening en-masse. Really old stuff, DOS and
older, is almost never seen now, meaning the tools from the 90's is in
aggressive phase out and with that, the last of the single unit software
solutions goes out the door.

Until then, there will be more than enough inertia backing Imperial units.

Maybe 10, 20 years at the earliest? We might be able to take a step, like
preferred units, depending on how we want to handle our huge Imperial unit
based legacy.

All that said, if we want a jobs program, just pass a mandate and fund the
crap out it. We will pay hard for a decade, but we will have largely switched
too. I don't see that happening, though it would be good for us to do, largely
because we will carve out lots of stuff for cost reasons, and we will do that,
because investment spending is poorly differentiated from other kinds of
spending in the US right now, taking meaningful legislation and the funding
needed for it off the table hard. A well thought out plan has the potential
for real economic stimulus as well as some gains in terms of overall
manufacturing capacity and efficiency. From a pure competitive standpoint,
this kind of investment could be a great idea.

Barring some real change in how we think about spending overall (fat chance!),
ongoing and incremental industry improvement driven by global network effects
will nudge us there, bit by bit.

Good as it gets right now kids.

