Metric VS English engineering system of measurement

Which System is better

  • Metric System (kg, m, L)

    Votes: 19 100.0%

  • English Engineering System (lb, ft, gal)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    19
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
64 replies · 23K views
SteamKing said:
Torque outputs in the car magazines used to be quoted in units of 'lb-ft' and they still are.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/convertibles/1307_2014_chevrolet_corvette_stingray_z51_first_test/

I wouldn't put too much weight in that presumptuous snob magazine where the readers of that rag never have performed an oil change in their life. Any real gear-head magazine will state ft-lb of torque.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
WaaWaa Waa said:
I recently followed The American Society Of Civil Engineers page in Facebook. I found that they are using only Imperial Units. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the Imperial Unit whatsoever :smile: On the contrary, as a civil engineer myself I applaud the American civil engineers for their achievements using the Imperial Units :approve:

The surveying tapes are in 1/100 of a foot.
 
Land surveying is one of those professions in the US where the law prescribes certain things. Land descriptions are regulated by the various state governments, and the surveyor obviously must comply with those regulations in doing survey work. The US has been surveyed using the imperial system, and the various state plane coordinate systems have also been laid out using imperial units.

When expansion started westward in the late 18th century, the land was divided into square townships which measured 6 statute miles to the side. There were further subdivision in each township, and if you read the legal description of a parcel of land, it will make reference to the township and subdivision within the township in locating that parcel.
 
To be fair lengths are easy enough to just convert as a design exercise. It's a bit more of a pain to have to own two sets of spanners and sockets.

The true pain in the arse is designing a piece to mate two threaded components together. One with a metric thread, the other with a UTS. Doubly so if they are very similar in pitch, but they still need different gauges.
 
Last edited:
That's a big reason why metric conversion in manufacturing took so long. Fastener standards took a long time to standardize across industry, and manufacturers in the US were very reluctant to start the process over with metric fasteners. In the UK, with the Whitworth system, special tools were required which could not be used on US fasteners. Since modern machinery is very dependent on standardized fasteners, this is no small consideration in whether to go metric in your manufacturing sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standardization