Re: imperial (driving?) AFNAC guys 'n gals...

["Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@apollo.gmi.edu>]

On Sun, 5 Oct 1997 Audial@aol.com wrote:

> that's 4" long).  The opinion of one of the machinists at the company was
> that the imperial system was more convenient for their uses because .001" is
> a tolerance that you can achieve with a miniature lathe by hand and doesn't
> convert evenly into metric.  There were also a couple of other
> anthropomorphic justifications.  
> 
> Is this true?  Do machinists still work primarily in the imperial system even
> in countries where metric is the standard?

Most machinists work in the metric system, although there are a few 
industries that still use the imperial system.  As for the accuracy, I 
have heard arguments that metric is inherently more accurate because a 
tenth of a millimetre is much smaller than a thou.   The truth is that it 
doesn't really matter what system you are using if you know how to 
operate a mill or lathe properly.   I prefer metric, but I'm pretty 
conversant in both systems.   I grew up in Canada right in the middle of 
the changeover time back in the '70s, so I started with the imperial 
system, and learned the metric system.   Metric is much easier to use 
since the units are all multiples of 10.   Conversion factors are very 
simple.

What I really hate is mixing of metric and imperial fasteners on a car.  
I also am pretty perturbed with Audi and others who do not standardize 
their fasteners.  You need almost every wrench from 6mm to 22mm to 
service an Audi.   On an RX7, you need 8mm, 10mm, 12mm, and 14mm, with 
the occasional 17mm and 19mm.  MOst of the work is done with the 10, 12 
and 14.  Simple.   Audi does use better fasteners though - they are much 
less likely to rust off and break compared to the RX7 fasteners.

Later,
Graydon D. Stuckey 
'89 Thunderbird SuperCoupe
'86 Audi 5000 CS Quattro
'86 Mazda RX7 GXL 2+2
'85 Mazda RX7 GS