|04-14-2011 09:42 AM|
|silentpoet||No you see 9.4 is smaller than 472. It is simple math.|
|04-14-2011 06:04 AM|
|04-14-2011 01:24 AM|
My car has 472 cubic inches, and I like it that way.
Why should we convert to something the french invented?
|04-08-2011 12:22 PM|
|04-08-2011 11:35 AM|
A kilometer is 6/10 of a mile, so 100 KM is 60 miles. There are 2.5 centimeters in an inch, so 5 centimeters is 2 inches. From there you can guesstimate pretty much anything. Those figures are not exactly accurate, but they're close enough for an estimate.
|04-08-2011 10:36 AM|
Mike, often there is no measurement to go by when repairing a cars body or frame. So you start with what you know, if neither rail is "believable" you need to make one so. Either by fitting outer panels, along with cross measuring, along with visually looking for buckles or broken welds, or cracks, it's the big picture you are after. Using all these things you can determine if one of them is straight to then use it as your guide for the other side.
|04-08-2011 10:27 AM|
Thanks. I've read a bunch of stuff you've written here. It's great, however my choices a while back make that not the best choice right now.
About 12 years ago I made the decision to replace the rusted through rear frame rail in my '66 mustang coupe. So naturally I attacked it with a sawall, then ordered a replacement rail. Yup... brilliant move on my part... first of many I assure you. So after 10 years or so (and several moves), I wanted to actually finish it.
If I was starting now and knew that the other rail wasn't tweaked, I'd just use that as a reference, but with it being moved (once with a front loader, thanks to farmer Ray), I'm not confident that the other hasn't been. I wanted to take the measurements, not only diagonally, but along the other axis as well.
|04-07-2011 10:10 AM|
My guess is that the confustion isn't so much the system (10 mm to 1 cm, 100 cm to one m, etc), but the reference. We can all look at something and say, "thats about 18 inches", but its much harder to say, "thats like 33 cm". Same thing with miles/km. We all can estimate rather easily what a mile or two is, but we have no frame of reference for km.
That's my problem with metric, anyway.
|04-03-2011 08:25 PM|
I think someone earlier is confusing "metric" w/"decimal" (aka "base 10"). Our currency isn't metric.
Until the Euro, English currency was all fubar'd, as well as many other currencies worldwide. Compared to some of them, US currency is down right simple.
Developmentally, we humans go through a phase where language and such is easily learned. Once past that stage, it is far more difficult to learn/retain language. Maybe it's the same w/learning some math concepts like the metric and "other".
|04-03-2011 07:41 PM|
|bentwings||Yeah, well there are more women than men in the U.S.A. and no woman wants to have a rear end that's a 1000 mm or larger so it is ANSI for us.. haha|
|04-03-2011 04:29 PM|
Lets just say you work with what you got and conversion is not required. That really simplifies things for me.
|04-03-2011 04:09 PM|
|JohnnyK81||Shhhh.. We'll switch him over to metric and he won't even know it!|
|04-03-2011 01:25 PM|
Another thing I have noticed about this subject...It started as a debate on 1/10s of inches and evolved into a debate on the metric system because, I guess on the base 10 aspect of it.........Not the same thing guys......
|04-03-2011 01:02 PM|
|04-03-2011 12:19 PM|
My first real exposure to the metric system was years ago when I was a deck hand on a tug boat. The other deck hand was a Belgian who had only been in the states a short time. He had been a captain in europe but his english wasn't good enough for him to pass his coast guard tests. He always spoke of distances in yards. Like the barge had 15 yards of space left to load. I finally figured out that yards are the closet to meters and that's how he converted in his head. I do the opposite now!
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|