Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:31:25 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:


That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne



You should explain your theories on metrication to the folks at the GM
plant and see how it fits in.

There's lots of room in the human brain for learning a new thing or
two. Like it or not, metric is all around you.

It's the great thing about standards! There are so many to choose
from! :-)

Just another standard.

Cheers
Trevor Jones



I wish someone would tell the Big Three to make up their minds.

I need both standard and metric to work on just about any car made
after 1985

Gunner


Yeah.

Another case of legacy, biting a manufacturer in the ass. The tooling
on the line is still working, so they keep pounding out parts at the
subcontractor level, and they keep getting installed at the assembly plant.

GM has been using metric bolts in their trannys since when, mid
seventies? IIRC their trannies went all metric, quite a while before the
rest of the chassis did.

The Brit bike industry went through a similar mish-mash approach, when
they went Unified in the late 60's. Lots of Whitworth and Ba threads
showing up on them well into the last days of their industry.

I do know that a friend of mine called me in the wee hours of the
morning, swearing, as he needed a 17mm socket to reach the flywheel
bolts on his GM truck. He also, was a metric holdout. He's starting to
see the necessity, though he does not like it.

Digital measuring tools make it a push of the button to check the
dimension to see where it fits into the scheme best.


Cheers
Trevor Jones