Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...n-tape-measure

HeyBub wrote the following:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...n-tape-measure


It's not new. I have had one of those Stanley Fat Maxes for years.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...s-the-common-t
ape-measure




Yeah, it's "better" for some people, but not all. The FatMax is terrible
for what /I/ do for a living, for instance.

My ideal tape (and the one I carry and use almost every hour of every day)
is a 10' long, 1/2" wide flimsy.

--
Tegger

On 10/26/10 4:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...n-tape-measure


Nah.

1. Fractions. Thomas Jefferson would never approve! Hassle to read
the tape, write the number, remember the number, and add or subtract.
Got to be metric on both sides.

2. No hole in the tip. If you need the tip to stay put, you can stick
a map tack through the hole.

3. 25 feet. It means a bulkier, heavier, more expensive tape. Mine is
8m, but I don't recall using it for more than 5m. For longer distances,
a fiberglass-reinforced reel tape works better. It has a bigger, better
hook, and it's limp, so I can keep tension on it as I move without
jiggling the hook loose. I can even use a "paperweight" to keep it in
place.



Try the Fastcap PMMR True32 5m or the Fastcap PMMR-FLAT16 (limp blade!)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:41:04 -0400, J Burns wrote:

On 10/26/10 4:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...ts-the-common-
tape-measure


Nah.

1. Fractions. Thomas Jefferson would never approve! Hassle to read
the tape, write the number, remember the number, and add or subtract.
Got to be metric on both sides.

I think the extended tape in the photo is metric, even though the
retracted one says 25' as so is presumably not (yes, I know there's a lot
of perspective distortion in the photo, but look how close the '1' seems
to be to the end - and I doubt that the tip is 3" wide :-)

3. 25 feet. It means a bulkier, heavier, more expensive tape. Mine is
8m, but I don't recall using it for more than 5m. For longer distances,
a fiberglass-reinforced reel tape works better.

Yeah, 25' is about the most I expect out of a tape before moving to a
bigger reel one - but I don't generally like tapes smaller than 25'. I'd
still have to take both to a job "just in case", so may as well just take
the one 25' one (and a 3' ruler for smaller work)

It has a bigger, better
hook, and it's limp, so I can keep tension on it as I move without
jiggling the hook loose. I can even use a "paperweight" to keep it in
place.

My dad had one that he used for field work - man, the hook on that thing
was sharp!

For metal tape, I wonder about one with interchangeable tips? As someone
else mentioned, there are times when the huge tip like that one in the
article would get in the way. Maybe it'd be nice to be able to swap 'em
around...

cheers

Jules

On 10/27/10 8:34 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:41:04 -0400, J Burns wrote:

On 10/26/10 4:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...ts-the-common-
tape-measure


Nah.

1. Fractions. Thomas Jefferson would never approve! Hassle to read
the tape, write the number, remember the number, and add or subtract.
Got to be metric on both sides.

I think the extended tape in the photo is metric, even though the
retracted one says 25' as so is presumably not (yes, I know there's a lot
of perspective distortion in the photo, but look how close the '1' seems
to be to the end - and I doubt that the tip is 3" wide :-)

http://www.stanleytools.com/default....VIEW=ThumbView

Heybub's example is the 25' Fatmax Extreme. All 4 Fatmax Extreme tapes
measure inches.

I believe Fatmax came out in 2005. There are 10 other Fatmax models,
which are yellow. Six measure inches only, 2 measure mm only, and 2
measure both. Stanley sells 11 of the 14 by the internet. The 3 it
won't sell are the mm models and one that has both mm and inches.

I wonder if that's because they've had trouble with customers who
assumed they were ordering inch tapes.


3. 25 feet. It means a bulkier, heavier, more expensive tape. Mine is
8m, but I don't recall using it for more than 5m. For longer distances,
a fiberglass-reinforced reel tape works better.

Yeah, 25' is about the most I expect out of a tape before moving to a
bigger reel one - but I don't generally like tapes smaller than 25'. I'd
still have to take both to a job "just in case", so may as well just take
the one 25' one (and a 3' ruler for smaller work)

So far, my only metric/metric tapes have been 8m. I think I'll try a 5m
because smaller tapes are easy to keep in pockets. If I ever need to
measure something longer, I can easily extend the range to 10m (almost
33 feet) with a single marker, such as a pencil mark, a piece of tape,
or the edge of an envelope. Metric measurements are much easier to add
than inches, halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths, and 32nds.

On 2010-10-28, J Burns wrote:

I wonder if that's because they've had trouble with customers who
assumed they were ordering inch tapes.

What bummed me out was when Stanley quit putting those handy sizing
charts on the back of anything longer than 16'. But yes, get a
Stanley. I worked as a framer for one yr and the brand new
top-o-the-line Lufkin I bought broke on the 2nd day of the job.

nb

On Oct 27, 8:34*am, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:41:04 -0400, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 4:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...ts-the-common-
tape-measure

Nah.

1. *Fractions. *Thomas Jefferson would never approve! *Hassle to read
the tape, write the number, remember the number, and add or subtract.
Got to be metric on both sides.

I think the extended tape in the photo is metric, even though the
retracted one says 25' as so is presumably not (yes, I know there's a lot
of perspective distortion in the photo, but look how close the '1' seems
to be to the end - and I doubt that the tip is 3" wide :-)

3. *25 feet. *It means a bulkier, heavier, more expensive tape. *Mine is
8m, but I don't recall using it for more than 5m. *For longer distances,
a fiberglass-reinforced reel tape works better.

Yeah, 25' is about the most I expect out of a tape before moving to a
bigger reel one - but I don't generally like tapes smaller than 25'. I'd
still have to take both to a job "just in case", so may as well just take
the one 25' one (and a 3' ruler for smaller work)

It has a bigger, better
hook, and it's limp, so I can keep tension on it as I move without
jiggling the hook loose. *I can even use a "paperweight" to keep it in
place.

My dad had one that he used for field work - man, the hook on that thing
was sharp!

For metal tape, I wonder about one with interchangeable tips? As someone
else mentioned, there are times when the huge tip like that one in the
article would get in the way. Maybe it'd be nice to be able to swap 'em
around...

cheers

Jules

You don't want to carry 2 tape measures around, yet you'd be willing
to carry an extra tip?

How long do you think it would be before you lost the one that wasn't
attached to the tape measure? ;-)

On Oct 26, 3:55*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...cts-the-common...

I use a Fat Max and a Bosch DLR 165K laser measuring tool both. The
laser is much more accurate for example at getting the distance
between two joists for bridging. Both are compact and easy to carry.
But I still rely a lot on my old fashioned Lufkin aluminum folding
rule. It takes up much less space in a pocket than either of the new
gadgets.

Joe

On Oct 29, 12:31*am, Joe wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:55*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...cts-the-common...

I use a Fat Max and a Bosch DLR 165K laser measuring tool both. The
laser is much more accurate for example at getting the distance
between two joists for bridging. Both are compact and easy to carry.
But I still rely a lot on my old fashioned Lufkin aluminum folding
rule. It takes up much less space in a pocket than either of the new
gadgets.

Joe

"...my old fashioned Lufkin aluminum folding rule..."

I grabbed my Grandfather's Luftkin *wooden* rule from his workshop
when he passed away and used it for many years. Even after my young
son broke it, I kept both pieces around for a while. It was real tough
to part with.

http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/149/810/703/XWry.jpg

Note the metal bar inlaid into the first segment.

You could use it to measure an inside measurement which was in between
2 segment lengths.

On 10/27/2010 6:41 AM, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 4:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Or at least a better one.

Or at least according to Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5672993/a-bit-of-...n-tape-measure



Nah.

1. Fractions. Thomas Jefferson would never approve! Hassle to read the
tape, write the number, remember the number, and add or subtract. Got to
be metric on both sides.

2. No hole in the tip. If you need the tip to stay put, you can stick a
map tack through the hole.

3. 25 feet. It means a bulkier, heavier, more expensive tape. Mine is
8m, but I don't recall using it for more than 5m. For longer distances,
a fiberglass-reinforced reel tape works better. It has a bigger, better
hook, and it's limp, so I can keep tension on it as I move without
jiggling the hook loose. I can even use a "paperweight" to keep it in
place.



Try the Fastcap PMMR True32 5m or the Fastcap PMMR-FLAT16 (limp blade!)

Metric!! LMAO! THAT system went a long way. SIGH

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2010-10-30, Steve Barker wrote:

Metric!! LMAO! THAT system went a long way.

Actually, it did. The only people that seem to resist it are
unskilled and blue-collar workers in US and UK. Even educated
Americans change to it, as science and engineering is taught in
metric.

No problem. It's creeping in. liquids have been metric for a couple
decades, now. Almost everything else is given in metric as a 2nd
measurement. Cars are all built using metric. Seems like
the largest holdout is the building industry, what with everything
still in inches/ft, etc. Apparently only woodworkers and the govt are
too stupid to make the leap. But, with all the Mexicans taking over
the trades, that will no doubt end, soon.

nb

In article ,
notbob wrote:

On 2010-10-30, Steve Barker wrote:

Metric!! LMAO! THAT system went a long way.

Actually, it did. The only people that seem to resist it are
unskilled and blue-collar workers in US and UK. Even educated
Americans change to it, as science and engineering is taught in
metric.

No problem. It's creeping in. liquids have been metric for a couple
decades, now. Almost everything else is given in metric as a 2nd
measurement. Cars are all built using metric. Seems like
the largest holdout is the building industry, what with everything
still in inches/ft, etc. Apparently only woodworkers and the govt are
too stupid to make the leap. But, with all the Mexicans taking over
the trades, that will no doubt end, soon.

nb

Inches divided into a thousand pieces have been deeply entrenched in the
machine world since the dawn of time. I don't think there's any need to
change that, and I'd be surprised if it did change. 1 3/8" = "one inch
three seventy-five" in that world. Sort of a hybrid.

In news Smitty Two typed:
In article ,
notbob wrote:

On 2010-10-30, Steve Barker
wrote:

Metric!! LMAO! THAT system went a long way.

Actually, it did. The only people that seem to resist it
are unskilled and blue-collar workers in US and UK. Even
educated Americans change to it, as science and
engineering is taught in metric.

No problem. It's creeping in. liquids have been metric
for a couple decades, now. Almost everything else is
given in metric as a 2nd measurement. Cars are all built
using metric. Seems like
the largest holdout is the building industry, what with
everything still in inches/ft, etc. Apparently only
woodworkers and the govt are too stupid to make the leap.
But, with all the Mexicans taking over the trades, that
will no doubt end, soon.

nb

Inches divided into a thousand pieces have been deeply
entrenched in the machine world since the dawn of time. I
don't think there's any need to change that, and I'd be
surprised if it did change. 1 3/8" = "one inch three
seventy-five" in that world. Sort of a hybrid.

IMO: The perfect tape measure is the one best suited for the task/s I have
at hand. That's not always the same one. The units used on the tape are
whatever method the user feels most comfortable with, or matches the design
units being used in the task/s. So I keep both around.
Most of the time I like the 1" wide power tape so I can extend it across
objects easily without having to have a helper or tack it somehow. One of my
new ones will span 6 feet easily before it twists or bends. As long as your
hand doesn't shake, that is. Then it's easy to hook it over the far edge and
make the measurement.
For other jobs I have a 100 foot cloth tape (no idea what the material
actually is) that won't lengthen/shorten with temperatures and a reasonable
pull on it. I also have a 500 foot cloth tape that's manual (no auto-rewind)
that I keep around just because it's so old. Came in handy for laying out
stakes per my property dims. Then I have a couple each of metal 6 foot and
12 foot and 25 foot tapes, one metric, one non-metric. I HAD one dual-scale
tape I threw out. It was nearly impossible to read it accurately most of the
time.
HTH,

Twayne`

On 10/30/10 11:55 AM, Twayne wrote:
In news Smitty typed:
In ,
wrote:

On 2010-10-30, Steve
wrote:

Metric!! LMAO! THAT system went a long way.

Actually, it did. The only people that seem to resist it
are unskilled and blue-collar workers in US and UK. Even
educated Americans change to it, as science and
engineering is taught in metric.

No problem. It's creeping in. liquids have been metric
for a couple decades, now. Almost everything else is
given in metric as a 2nd measurement. Cars are all built
using metric. Seems like
the largest holdout is the building industry, what with
everything still in inches/ft, etc. Apparently only
woodworkers and the govt are too stupid to make the leap.
But, with all the Mexicans taking over the trades, that
will no doubt end, soon.

nb

Inches divided into a thousand pieces have been deeply
entrenched in the machine world since the dawn of time. I
don't think there's any need to change that, and I'd be
surprised if it did change. 1 3/8" = "one inch three
seventy-five" in that world. Sort of a hybrid.

IMO: The perfect tape measure is the one best suited for the task/s I have
at hand. That's not always the same one. The units used on the tape are
whatever method the user feels most comfortable with, or matches the design
units being used in the task/s. So I keep both around.
Most of the time I like the 1" wide power tape so I can extend it across
objects easily without having to have a helper or tack it somehow. One of my
new ones will span 6 feet easily before it twists or bends. As long as your
hand doesn't shake, that is. Then it's easy to hook it over the far edge and
make the measurement.
For other jobs I have a 100 foot cloth tape (no idea what the material
actually is) that won't lengthen/shorten with temperatures and a reasonable
pull on it. I also have a 500 foot cloth tape that's manual (no auto-rewind)
that I keep around just because it's so old. Came in handy for laying out
stakes per my property dims. Then I have a couple each of metal 6 foot and
12 foot and 25 foot tapes, one metric, one non-metric. I HAD one dual-scale
tape I threw out. It was nearly impossible to read it accurately most of the
time.
HTH,

Twayne`


I've always thought the metric system made it easier to grab a wrench
one size bigger or smaller. Otherwise, I thought inches and fractions
were fine until I did some surveying when I was about 40. It was much
easier to use the side of the tape marked in hundredths of a foot. I
also had a metric tape, and it had one big advantage: straightforward
calculations of hectares. I found it easier to convert hectares to
acres than to calculate acres from feet.

A couple of years later I went to saw an exact replacement for a rotted
board. 22-19/32". It takes time to read that fraction on a tape. You
have to remember it long enough to write it down, then read it on the
tape again to mark the new board. I found that I'd cut it 21-19/32".
When I marked for the cut, I'd been so preoccupied with finding the
fraction that I'd looked on the wrong side of the 22. Who needs the
distraction of fractions! After a similar experience, I bought a metric
tape and loved it.

A few years later I was helping my BIL fix a roof. He needed about one
square foot of PT plywood, but it had to have five sides. He measured
in inches, climbed down, sawed, climbed up, and found he'd cut wrong.
After the third time, I got a pad and offered to write his measurements
down. He wouldn't tell me. He ended up wasting a lot of time and
ruining most of the sheet of plywood. He should have written his
measurements. He also should have used mm because they're so
straightforward to read on a tape or a paper.

A neighbor was using inches to attach skirting to his underpinning. He
had to measure from the siding to the ground at each end of where a
piece of skirting would go, then add a certain amount for underlap. He
kept cutting wrong. By eliminating fractions, a metric tape made the
job easier and error-free.

The millimeter is about the smallest increment that can conveniently be
read on a carpenter's tape. A hundredth of an inch would be too fine
and a tenth too coarse. Metric measurements make it easy to calculate
volumes and, for materials about as dense as water, weights.

If somebody wants a measurement in whole inches or perhaps halves, I'll
use an inch tape. If somebody wants a precise measurement in inches, I
find it easier to read the tape in mm, then convert with a calculator.

On 2010-10-31, J Burns wrote:

The millimeter is about the smallest increment that can conveniently be
read on a carpenter's tape. A hundredth of an inch would be too fine
and a tenth too coarse. Metric measurements make it easy to calculate
volumes and, for materials about as dense as water, weights.

Metric is superior in every measurement except temperature. Using
whole numbers, one degree of Celsius is approx 4 degrees of
Fahrenheit, giving F more granularity in whole numbers.

nb

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:57:09 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2010-10-31, J Burns wrote:

The millimeter is about the smallest increment that can conveniently be
read on a carpenter's tape. A hundredth of an inch would be too fine
and a tenth too coarse. Metric measurements make it easy to calculate
volumes and, for materials about as dense as water, weights.

Metric is superior in every measurement except temperature. Using
whole numbers, one degree of Celsius is approx 4 degrees of
Fahrenheit, giving F more granularity in whole numbers.

Huh? A change of 1 degree F is defined to be 5/9 degree C (i.e. less than
two).

On 2010-10-31, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Fahrenheit, giving F more granularity in whole numbers.

Huh? A change of 1 degree F is defined to be 5/9 degree C (i.e. less than
two).

Errr... you are correct. 1C ~= 1.8F. Sorry. Senior moment, but my
basic premise is correct.

nb

On 10/30/10 8:57 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-10-31, J wrote:

The millimeter is about the smallest increment that can conveniently be
read on a carpenter's tape. A hundredth of an inch would be too fine
and a tenth too coarse. Metric measurements make it easy to calculate
volumes and, for materials about as dense as water, weights.

Metric is superior in every measurement except temperature. Using
whole numbers, one degree of Celsius is approx 4 degrees of
Fahrenheit, giving F more granularity in whole numbers.

nb

I think smaller degrees make Fahrenheit inferior. Outdoor alcohol and
mercury thermometers (both of which he invented) typically read in
increments of 2F because it would be impractical to squeeze in more
marks, and nobody would care about 1F anyway.

Fahrenheit started with Romer's scale, by which brine was 0 and boiling
was 60. (Before decimals were common, 60 was a convenient number
because it was divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.)

Initially, Fahrenheit used Romer's 0 and his wife's oral temperature for
100. Then he started thinking about boiling.

By Romer's scale, water froze at 7.5. Faharnheit multiplied by 4 to
increase granularity. Boiling was 240. Body temperature was 96. Well,
he wanted 64 degrees between freezing and boiling to make it easy to
manufacture thermometers, so he adjusted his degrees so 32 was freezing.

Celsius said it would be less confusing to call freezing 0 and boiling
100. Negative numbers were not a stumbling block, and you could use
decimals for more precision.

"J Burns" wrote
I think smaller degrees make Fahrenheit inferior. Outdoor alcohol and
mercury thermometers (both of which he invented) typically read in
increments of 2F because it would be impractical to squeeze in more marks,
and nobody would care about 1F anyway.

Celsius said it would be less confusing to call freezing 0 and boiling
100. Negative numbers were not a stumbling block, and you could use
decimals for more precision.

In Europe, it is common to be able to set a thermostat at the .5 mark
between degrees. One degree F is about the minimum anyone can feel around
the comfort level (66 to 74), but pretty imperceptible outside of that.

The first time we went to Italy in cooler weather the thermostat at our
villa was set to 14 degrees. We were chilly. I looked up the conversion
and found out why! I quickly learned how to do the conversion that I've not
needed since one class in high school. Of course, at $6.40 a gallon for
heating oil, we kept the temperature lower than home anyway.