Is the water and oil temperature on a Mini measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Well there are more: Kelvin, Rankine and certainly even more...
Edited by r.tec, 22 June 2025 - 04:45 PM.
Posted 22 June 2025 - 04:43 PM
Is the water and oil temperature on a Mini measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Well there are more: Kelvin, Rankine and certainly even more...
Edited by r.tec, 22 June 2025 - 04:45 PM.
Posted 22 June 2025 - 04:48 PM
Posted 22 June 2025 - 06:29 PM
Posted 22 June 2025 - 10:47 PM
Although entertaining, the replies have gone off-topic and are only going to confuse the people who use metric tools on a mini.
Posted 23 June 2025 - 07:08 AM
The Concorde, being an Anglo-French project had the fuselage, including the droop nose, dimensioned in Imperial and wings were in metric.
The fuselage was designed in Bristol, the droop nose in Cambridge, hence Imperial, and the wings were designed in France, hence Metric.
Still, it did fly very well.And its 50,000 litre fuel tanks, were loaded with Lbs of fuel.
And, when we're flying: Visibility is in kilometeres, Height in feet, Windspeed in knots.
Posted 23 June 2025 - 11:49 AM
Hi,
And, when we're flying: Visibility is in kilometeres, Height in feet, Windspeed in knots.
That just ties everything together.
Paddy
Posted 23 June 2025 - 12:49 PM
Posted 23 June 2025 - 06:13 PM
Is the water and oil temperature on a Mini measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Well there are more: Kelvin, Rankine and certainly even more...
When I ran a host of worry gauges, I had coolant temp in C and Oil Pressure in PSI.
Posted 23 June 2025 - 11:22 PM
I used to work for a US company and the MD once asked me, referring to the length of a piece of equipment, "what is 14 meters plus 5 foot". I replied "that's easy, its 14m 5ft."
Was that the moment, that triggered the "Used to work for them" ?
Posted 27 June 2025 - 08:45 AM
I'm the same Spider.
I did my apprentiseship in imperial and we had to learn all the decimals for fractions from 1/64th to and inch in 64ths.
I now design mostly in metric and machine in both, but when it comes to small gaps like spark plugs or limits and fits, I prefer imperial thou. I can picture a thou but 0.0254mm, I've no idea what that looks like..
40 though is 1 Millimeter - 30 thou is 0.8 mm and 25 thou 0.6 mm - that's how we gap spark plugs. 4 thou is 0.1 mm. That is my approximation and also my mnemonic
I think metric is more precise, isn't it. We have 1 µm (thousandth of a Millimeter), which would translate into ~0.4 thou
If neccessary the metric system offers pico- (10-12 m) and nanometer (10-9 m) - what would be the imperial equivalent to this?
Wheels and tyre diameters are generally measured and indicated in inches.
Not sure why but for a short time in the late 1980's BL fitted the Austin Metro with metric size wheels and tyres 160/65 x 315....but eventually went back to the inch diameter sizes.
These were the Michelin TRX tyres, which were far superior to then available imperial sized tyres. Not because of the metric size, but thicker side walls, etc.
I still got some on my Citroën CX turbo - but to replace a set you have to bid farewell to at least 1400€
I have now a pretty complete set of imperial spanners, sockets, etc. - but everytime I really struggle to pick the right size one for the bolt head or nut.
Then I struggle to figure out which one is one size bigger. 1/2" doesn't fit, next size 123/264" ???
Surely if you have not grown up with imperial it is tough to learn it (particularly for geezers like me)
Edited by MiNiKiN, 27 June 2025 - 08:50 AM.
Posted 27 June 2025 - 11:57 AM
Thanks MINIKIN, I know how many thou to a milimeter etc. as I work in both and flip between them all the time, I just find it easier to visualise 0.001" than 0.0254mm
There is no difference in the precission between metric and imperial. They both come down to the accuracy and resolution of the equipment used to measure it.
We may have 1um but we also have 0.0003937"
0.03937 and 25.4 are numbers I've had in my head for years along with 22/7
Posted 27 June 2025 - 12:10 PM
you can divide anything into another thousand, or million, or quadrillion, all the way down to quarks and Plancks whatever they are
you could do it in fractions of a mile if you wanted, it's just not convenient (pass me the 1 / 160,934th mile spanner, cheers)
in terms of accuracy it doesn't matter which you choose, it would just be ideal if everyone chose the same, for standardization, and remembered to use the right scale. and if everyone could just agree on mm because it's easier for me that would be great cheers
i think the part mm / part inches makes the mini interesting anyway, kind of part of the long history, how many other cars were in production for that long they needed to change halfway
random memory from university days, one of the accommodation blocks had really narrow doorways and the 'common knowledge' was that their civil engineering dpt messed up. designed in inches but the doors were made in cm by mistake. how true that is.. might be nonsense but it was funny
Edited by stuart bowes, 27 June 2025 - 12:26 PM.
Posted 27 June 2025 - 04:44 PM
One thing one cannot deny is that die US engineers managed it to send humans to the moon and back with their yards, feet, inches, pounds and so many other strange measurements. As much as I like the SI-system, we have not anything comparable to show off so far....
Posted 27 June 2025 - 07:30 PM
One thing one cannot deny is that die US engineers managed it to send humans to the moon and back with their yards, feet, inches, pounds and so many other strange measurements. As much as I like the SI-system, we have not anything comparable to show off so far....
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users