# converting



## FBX1986 (Nov 11, 2004)

OK,
this is one for for all the metric using(Canadians) folks out there. How do i convert cubic meters to board feet ? i have Scribners Tables for gross volume in board feet. but do measure DBH in cenitmeters and lengths in meters??????? do the mills in B.C. buy logs in meters....??????


----------



## glens (Nov 11, 2004)

Using the built-in unit values, my Hewlett Packard 48S calculator shows the conversion from 1_fbm to be 0.002359737216_m^3 so take the number of board-feet you've got and multiply it by 0.00236 to get cubic meters.

I don't think it necessarily works so well in reverse, but by pure volume, 1_m^3 is 423.776000658_fbm

Glen


----------



## MasterBlaster (Nov 11, 2004)

Google is great for that.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cubic+meters+to+board+feet


----------



## xander9727 (Nov 11, 2004)

Just use the english system, it's so much easier and better.


----------



## Ax-man (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by xander9727 _
> *Just use the english system, it's so much easier and better. *


____________________________________________________

I agree, but the rest of the world is on the metric system, were behind the times because we cling to the old English measuring units. We are going to have to change sometime. I don't have the trouble I use to using metric tools ( the odd numbers are the 1/16ths ) when we are talking ropes it gets a little confusing.

One thing that doesn't convert to good, is the good old 36-24-36, doesn't sound as good in metric what ever that converts to.

Larry


----------



## Ryan Willock (Nov 11, 2004)

[email protected] the metric system!


----------



## jimmyq (Nov 11, 2004)

converts to roughly 90-60-90 ... holy hippo..


----------



## xander9727 (Nov 11, 2004)

The metric system is born of bad logic. The english system uses twelve inches in a foot. It is divisable by 2, 3, 4 and 6. One inch is approximately the distance from your last knuckle to the end of your index finger. One foot is approx. the size of a grown mans foot. The metric system is based on 10. It is divisable by 2 and 5. One centimeter is approx?????? a meter is approx??????. With the farenheit system 100 degrees is the hottest temperture the average human will ever encounter outside. 0 degrees is the coldest temperature the average human will encounter outside. This makes it easy to approximate temperature. Who the really cares when water freezes or boils. Do we use a thermometer when performing these task? No, we can see if it's boiling or frozen. 

I think the metric system is more regressive than progressive.

My $.02

Xander "Censored on the Treehouse" 9727


----------



## jimmyq (Nov 11, 2004)

one CENTimeter is 1/100 of a meter, one meter is 1/1000 of a KILOmeter, everything is based on 1, 10, 100, 1000. the math couldnt be any easier. our only problem (current North America and other parts of the World, is that we are supposed to know both and how to convert, thats where the numbers get all farked up) 

IMHO

how does the amount of feet in a mile make any sense? in relation to inches and perhaps yards? the numbers dont have a logical progression mathematically, at least I dont know of one but I was brought up on the metric so I could be off base.


----------



## jimmyq (Nov 11, 2004)

one hectare is 10,000 square meters. how does one come up with an acre? 44, 000 odd square feet? the 100 degrees average human thing, well, I been in 120 something in Vegas.. does that make me an above average human? haha. just kidding. Not trying to get your goat Xander, just throwing thoughts in from the metric side.


----------



## xander9727 (Nov 11, 2004)

A mile is derived from 8 furlongs, a furlong is 660 feet. A furlong was the average distance a horse could plow before taking a break. This is why an acre is 66 feet wide by 660 feet long. These are the best answers I can come up with off the top of my head. Please add more if you know more.


----------



## jimmyq (Nov 11, 2004)

fair enough on the reason, but, how does the metric system be regressive vs measuring by how far a horse can plow?


----------



## xander9727 (Nov 11, 2004)

While it's easy to use on paper it is far more cumbersome in practice. It is easy to divide something if you have references with you at all times (fingers, feet, etc). With long distances it doesn't matter which system you use. With smaller distances it's more difficult (IMO) to estimate accurately.


----------



## jimmyq (Nov 11, 2004)

I spose. you need to have one unit of measurement in mind as a reference to use any of the systems. some you can easily use body parts or such as reference, heck we have most of those parts (most of us anyways) fairly close by at most times. ah, to each their own, I will keep on trying to use both when I need to, metric when I dont.


----------



## Crofter (Nov 11, 2004)

The Imperial system of measurements and the english language is a conglomerate of bastardization from every nationality that has ever traipsed thru the british isles.( I dont know why the USA is so protective of it) There are systems and languages though that are far more regular and precise.


----------



## John Stewart (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by xander9727 _
> *Just use the english system, it's so much easier and better. *



It's called metric and you guy's are the only ones not using it!
I learned both but it doesn't get much easier than the metric system
If you got ten fingers you can do it!
Later 
John


----------



## MasterBlaster (Nov 11, 2004)

If you weren't raised/schooled on metric, it sux. But...

It is undoubtly the superior system.


----------



## Al Smith (Nov 11, 2004)

*The origin*

OLden times. 1 inch,is the length of 3 barley corns. 1 span[of the hand spread]is 9 inchs.1 hand[horse measurement] is 4 inchs.1 cubit,length from elbow to end of figers,is 18 inches.Length of outstreched arms,finger tip to finger tip equals heigth,normaly taken as 6 ft.Normal stride,is 1/2 heigth,normaly taken as 3 feet or 1 yard.A rod is normaly taken as 5.5 yards but can vary. 40 rod in a furlong.1 acre is 160 sq rods or about 200 by 200 ft,rounding it off.640 acres in 1 square mile.Metric,2.54 cm=1 inch,right back to the barley corn,whatever that is. Seems funny,merry olde England gave us this system of measurement,then went to metric,go figure.


----------



## Stumper (Nov 12, 2004)

THe Metric System is scientific (based upon the diameter of the earth) and very logical and easy to use since it is all based upon multiples of ten and we use a base ten math system. Unfortunately I grew up with the English system and now I think in English units. Converting English to metric is horribly cumbersome. There is no way that I can logically criticize the metric system-perhaps the best of 3 or 4 good things to come out France. The fact that I am more comfortable with the English system has NOTHING to do with which is superior.


----------



## Newfie (Nov 12, 2004)

The invention of the metric system in its historical perspective, was a left-wing knee jerk reaction to eliminate the last vestiges of the French monarchy following the revolution. It was hardly an effort to make anything better or uniform.

Any measuring system is only as good as any of the idiots that can or can't learn how to use anything. Dividing by ten, or dividing by four, where's the drama? Conversions don't trip up people, math does. (no offense intended Justin, please don't start a boot Newfie poll  )


----------



## xander9727 (Nov 12, 2004)

I believe that when building it is much easier to work in units that are smaller and divisable by more than two numbers. Maybe I'm just resistant to change.

By smaller I mean 16 units to one inch, twelve units to one foot. Not comparing inches to mm.


----------



## glens (Nov 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Stumper _
> *THe Metric System is scientific (based upon the diameter of the earth) ... *


That was the original intent, but after several unequal attempts it finally fell to the wavelength of some argon-helium isotope or something, all of them nothing which a typical human could possibly identify with if they didn't have an official measure with them.

But it really <i>does</i> boil down to what you're used to and merely moving decimal places in a number <i>is</i> relatively painless, even for the math-challenged.

Glen


----------



## xander9727 (Nov 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by glens _
> *But it really <i>does</i> boil down to what you're used to and merely moving decimal places in a number <i>is</i> relatively painless, even for the math-challenged.
> 
> Glen *



This is true when converting *within* the metric system. To arrive at the measurement you're converting is far more cumbersome. IMO.


----------



## canguy21 (Nov 16, 2004)

I grew up on the English system but after having had the metric rammed down my throat by government edict for thirty years, I now think in metric (for the most part) Heck, when I go to the U.S. I convert miles into km's because the other does not mean anything anymore. 90-60-90 doesn't do anything for me though


----------



## Tonka56 (May 21, 2006)

The metric system really is superior, but it takes practice to become comfortable. I'm pretty comfortable with both systems since I grew up in the United States, but majored in engineering in college. Plus I took advanced science courses in high school. Take the time to become familiar with both systems. Don't be afraid of knowledge. If you can go back and forth between systems, you'll be at a tremendous advantage.


----------



## Tonka56 (May 21, 2006)

glens said:


> That was the original intent, but after several unequal attempts it finally fell to the wavelength of some argon-helium isotope or something.
> 
> Glen



Right on! Other metric units are based on the properties of water.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (May 21, 2006)

Ax-man said:


> One thing that doesn't convert to good, is the good old 36-24-36, doesn't sound as good in metric what ever that converts to.
> 
> Larry




 


That's it! Discussion over! Larry has put the argument to rest. Metric has got to go!


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (May 21, 2006)

xander9727 said:


> This is true when converting *within* the metric system. To arrive at the measurement you're converting is far more cumbersome. IMO.





Xander, that is very true, and all should take note. You have made a very telling point, and it is a very strong argument...


...for dumping the ridiculous English system completely, and letting it fade into history, furlongs, rods, and all.

Problem solved. No more ridiculous conversions.


----------



## turnkey4099 (May 22, 2006)

xander9727 said:


> This is true when converting *within* the metric system. To arrive at the measurement you're converting is far more cumbersome. IMO.



And right there is the crux of the problem. Conversion from one to the other. Why bother? If you're using metric stick with it. If you're using foot/inch, stick with that. What is the point of converting? Having pulled several tours overseas and using metric there I gaurantee you that once you use it, you will hate going back. 

Most of the arguments I have seen against metric boil down to "but I won't know what size it is in metric" or variations. Truth is in most cases you don't know what size it is now. Quick, how big is a loaf of bread? How big will it be in metric? Why would it matter? You would do the same as now, buy the loaf of bread, carton of milk, wrench etc. that is on the shelf. Comes to tools, the metric is simpler - fewer sizes and a bigger difference between sizes of wrenches for one.

Harry K


----------



## Finnbear (May 22, 2006)

This one works pretty well. Google "Metric Conversion" and you'll come up with all sorts of ways to do this.
Finnbear
http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm


----------



## xander9727 (May 22, 2006)

Tonka56 said:


> Right on! Other metric units are based on the properties of water.



Who cares when water freezes or boils? Why use that as a standard? The Fahrenheit system uses tangible limits. 0 degrees is the coldest temperature the average human will encounter. 100 degrees is the hottest temperature the average human will encounter. I know that the equator and the artic defy these limits but.........most of the world lives in more temperate regions.

With measurement the metric system is based on ten. It is divisable by 2 and 5. The English system is based on twelve. It is divisable by 2,3,4, and 6. This makes quarting, halving, dividing by 3's, etc. simpler. 

I'm sure if you're used to a system than it is the easiest for you. On their own merits the engish system is far more common sense and practically designed. Metric is nice on paper because is a system of ten. However, in real life application I like it less.


My $.02


----------



## cord arrow (May 22, 2006)

stumper said:


> Converting English to metric is horribly cumbersome



huh? very easy in either direction. 

my living is carved of reverse engineering. so, perhaps i'm a tad more immersed in these formulations.

however, it IS extremely easy. my kids would REALLY be laughing at you guys.........


----------



## cord arrow (May 22, 2006)

xander9727 said:


> This makes quarting, halving, dividing by 3's, etc. simpler



double HUH?

i'm relatively certain that 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, 100% of ANYTHING is still 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, of anything.


----------



## turnkey4099 (May 23, 2006)

xander9727 said:


> With measurement the metric system is based on ten. It is divisable by 2 and 5. The English system is based on twelve. It is divisable by 2,3,4, and 6. This makes quarting, halving, dividing by 3's, etc. simpler.
> 
> I'm sure if you're used to a system than it is the easiest for you. On their own merits the engish system is far more common sense and practically designed. Metric is nice on paper because is a system of ten. However, in real life application I like it less.
> 
> ...



Oh yeah! The Enlish system is so simple. Why figuring the square footage of a rectangle 13' 5" x 7' 7" is a snap...not. It isn't even simple to find the midpoint of the 13' 5" side.

Harry K


----------



## cord arrow (May 23, 2006)

well....i dunno.....not so hard, really. granted, i do this day in and day out.

however, 161" X 91" = 14651".

14651 divided by 144 (SQUARE FEET) = 101.74 square feet

dernit, i need that in FEET & INCHES!!!

well, got the feet. 101.

whadda' 'bout the REST of it.

lesse'.......i know, i need some sort of ratio. yeah, that's it!

hmmmmmm....

OK....let's try 74 is to 100 as (some number we wish to find) is to 12.

looks like this:

74 : 100 = X : 12

here comes the hard part.

means time the extremes.

WHAT??????????????

this means we reduce the equation by multiplying the innermost numbers, then the outermost numbers.

so.... 74 X 12 = 100X

and...888 = 100X

if you remember ANYTHING about grade school math, you know what to do from here.

8.88 inches. 8 & 7/8ths.......leave the line........

i hate my endless condescending tirade's on this subject, but really, HOW HARD CAN IT BE???????


----------



## xander9727 (May 23, 2006)

cord arrow said:


> double HUH?
> 
> i'm relatively certain that 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, 100% of ANYTHING is still 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, of anything.



I'm sure NASA really misses you!

I was referring to smaller linear measurments (i.e. construction). When your talking hundreds of yards or meters it's all in what you're used to. As far as miles or kilometers it's still just simple addition and subtraction. When you are building a home or a trailer etc. fractional math is simple. For me, to lay out walls, build stairs, etc. it is easier to use the system I grew up with. For laying out designs on paper metric works well because the graph paper works well for a factor of ten. I notice the emphasis is on the measurements....... what about the temperature? I'm sure the state of matter of water is the center of the universe as well.

What are the metric board thicknesses? What are the metric stud lengths for home building? What is the metric measurement for ceiling height? What is a standard metric counter top height?

I'm sure they are easy to remember......


----------



## Finnbear (May 23, 2006)

turnkey4099 said:


> Oh yeah! The Enlish system is so simple. Why figuring the square footage of a rectangle 13' 5" x 7' 7" is a snap...not. It isn't even simple to find the midpoint of the 13' 5" side.
> 
> Harry K



Lets see here. 5/12=.416667 and 7/12=.583333 so 13'5"x7'7" is 13.416667x 7.583333=101.74301 sq ft. Takes longer to type than to figure out. 
Without using a calculator the midpoint of 13'5" is 6'6" plus 2-1/2" which is 6'8-1/2". I think they taught my 12 year old this a couple years ago in grade school.
Finnbear


----------



## turnkey4099 (May 24, 2006)

Finnbear said:


> Lets see here. 5/12=.416667 and 7/12=.583333 so 13'5"x7'7" is 13.416667x 7.583333=101.74301 sq ft. Takes longer to type than to figure out.
> Without using a calculator the midpoint of 13'5" is 6'6" plus 2-1/2" which is 6'8-1/2". I think they taught my 12 year old this a couple years ago in grade school.
> Finnbear



So you do two divisions plus one additon.

Metric = 1 division

The point was not that it can be done, the point is that it is not 'simple'

Harry K


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (May 24, 2006)

Finnbear said:


> Lets see here. 5/12=.416667 and 7/12=.583333 so 13'5"x7'7" is 13.416667x 7.583333=101.74301 sq ft. Takes longer to type than to figure out.




And did you do _*that *_without a calculator?


In metric, you could.


----------



## Finnbear (May 24, 2006)

turnkey4099 said:


> So you do two divisions plus one additon.
> 
> Metric = 1 division
> 
> ...



My point was that my 12 year old could do it when he was 10 so how hard could it be?


----------



## Finnbear (May 24, 2006)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> And did you do _*that *_without a calculator?
> 
> 
> In metric, you could.



I didn't do it without a calculator but a quick bit of mental math will give me a damn good estimate too. In my head 5/12 is about .4 and 7/12 is about .6 so 13.4 x 7.6 is 101.84 which is plenty close if we're estimating. In any case where absolute accuracy is required a calculator will be available and then all this arguing about whose system is better doesn't mean squat. It all depends on which system you learned as a kid - that is the one you will be most comfortable and proficient with.
Finnbear


----------



## turnkey4099 (May 24, 2006)

Finnbear said:


> My point was that my 12 year old could do it when he was 10 so how hard could it be?



Your original point was that the english system was simple because it was divisible by several numbers (addressing only the foot/inch measure and conveniently leaving out things such as liquid measure, yards, miles and a host of other illogical parts of it). I showed by a simple example that the it is not 'simple' as it calls for multiple calculations for such a simple job as finding the middle of a line. That as 12 year old boy could do it has nothing to do with the question of it being simple, only addresses 'easy'.

I notice you didn't try to show your calculations for the square footage.

Harry K


----------



## lumberjackau (May 25, 2006)

has anyone tried converting currency from the english pound, shilling, pence to dollars? (the dollar I might add is a decimal system which is similar to metric). But nuff off that. The mills I send timber to measure the lumber lenghts in metric but the dimensions are still in inches, so you get a 2"x4"x 2.4m instead of 2"x4"x8'. I live in Australia now, grew up in the states, raised with the inch, feet, yards, mile thing, now I am getting used to the metric system, bit tough at first but you get used to it. At least they converted to the dollar from from the old pound note, don't think I could of handled that.


----------



## sawn_penn (May 25, 2006)

The lousy thing about the english system is that the units keep changing in odd ways as the scale changes.

Metric is great for most things, but I have noticed that people who have grown up 100% metric are not as good at estimating as people who grew up without metric.

I'm not sure if this is caused by metric or calculators.


----------



## Finnbear (May 25, 2006)

turnkey4099 said:


> Your original point was that the english system was simple because it was divisible by several numbers (addressing only the foot/inch measure and conveniently leaving out things such as liquid measure, yards, miles and a host of other illogical parts of it). I showed by a simple example that the it is not 'simple' as it calls for multiple calculations for such a simple job as finding the middle of a line. That as 12 year old boy could do it has nothing to do with the question of it being simple, only addresses 'easy'.
> 
> I notice you didn't try to show your calculations for the square footage.
> 
> Harry K



Sorry, Go back and read again. I made no such point about being divisible by several numbers. That was xander9727. And as far as the finding the middle of the line it is still simple to do in the english system if that is what you were taught as a youngster. If you learned on the metric system then that system will seem easier to you. Neither system is better they just each seem better to the people who learned them growing up. I grew up a carpenter's son and was reading blueprints and laying out floors and walls and roofs before I was a teenager. The english system is very comfortable to me as I have been using it all my life. As far as my calculations for the square footage - if you are referring to my estimate then you also need to read again as I stated that I used "mental math" and did the math "in my head". No calculations to show - I just know the times tables and how to add/subtract.
Finnbear


----------



## turnkey4099 (May 25, 2006)

Finnbear said:


> Sorry, Go back and read again. I made no such point about being divisible by several numbers. That was xander9727. And as far as the finding the middle of the line it is still simple to do in the english system if that is what you were taught as a youngster. If you learned on the metric system then that system will seem easier to you. Neither system is better they just each seem better to the people who learned them growing up. I grew up a carpenter's son and was reading blueprints and laying out floors and walls and roofs before I was a teenager. The english system is very comfortable to me as I have been using it all my life. As far as my calculations for the square footage - if you are referring to my estimate then you also need to read again as I stated that I used "mental math" and did the math "in my head". No calculations to show - I just know the times tables and how to add/subtract.
> Finnbear



My apologies. I didn't notice that you weren't the person I thought I was replying to.

Good point about 'what you grew up with". I grew up with the english system and didn't see the point of the metric when we were forced to study it in school. Then I wound up for a total of 9 1/2 years overseas in various locations. Did a bunch of home repair and carpentry type stuff over there almost having to use metric and came to see the simplicity of the system. I actually regretted having to revert back to the english system.

Harry K


----------



## Finnbear (May 25, 2006)

turnkey4099 said:


> My apologies. I didn't notice that you weren't the person I thought I was replying to.
> 
> Good point about 'what you grew up with". I grew up with the english system and didn't see the point of the metric when we were forced to study it in school. Then I wound up for a total of 9 1/2 years overseas in various locations. Did a bunch of home repair and carpentry type stuff over there almost having to use metric and came to see the simplicity of the system. I actually regretted having to revert back to the english system.
> 
> Harry K



In my day job I use both but I'm far more comfy with english. I work in the bearing and power transmission business and most ball, cylindrical, and spherical roller bearings are made to metric dimensions. It is really easy to say a 6207 ball bearing is 35x72mm but if I go to a machinist and tell him I want a shaft made for it then he wants me to tell him the shaft needs to be 1.3779" +/- whatever the correct tolerance is for the fit I require. I design a lot of retrofit drives for machinery and torque ratings in kN and power ratings in kW just don't ever seem as familiar as good old foot-pounds and HP ratings but I have to deal with the metric ratings because lots of machinery comes from across the pond. I'm much better at estimating in my head feet-per-minute than meters per minute just because the foot is my reference. My reference points are burned into my memory in english. A pound, a foot, a gallon, a yard, mile, ton, etc. are things I immediately relate measurements to. I can't pick something up and "feel" that it weighs about a kilogram but it sure does feel like 2 or 3 pounds to me.
Finnbear


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (May 25, 2006)

Finnbear said:


> I'm much better at estimating in my head feet-per-minute than meters per minute just because the foot is my reference. *My reference points are burned into my memory in english*. A pound, a foot, a gallon, a yard, mile, ton, etc. are things I immediately relate measurements to. I can't pick something up and "feel" that it weighs about a kilogram but it sure does feel like 2 or 3 pounds to me.
> Finnbear




That's the big issue for most of us. I don't think I'll EVER get used to a weather forecast that tells me it's going to be a warm 22 degrees tomorrow.  

But what we are USED to is one thing. What is SIMPLER and MORE LOGICAL is another. 

The metric system is simple and logical. English units are neither.

But I'm still more comfortable in English units, because *My reference points are burned into my memory in english*

But I'm honest enough to recognize why, instead of trying to pretend that English units make sense.


----------



## cord arrow (May 25, 2006)

Finnbear said:


> but if I go to a machinist and tell him I want a shaft made for it then he wants me to tell him the shaft needs to be 1.3779" +/- whatever the correct tolerance is for the fit I require.



This'll be a long one.
I've owned two shops, the latter was very successful.
Our clients were all metric based, American Honda, Showa, TI Tech, etc.

I had a diverse workforce, this led to our success.

I've found:

The Brits are all about "class fits". They were invaluable. They didn't really give a crap about tolerances, they needed to know the "class" of the fit. Having been exposed to this only minimally in the past, I was quite intrigued. Turns out, ain't a bad way to get things done.

Had some Latino's, all metric. These were the guys I called in the middle of the night when Honda or Showa or Harley had a line down. There in a heartbeat. Triple time. No need to convert anything. Lines up, Honda's happy, I'm happy, they're really happy. Is it the best work my shop can turn out? No, it ain't gotta be. Good dudes. Delivered the part on their way home. Say what you want about the current administrations stand, these guys get the job done with no questions ask.

Then there's us. The stalwarts of the machining community. The day after, I'd give the "good ol' boys" the prints I'd devised to correct Honda/ Showa/Harley's issues long term. And they would in term "get the job done."

Whatever it takes. The world is a diverse arena, accept that no one way is the right way, don't be deliberately adverse to things that are not "comfortable", reach out, grab on. The horizons are waiting for you.

To watch these guys interact with one another was truly refreshing. The Brits, Latino's, a Japenese fellow, really, it doesn't get any better than that.

Good enough that the dead lines have ended for me. Now days I golf, garden, fish.


----------



## Tonka56 (May 26, 2006)

xander9727 said:


> Who cares when water freezes or boils? Why use that as a standard?



Because it's the most abundant substance on the earth's surface.


----------



## turnkey4099 (May 26, 2006)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> That's the big issue for most of us. I don't think I'll EVER get used to a weather forecast that tells me it's going to be a warm 22 degrees tomorrow.
> 
> But what we are USED to is one thing. What is SIMPLER and MORE LOGICAL is another.
> 
> ...



Excellent post and lays it out much clearer than I did. 

Harry K


----------



## buzz sawyer (May 27, 2006)

xander9727 said:


> A mile is derived from 8 furlongs, a furlong is 660 feet. A furlong was the average distance a horse could plow before taking a break. This is why an acre is 66 feet wide by 660 feet long. These are the best answers I can come up with off the top of my head. Please add more if you know more.



You're figures are correct and may actually be the origin, but I was looking for the standardized method of measurement. One horse may pull more or less than another. 

I'll wait a bit before revealing the details.

Just realized this got posted on another thread - sorry, wasn't looking to hijack this one.


----------

