889
Sizing pants: men's vs women's
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
889 points (97.2% liked)
People Twitter
5236 readers
1343 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Things will only have useful size metrics when the buyers want useful size metrics.
Men's pants come with useful size metrics because they're useful and we attach very little meaning to the measurement of men's pants.
Women's pants come with stupid size metrics because we attach a lot of meaning to the measurement of women's pants.
It's the same reason condoms sizes are all on the spectrum of large to extra large without actually providing a length and diameter.
When was the last time you measured your waist and then tried on a pair of pants?
Men's clothing has tones of vanity sizing these days.
The cuts of fabric are cut with dies. A layer of fabric is place down and a press presses the cutting die down to cut out the shape. A cheap manufacturer over stacks how many sheets are cut at ones. Top layer is going to be bigger then the bottom layer.
I expect there is much more hand cutting going on than you realize. To have multiple styles and different cuts would require giant warehouses of dies. Those aren't cheap and wouldn't last long in a production environment. Any change would require a new die. The machine shop would need to be as big as the cut sew shop.
One skilled (or trained) operator can change from pants to shirts on a whim. You'll notice almost all clothing is made in far off places where labour is cheap. Not to say there isn't die cut stuff, but overwhelmingly the textile industry is hand made.
These things are how multiple layers of fabric gets cut.
Surprisingly CNC cutting machines are becoming more common even in places where labor is "cheap". The technology is becoming affordable and reliable enough to replace even underpaid workers as a "cost saving" measure.
Here's the garment cutting department at a factory in Pakistan.
I once bought a used 80 ton hydraulic press from Levi's. It was used to cut blue jeans, cotton fabric dust everywhere in it. It used maple plywood and die rule cutting dies that could produce 1000's of jeans pieces a day, (polyester/cotton fabrics are a bitch to cut). The dies could be swapped in a few minutes and rebuilt in about an hour with simple tools. The cost of the dies were about $1000 US and could last up to a year.
Those hand operated cutters are fine for simple items made in small lots, but you want to make millions? They are useless.
*I rebuilt it to cut sandpaper discs and sheets using similar die rule dies that could cut 3000 to 4000 pieces per rebuild.
I can see that, way more likely than cutting dies with a press. It would be a huge cost savings as there would be way less material waste and no user fuck-ups.
For pants? At scale, the dies are cheap and probably can be reused across multiple styles within the same brand and size. The difference between blue jeans and cargo pants isn't the cut. It's the fabric and accessories.
A roll of fabric is 54" wide. It will get rolled out in layers as long as the table allows. Now we need a press that can press over the entire length of the table and the table that will support that and the aforementioned millwrights and machine shop. Or we need any table at all and a guy with a knife.
Not to say there aren't things made with dies but Occam's Razor and a career in textiles leads me to believe it's not as common as you think.
This tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
You don't layout your fabric on long table. You feed it from a 5000lbs roll with an automatic indexer and then die cut it. One operator can do the job start to finish. (Been there done that as a toolmaker who made some pattern die rule dies for Levi's and then bought and rebuilt an 80 ton hydraulic press from them that had whacked out blue jeans every day for 20 years and rebuilt it to cut sandpaper discs for the next 15 years)
The CNC cutter is valuable for a company that does custom cutting work for outside customers rather than for in-house work. Fast to make changes with minimal setups. But prepping the material to feed the machine is more labor intensive.
I was friends with a lady who worked at a dress shirt factory. She ran the bolt back and forth on a carriage over a long table and the stack was cut by another guy with that knife I showed earlier. I imagine it all depends what you're making and what you're making it out of whether you die cut or not. Fast fashion (which Levi's aren't) would not be die cut.
I make boat canvas and layout and cut by hot knife. The only efficiency I get is if something is symmetrical I cut both side at the same time.
In Germany the packaging indicates the [Edit: ~~diameter~~ half circumference] in millimeters ±2mm tolerance. Because, you know, size matters here.
Half circumference? Why?
(Yeah I zoomed in. It's 52mm, which is fractionally over 2 inches)
The literal translation of what's on the box makes it easier to understand:
It's simply the easiest width measure you can do yourself.
That isn't equal to the "width" of your dick though. Diameter is closer.
I guess it doesn't really matter if the measure is standard (though elasticity would also affect fit) so you "learn your size" once, but it doesn't seem super useful to me.
Sure, but diameter is also harder to measure on something like a latex tube. Just measure the circumference, divide by 2, then measure the condom.
I'd personally prefer it to be the circumference (so double the condom width).
Just divide that number by pi.
Then you can reasonably approximate with a ruler over the top with no math.
Why not divide by tau and then again by 2? Tau is superior anyway.
So that thing is 4 inches across? Eek!
Edit: oh, you said "half circumference". For some reason I thought that I read diameter.
It did read “diameter”. I remembered it wrong and corrected my mistake. Sorry for not highlighting the edit. I did so now.
Right on. I was going to feel pretty inadequate if there were enough guys walking around with soda cans between their legs to justify a market for 4" unstretrched diameter condoms.