Jump to content

Bonus for same type cans in crates


MyTJ

Recommended Posts

I just finished filling my first few crates with the same type of canned good and I came to the realisation that a crate has not enough capacity.  I understand that when throwing different type of items in a crate, there will be significant loss of space.  But for some reason I like to keep my containers with a single type of item in them.

 

Now making some very rough assumptions that a crate is 3 feet x 3 feet x 3 feet, and that a can is 3 inches in diameter, there should be place for 144 of them in a single row.  Assuming the cans are 5 inches in height (to be generous), there should be space for 7 rows or 1 008 cans.  What I get, even with organized, is 92 (0,7) cans or 81 (0,8) cans.

 

What I'm suggesting is a weight reduction for same type item or general type of items, because as stated above, I understand that jamming a crate (or any containers for that matter) with different type of items involve a substantial loss of space.

 

No need to over do it so I suggest a 80% weight reduction (covering about half the difference of the math above) if the items are of a compatible size (all cans of the same dimensions) or a reduction of 25% for items of a same general type (all cans).

 

Same thing hold for other items too.  For exemple, I beleive that it's possible to place more then 32 handguns in a 3'x3'x3' crate.

 

Conter argument and items that should not follow this

On the other end, some items should not be placeable in crates (or any other containers except maybe shelves and racks).  Those would be any items measuring more then 3 feet in length (possibly riffles, sledge hammer and/or shotgun).

 

Very low weight unit may also be excluded (0,01). After all, I'm not sure if it's possible to put 32 500 socks (16 250 pairs) in a crate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually filling a container with the same item tends to result in a loss of space. Generally speaking, an item won't fit neatly into a box. Try to fill any box with soup or tuna cans - you're left with the spaces in between the round edges and the box, perfect for tea bags or napkins or something else. If you try with a square or rectangular object, you're likely to end up with spaces against one or more sides of the box that can fit books among other things.

 

I'm guessing you've never packed your own things and tried to move house. :P Because you get really creative with this kind of thing when packing everything you own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syconi is right, I can see why this idea would be desirable (squeezing more out of organization) but  there is no way this makes sense from a balance perspective or a realism perspective.

 

If I have enough items to use a whole crate to store all of just one kind of item, odds are I am fine if 0.3 of it goes unused. On the flipside, if I was building an 'emergency bag' I would fill it with everything I can so no space is wasted (down to filling the rest with nails until it can't hold anything else at all).

Edited by Kim Jong Un
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On ‎2016‎-‎08‎-‎03 at 1:08 AM, Scyoni said:

Actually filling a container with the same item tends to result in a loss of space. Generally speaking, an item won't fit neatly into a box. Try to fill any box with soup or tuna cans - you're left with the spaces in between the round edges and the box, perfect for tea bags or napkins or something else. If you try with a square or rectangular object, you're likely to end up with spaces against one or more sides of the box that can fit books among other things.

 

I'm guessing you've never packed your own things and tried to move house. :P Because you get really creative with this kind of thing when packing everything you own.

 

I agree with the loss of space (round thing in a square container in this case), but it was merely a suggestion to avoid just flat out increasing container capacity. I'd be ok with increased containers capacity.

 

You can see the point I tried to make in paragraph 2 of my initial post where, even with loss of space... you should stack at least 1 008 of them in a crate.  Right now we're below 100 so that's a lot of loss space.  Even assuming they are huge cans (6 inch diameter and 10 inch height) you'd still be around 500 of them.

 

The same argument could be done for a lot of other objects, like butter knife.  I can only fit 216 of them in a crate when I'm pretty sure it should hold way more (assuming a rough 1"x1"x12" to be generous, I get an astounding 3 888 items... even factoring a 25% or 50% loss of space we're very far from the count).

 

As for moving... I did pack and move my stuff a lot of times already (if memory serves me well... 12 times over the course of my life... not counting helping family and friends do the same).  Some similar shaped items can be placed together with very little loss of space (books)... others you do need to get creative I agree (but you also need to take care not to break anythin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...