FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - More or less space with handle on the outside???
Old Aug 1, 2012, 12:44 pm
  #12  
oshelef
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Mellonc
Oh no, Grasshopper....... you take the Briggs bag and move the fabric to the other side of the mechanism. that gives you 3 pockets, each 1.3 inches deep. Not 1/2 inch.

Yes, that is the "opportunity cost" of having the handle mechanism on the outside while keeping the same dimensions.

And now you say, "what, this dude isn't making any sense......" Rightly so, it's something a 9th grade geometry student can figure out. And this leads to the conclusion that the folks over at Briggs has been drinking un-purified Hudson river water.

Hold on a second before you make the conclusion.

This isn't about the bag itself. It's about utilizing the capacity (of the overhead bin) given to us with another squareish looking contraption we call rolling suitcases.

Please take a look at my pic 1. do you see the outerbox and the inner box (which is the bag). You will note that the bag is deeper on one side vs the other side. It has to be that way cuz the wheels have to stick out. There is no way around this. Otherwise, it won't roll right. For most bags they stick out as much as 1.5 inches to .75 inches (my crude estimates). so this introduces a "difference" between to the top depth and bottom depth. Thus, the bag cannot sit flat on the bottom. There is "wasted space."

And in Pic 2, you can see that by putting the handle on the outside, the wasted space is gone and the bag sits flat. Thus, taking the wasted space on the bottom, top right and top left inside of the bin. As an example, you can try measuring conventional bags depth. You'll see that on top the depth is closer to 9 inches whereas on the bottom including the wheels it's more like 10. With Briggs the depth is uniform.

The final question was and is: Yes, Briggs better utilizes the bin space but what about the spaces around the handle bars and that could have been used as cubic inches? The 1.3 inches of handle depth is parting coming from the "wasted space" on the bottom that we discussed and interior space that we find so valuable. However, I find that interior space gets wasted on the conventional bags with top handle recess, bottom plate and the handle rails.

So, yes. As tfar has said earlier there is still a small advantage of having the handle on the inside. My point is that it's really not that much... probably less than 100 cu in where only small things can fit.
I'm still missing something:
Take the trapezoidal (or otherwise) shape of the B&R bag (if that is indeed the optimal shape), move the fabric to add "pockets". No (or very little) space is taken from the inside by doing this, since the mechanism was on the outside to begin with. The balance and wheel clearance is not meaningfully changed, and the bag is larger. By how much? Roughly 3 pockets of 20x4 times the depth of the tracks. (120 cubic inches if the depth of the pockets is 1/2 inch and I do math correctly, 360 cubic inches if the depth is 1.5 inches).
Alternatively, imagine that b&r added external pockets recessed around the mechanism. They would be long flat pockets, but they'd actually have a decent amount of volume. The optimal shape of the bag/bin has little to do with it. Figure out the best shape (considering balance, stability, and bin fitting), and then decide where to put the fabric. I don't see how where the fabric lies changes the best shape.
Now, perhaps B&R bags have a better shape than most bags, but put the mechanisms on the outside. They would be even larger if the mechanism was on the inside and the bag larger.


I still think this comes down to differences in definitions of "usable" space and differences in "advertised" sizes. For example, if we compare two 22"x14"x9" measured internally bags, one with the mechanism on the inside and one with the mechanism on the outside, the second obviously holds more. It's also obviously larger when measured externally.
oshelef is offline