More or less space with handle on the outside???
 

For the bag crazed OCD types......

I criticize Briggs bags a lot cus it seems the handle mechanism being outside the bags seems like a waste of space. From the strict space utilization perspective it is a waste of space and you wonder if these guys passed high school geometry. Yet I ponder whther the guys who used CAD just to design pockets in a briefcase are really that simple minded.... Anyways the left side of my brain has always wondered how in the world these guys claim that there is more usable space with the outside handle system without increasing the total depth of the bag. I experimented with some drawings below. Please criticize my thinking if you would.....

http://i383.photobucket.com/albums/o...t/AEE184DA.jpg

The first is a conventional bag in an imaginary overhead bin viewed in a sectional way fitting in wheels first. Note the 9.5 inch is the typical depth of the bag including the wheels. AlSo see the 8.75 is he actual depth not including the wheels. Do you notice the bag sits on an angle? It has to because the wheels stick out. Thus there cannot be a flat space on the bottom if the bag sits in the bin this way.

Now the second pic:
http://i383.photobucket.com/albums/o...t/38979656.jpg
You see that bag sits horizontal cuz the handle system on the outside is extended through the whole length of the bag. (the wheel protrusion and handle depth is the same on Briggs bags) You also see on top of the bag that there is no wasted space between the bag and the bin.

In the drawing you see that the space left over after accounting for the depth of the handle system using the same total depth leaves the depth of only 8.2 inches rather than the 8.75 inches. A one half inch difference times 22 times 14 is the cubic inches lost. Or is it??? Remember that on the "enclosed system" the handle mechanism, the bottom support mechanism, and top cut-out (where the handle gets recessed into the bag) take up room. After subtracting those cubic inches you are really left with a very small theoretical advantage with the (enclosed system).

Yes I know this is very OCD. but I think I should stop criticizing Briggs from now. I think they know what they are doing.

Very interesting thought. Thanks for that. I'd say the outsider handles still waste space after this is taken into consideration but you may be right that it is not much. OTOH, it would be pretty simple to actually just calculate the actual luggage volume based on a real piece of luggage and not take into consideration whether the bag is inclined or not.

Another thing that I don't like about the outside system is that it renders a flat outside pocket impossible. This big flat outside pocket is a must for me in a rolling carry-on because it is ideal for documents, newspapers and magazines. Easy access and no bends. I bet a lot of others think alike.

This and the fact that I am just so darn pleased with my trusty Travelpro Plat5 is probably the main reason that I have not yet bought a chic Rimowa spinner. I may give in, though, if my back gets any worse. ;)

Till

And that makes sense for your Plat 5 cuz, as you saw in the first drawing, there is indeed some space left over when the bag is lying on its back due to protruding wheels.

Whoa...... this bag science thing is really interesting.... it would be a nice grad student's space engineering project to design something and call it the "Perfect Bag."

In the first drawing you could turn the bag over and it will lie flat.

then you'll have unused space on top of the bag. The idea is to fill the cavity (the bin space) as much as possible. So it's not about the bag itself (anyone can tell you that outside handle wastes space) but how the whole thing utilizes cubic inches in another enclosed space......... so to speak.

So the cubic inches lost is 154 less the space taken up by the internal mechanism. How much is that?

Suppose the handle and wheels each take a 1inch by 1inch space at the top (9 CI each). Suppose the tracks are each 1 inch by 1 inch along the whole height (22 CI each). That makes 62 CI total, and I think that all of the above assumptions are too high. Still, the difference is 92 cubic inches.

But I'm confused about your sketches:
Suppose that we have a box with the external dimensions. And we have the same wheel & handle mechanism. Clearly, the sides are in the same place, the top is in the same place, the only question is do you put the "bottom" above the mechanisms, or below? Since we started with the same box the external space is the same. And the space difference is obvious. The only variable that might be different is if B&R designs the mechanism differently because it is on the outside.

Note that if you talk to bag designers the standard way to measure bag volume is to fill it with 3/4" balls and count them, not to calculate volume.

But it's easy to come up with ways to measure usable space to give whatever answer you want. For example, if you are filling your bag with rigid sheets that are 22X14, the B&R bag holds more, since the mechanism conflicts.

I am not quite following your comment on this one. I think what you mean is that the variable that Briggs has in this equation is simply the determination of internal or external handles....

I agree with that. The only point I am making is that (after considerable thinking during a long and arduous newspaper reading on the throne) there is actually some wasted space on the bottom of the bag from my drawing number one. Clearly the protruding wheels make one end deeper than the other end. I think Briggs is basically saying ...... we'll just fill up the void left by the difference in depth with the handle mechanism outside. And with that, they have a horizontal bottom and top when bag sits in a bin, which then leads to better utilization of the space given to each passenger.

----------------------

I also aware about the usage of balls to figure out total space. Because of the assumptions about the 1 inch protrusions with handle mechanisms and whatnot, the 3/4 inch balls will not fit very well next to these internal "protrusions" unless the diameters of the balls were considerably smaller than 1 inch. Another reason why I think Im starting to drink Briggs' Cool Aid..... after getting off the throne, of course.....

Maybe I'm the one missing something.
Take the B&R bag, now move the fabric to the other side of the mechanism. That gives you 3 "pockets". Each half inch deep. Suppose each one is 20"x4". (leaving 2 inches of width for the tracks, and 1" at the top and bottom for handle and wheel clearance.) That's still 60 cubic inches. And if the bag was "flat" in the bin before, it still is.

I think the argument for the space has to rely on the definition of "usable".

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.

Well, I may be missing something too, but as the overhead lockers are not rectangular the issue seems a bit academic. And as most of the space around and on top of rolling baggage is filled with coats and briefcases, the greater space over the case with the handle inside, even if it is angled, seems more useful.

I thought about that when I first started the thread. Take a look at the pick below.

http://i383.photobucket.com/albums/o...s_sections.jpg

As you can see, having an angled bottom due to protruding wheels should hurt you even more because the corners will stick out even more exaggerating the chance that the bottom feet or stand will hit the angled airplane walls on towards the outside. Thus, having a flat bottom is even more important in space usage.

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.

I've answered your questions below per each remark. (remember that I don't have all the answers either but these are my best educated guesses.....)

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).

-------- yes, although the depth as I calculated is about 1.3 inches with volume subtracted by handle recess volume, handle rail intrusions and bottom plate intrusion.----------


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.

---------------- actually it would change the shape of the bag. I used think exactly as you stated - just simply make either side of the handle rail enclose more volume and voila! creating more space. but if you do that you have to move the wheels out even more - and that's no different than a conventional bag where everything is enclosed but a part of the wheel which sticks out about 1.5 inch to .75 inch depending on the brand. Then, you'd had the same uneven bottom and tilted bag in the overhead bin problem as stated in my pic 1. ----------------------


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 stated the answer above. The wheel would have to stick out like the rest of the conventional bags. Otherwise, how would it roll? Something does have to stick out of the total enclosed space for it to roll.--------

BR actually does use the space on the outside between the handle mechanism. They add a little center pocket. About the size of an umbrella pocket. I think it would be really smart to actually make these pockets bigger and to make them removable (yet still so securely fastened that you could check the bag).

I think, Mellon, the virtue of your theory is that you imagine the outer rectangle box as a result of the maximally protruding elements of a bag, notably its wheels. They need to protrude or the bag cannot roll. However, the handle mechanism doesn't need to be in line with the axis of the wheel(s). The more I place the handle system towards the outside, the more space I gain inside - if the other parameters don't change.

I think the ideal solution would be to actually have the entire back of the bag so far out that it is line with the back part of the wheels. Thus the wheels would only protrude from the bag on the bottom. The problem with this is that that would possibly making the bag inoperable because there is not enough clearance to tilt it. This could be overcome with a strong spring mechanism that pushes the wheels out as soon as the bag is tilted. But when you lay it flat the wheel are in line with the back of the suitcase.

Should I get that patented, now. ;)

Till

Still don't follow your logic, but tbh as long as my case is allowed on and fits in the locker I'm not that worried.