Luggage Math Mistake No More!

by

Remember that post on August 1 about the math mistake?

The mistake here is that while individual dimensions were correctly converted to centimeters (by multiplying by 2.54), the Capacity was incorrectly converted, since the 4720 cubic inches were multiplied by 2.54 (and not the cube of 2.54) to get 11988.8 cubic centimeters.

I found this error a month or so before posting it so I know it was around for a while, but I just discovered that the error has been fixed.  Behold, the new stats!

In this case, the somehow-determined capacity of 4720 cubic inches is multiplied by (2.54)³, or approximately 16.387 cubic cm per cubic inch, to get 77,346.9 cubic centimeters.  But one liter is, conveniently [although not exactly coincidentally], exactly 1000 cubic centimeters, so this translates to 77.3469 liters, which does round to 77.3 liters.  The stats for other pieces of luggage were similarly updated.

I’m so happy!  I’d like to think that the People In Charge actually read this blog, or at least the email I sent them about it, but alas I have no evidence of this.  Still, it’s nice to see the mistake corrected.

3 Responses to “Luggage Math Mistake No More!”

  1. Mrs. Campbell Says:

    That’s awesome! One error at a time…:-)

  2. Barry Leiba Says:

    Only, a “liter” (or “litre”, if you prefer (I do)) is fluid measure, not solid. It seems very odd to have the capacity of luggage measured in litres instead of cm3; it’s as though one were planning to fill it with wine, out of the bottles.

    In general, I think we have to say that these people don’t know from “metric”.

  3. Ξ Says:

    Actually, I saw luggage measured in liters in other places. These were from Briggs and Riley, but Eagle Creek also gives cubic inches and liters/litres (they ambiguously use L, sneaky folk). The other sites that I looked at either used cubic inches or didn’t list capacity, so I’m not sure what the normal solid measure in metric would be.

    (Pause)

    But actually, when I think about it, can’t cm3 also be liquid as easily as solid? Isn’t that what all the CCs in medicine are about? I’ve just assumed that you use cc or L depending more on the size of the object rather than the liquidity of it, though that’s really just an assumption.

    [Liquidity is fun to say.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: