| |
I recently made a trip to the pick-a-brick at the Orlando LEGO Imagination
Center and spent time stacking bricks to fit inside the large cup. After I
returned home and counted my booty (1071.67 cubic bricks) I decided to
investigate what the maximum amount that the cup would hold was.
It didn't take much thought to see that a solid block leaves the least wasted
space. In this case, the block is the shape of a truncated cone, whose upper
and lower diameter match that of the top and bottom of the cup.
A quick check of the cup against my circle templates and some construction
yielded the 2 diameters that fit nicely in the cup.
I started construction of the cone in the middle at an intermediate diameter
of 9 studs, building 2 interlocking layers. This provided a stable platform
from which to do further construction.
The plan was to build the central cylinder from any arrangement of
homogeneous stacks of bricks to reach the bottom of the cup. After that was
completed, homogeneous stacks of 1xn bricks would be added as needed outside the
central cylinder to fill out to the edge of the cup at the various heights.
With the small end of the cup filled, bricks were readily stacked in a similar
manner to fill the large end of the cup.
The resulting cone is 15 bricks high, and thanks to the interlocking layer,
it can easily be picked up without falling apart.
--------
How to build the cone:
The resulting cone has 6 distinct layers.
The top 3 layers contain the central cylinder mentioned above, which is a 7x7
square, 9 bricks high. Centered on each side is a 1x5 area 6 bricks high,
topped by a 1x3 area 3 bricks high. Centered outside the 1x5 area is a 1x1 area
2 bricks high.
So, the top layer has a surface of 61 studs (3 bricks high), the second layer
a surface of 69 studs (4 bricks high) , and the third layer a surface of 73
studs (2 bricks high).
The fourth layer is the interlocking stable platform. It is a 7x7 square
with a 1x7 area and a 1x3 area centered on each side, giving it a surface area
of 89 studs (3 bricks high).
The fifth layer is the 7x7 square with a 1x7 and 1x5 area centered on each
side, giving it a surface area of 97 studs (2 bricks high).
The sixth layer is a 9x9 square with a 1x5 area centered on each side, giving
it a surface area of 101 studs (1 brick high).
--------
The resulting cone contains 1167 cubic bricks, and is inserted into the cup
studs down.
There are, however, four more opportunities to add to the total that the cup
will hold.
The first is in the groove at the bottom of the cup, which holds a total of
36 1x1's, or 18 1x2's. (Add 36 more cubic bricks.)
The second is in the lid stud, which holds the equivelent of 4 2x4's, and 6
1x1's.. (Add 38 more cubic bricks.)
The third is in the gaps between the four edges of the cone and the sides of
layer two, which fit 4 more 2x4 plates. (Add 10 & 2/3 more cubic bricks.)
Putting these in place requires a small piece of tape to hold each in place
while inserting the assembly into the cup.
The fourth is a layer of plates on the large end of the cone, which can hold
11 2x4 plates. Note that packing geometry does not allow these 11 plates to
cover the entire end of the cone. Some space is neccessarily wasted for want of
2x2 or 1xn plates. (Add 29 & 1/3 more cubic bricks.)
This brings the total to 1281 cubic bricks. If you want a "hard lock" on the
lid, remove the layer of 11 2x4 plates and the 6 1x1's in the lid stud. This
reduces the total to 1245 & 2/3 cb.
The above maximizes the brick volume (1241 cb.) and fills in the rest with
plates (40 cb.) If you are willing to sacrifice some bricks for plates the
total volume can be improved upon further!!
The strategy is to build a central 7x7 block 13 bricks high of any desired
contents. It is helpful if it holds together as one solid block. Now, instead
of filling in the gaps with bricks, the bulk of it will be filled with plates
shaped to fit the 4 curved sides. 38 2x4 plates are used to build on a trapaziod
footprint (13 studs long, base 8 studs wide, apex 4 studs wide) with a curved
top that approximates the curve of the side of the cup. At the center of the
base it will be 5 plates thick and taper down to 1 plate thick at the apex. (I
havn't taken a picture of it so, "The details are left as an exercise for the
student." It does hold together as one solid unit, and, if desired, three
stacks of 3 2x4 plates can each be replaced by a 2x4 brick.)
The bottom groove of the cup is filled as before, followed by the central
block (studs down) and the 4 plate constructions nestled centered on each side.
With these pushed down in as far as they will go there is some room at each of
the four corners to put a 7 high and 3 high stack of 1x1 bricks. Along the top
of each plate construction is room for a 4 high stack of 1x2's. Across the
bottom of the central block is room for 8 2x4 plates. The lid is also filled as
before. Hold the lid on tight until it is taped on.
The grand total of this packing is 1315 & 2/3 cb.!! The volume break down by
bricks/plates is: brick volume = 889 cb., plate volume = 426 & 2/3 cb. If you
want a "hard lock" on the lid you'll have to leave out the layer of 8 2x4
plates, the 6 1x1's in the lid stud, and the 3 high stack of 1x1's at each
corner. This reduces the total to 1276 & 1/3 cb.
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
| |
"Brian H. Nielsen" <70401.2635@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:Ho7I4n.197H@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ...]
> The grand total of this packing is 1315 & 2/3 cb.!! The volume break • down by
> bricks/plates is: brick volume = 889 cb., plate volume = 426 & 2/3 cb. • If you
> want a "hard lock" on the lid you'll have to leave out the layer of 8 2x4
> plates, the 6 1x1's in the lid stud, and the 3 high stack of 1x1's at each
> corner. This reduces the total to 1276 & 1/3 cb.
>
>
> Brian H. Nielsen
So the real question is - how long did this take you?
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
Our biggest concern was to see how many 2x4 blocks we could easily get in each
cup.
So far the easiest way I have found is as below.........
<http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/TexMexSu/LegoStacking.jpg>
This results in 136-2x4, 1-2x2, 21-1x4, 18-1x2 plus room for a few other little
items like tiles. This design is easy to build in the store.
Your pattern looks like it will hold a little more, but without a picture I have
a hard time figuring it out.
Always interested in trying others ideas!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Reuland wrote:
> Our biggest concern was to see how many 2x4 blocks we could easily get in each
> cup.
>
> So far the easiest way I have found is as below.........
>
>
> <http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/TexMexSu/LegoStacking.jpg>
>
> This results in 136-2x4, 1-2x2, 21-1x4, 18-1x2 plus room for a few other little
> items like tiles. This design is easy to build in the store.
>
> Your pattern looks like it will hold a little more, but without a picture I have
> a hard time figuring it out.
>
>
> Always interested in trying others ideas!
I posted late last week with my method of packing 137 2x4s with breathing room
for lots of small parts. Based on reading the packing methods of others, I
think you can actually fit 4 2x4s into the raised stud on the lid instead of the
three that I usually do, so you can probably get 138 in there and still snap the
lid. (Instead of stacking 3 2x4's and lying them sideways, put 2 2x4's on top
of 2 more and put them studs-up in the lid.) Here's my earlier post, FWIW, part
of another thread with lots of great packing tips:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=43463
This method isn't too complicated to remember, and I've found that if I stay
focused and don't chat with the store employees I can pack a cup by this method
in about 10 or 15 minutes.
- Chris.
|
|
| |
> > Chris Phillips wrote:
I posted late last week with my method of packing 137 2x4s with breathing room
for lots of small parts.<<
Chris
I saw that but like I said my comprehension with photos is somewhat limited.
:)
> > Based on reading the packing methods of others, I think you can actually fit 4 2x4s into the raised stud on the lid<<
That's what my pattern does. By eliminating some of the 1x4's in the 3rd row, I
found that I can get 2 more 2x4's in for the 138 total, with the lid on.
When packed there is room for other small things like 1x4 plates but I left them
out because that number varies by chance and how much time you want to spend in
the store. When I was packing mine I wanted to keep it as simple as I could for
stacking in less than 10 minutes per cup in the store. It had to build in
sections that could be assembled easily and in quantity. At home it's pretty
easy to sit and take your time but in the store you have things like kids to to
deal with.
Kids & LEGO.........whodah thought???
I can see it now, a 'friendly' P-A-B stacking contest in the future.....
|
|
| |
> but in the store you have things like kids to to
> deal with.
>
> Kids & LEGO.........whodah thought???
The worst part about this hobby IMHO, everytime I visit a store that sell LEGO
there is a crowd of kids getting in the way.
.)
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
Here is my method of stacking 143 2x4 bricks, 2 2x2 and 21 1x2 in a Pick-A-Brick
cup and still having the lid snap tight. I watched Chris Phillips pack one cup
then took the idea home and used some trial and error to improve my piece
counts.
I just discovered Dave Eaton was refering to my brick stacking in the referenced
thread. I do not read lugnet.general and so missed the original discussion. Yes
I did get 292 black fence in a cup. Last night I was in Burlington and packed
white picket fence for the first time. I have no idea what my take was yet but
it does pack even better than the lattice as the main body is somewhat thinner.
This lets it crack-fill much better.
In lugnet.general, Chris Phillips wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jeff Reuland wrote:
> > Our biggest concern was to see how many 2x4 blocks we could easily get in each
> > cup.
>
> I posted late last week with my method of packing 137 2x4s with breathing room
> for lots of small parts. Based on reading the packing methods of others, I
> think you can actually fit 4 2x4s into the raised stud on the lid instead of the
> three that I usually do, so you can probably get 138 in there and still snap the
> lid. (Instead of stacking 3 2x4's and lying them sideways, put 2 2x4's on top
> of 2 more and put them studs-up in the lid.) Here's my earlier post, FWIW, part
> of another thread with lots of great packing tips:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=43463
Here come real bad ascii art. I have not posted previously as I have been
trying to get some CAD drawing of the cup and discs. The basic dimensions for
those who have no idea what the cup looks like are:
Bot OD: 75mm
Top ID: 101mm
Top OD: 105mm
Inside Len: 149mm
Outside Len: 170mm
Wall Thickness: 2mm
O: (105-75)/2= 15mm
\ / H: 170mm
\ / A: sqrt(170*170-15*15)= 169mm
\ |-BID-| / Angle: atan2(15,169)= 5o
\| ___ |/
\|___|/
Bot ID: 75-4= 71mm
Base ID: 15/170*149= 74mm (9.x studs wide)
23 28 32 37 19 4
AAAAbb AAAA AAAAbb AAAA AAAA AAAA
CCCCDDDD BBBBcc CCCCDDDD BBBBCCCC BBBBCCCC BBBB
EEEEFFFF DDDDEEEE EEEEffGGGG DDDDeeFFFF DDDDEEEE22
GGGGHHHH FFFFggHHHH HHHHiiJJJJ GGGGhhIIII FFFFGGGGHHHH
IIIIJJJJ IIIIjjKKKK KKKKllMMMM JJJJkkLLLL IIIIJJJJKKKK
KKKKll LLLLMMMM OOOOPPPP MMMMnnOOOO LLLLMMMMNNNN
mm NNNNoo QQQQRRRR PPPPqqRRRR OOOOPPPP33
PPPP SSSS SSSSTTTT QQQQRRRR
UUUU SSSS
The first 4 disks are 4 studs thick and the fifth is 2 studs thick. Uppercase
letters are placed horizontal while lowercase letters are vertical. The numbers
are 2x2 bricks
The moat at the bottom of the cup holds 21 1x2 if you stack them in pairs. The
amount that the floor is raised is negligible.
^^ ^^ ^^ > ^^ ^^ ^^ > ^^ ^^ ^^ > where ^^ is a 1x2
^^ ^^ ^^ > ^^ ^^ ^^ > ^^ ^^ ^^ >
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Doug Eaton wrote:
<snip>
> This lets it crack-fill much better.
And I think we all know how painful that can be. :O
I'm sorry.
-Evil Wayne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Brian H. Nielsen wrote:
> Now, instead of filling in the gaps with bricks, the bulk of it will be
> filled with plates shaped to fit the 4 curved sides. 38 2x4 plates are used
> to build on a trapaziod footprint (13 studs long, base 8 studs wide, apex 4
> studs wide) with a curved top that approximates the curve of the side of the
> cup. At the center of the base it will be 5 plates thick and taper down to 1
> plate thick at the apex.
A typo in the above: The base of the trapazoid is 6 studs, not 8. Sorry.
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mike Walsh wrote:
>
> "Brian H. Nielsen" <70401.2635@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:Ho7I4n.197H@lugnet.com...
>
> [ ... snipped ...]
>
> > The grand total of this packing is 1315 & 2/3 cb.!! The volume break down by
> > bricks/plates is: brick volume = 889 cb., plate volume = 426 & 2/3 cb. If you
> > want a "hard lock" on the lid you'll have to leave out the layer of 8 2x4
> > plates, the 6 1x1's in the lid stud, and the 3 high stack of 1x1's at each
> > corner. This reduces the total to 1276 & 1/3 cb.
> >
> >
> > Brian H. Nielsen
>
> So the real question is - how long did this take you?
>
> Mike
A couple of hours to do both configurations and count them up.
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Reuland wrote:
> Our biggest concern was to see how many 2x4 blocks we could easily get in each
> cup.
>
> So far the easiest way I have found is as below.........
>
>
> <http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/TexMexSu/LegoStacking.jpg>
>
> This results in 136-2x4, 1-2x2, 21-1x4, 18-1x2 plus room for a few other little
> items like tiles. This design is easy to build in the store.
>
> Your pattern looks like it will hold a little more, but without a picture I have
> a hard time figuring it out.
>
>
> Always interested in trying others ideas!
I had read the stuff on packing 2x4 bricks. I was interested in what the
best total volume of mixed bricks was. I don't build exclusively with any
particular brick size, so I don't mind mixing types within a cup.
The LEGO Imagination Center in Orlando doesn't have small tiles available at
their Pick-A-Brick. I wish they did.
I will get a picture up soon to help you visualize it.
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Reuland wrote:
> Your pattern looks like it will hold a little more, but without a picture I
> have a hard time figuring it out.
I have some pictures up now of how both packing methods fill the main part of
the cup. Not shown are packing the bottom groove (18 1x2's) and the lid (4 2x4
bricks and 6 1x1's) as they are both straight forward.
The moderated folder is http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=63112
and comments for individual pictures are below.
The first picture http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=574087
shows the 7x7 core block (built from any bricks that interest you, but best if
it holds together as a unit) and one of the 4 edge-filling constructions built
from 2x4 plates and 2x4 bricks. (Note: There is a 2x2 1-plate thick gap on the
bottom of the edge-filler construction.)
The second picture http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=574088
shows how they fit into the cup. (Note: All 4 edge-fillers are the same shape,
but due to a temporary shortage of 2x4 plates I built some of them using
alternate pieces.) The empty spaces at each corner can hold a stack of 7 1x1's
and a stack of 3 1x1's. Also, the edge-filling pieces press down into the cup
enough to fit a stack of 5 1x2's laying on top.
The above packing method sacrifices some bricks to increase the total cubic
brick volume.
The last 3 pictures are for the cone construction that doesn't use any
plates. This picture http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=574089
shows the cone, note that the 2 rows of yellow bricks interlock with each other
and are built first to give a stable platform for building the rest. What
bricks you use depends on what you want.
Here is the cone upside down next to the cup
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=574090 and finally placed into
the cup http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=574092.
This packing method leaves a small gap on each side which is big enough to
hold a single 2x4 plate, but to pack them requires some tape to hold them to the
sides of the cone. Each plate is positioned vertically near the mid-point, flat
against the side.
---------
If Pick-A-Brick included smaller plate sizes (1x2 or 1x3) even more could be
packed in.
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
| |
Thanks Brian, the photos help a lot!
My feeble 3rd attempt is somewhat similiar in design.
<http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/TexMexSu/LegoStack.jpg>
This stack is built in 15 layers. The photo shows each and the amount of bricks
used.
As with all cups, you start with 21-1x2's in the moat at the bottom of the cup.
Then you build my stack, layer by layer. When completed you flip it over and
drop it in the cup, 2 more 2x4's can be stacked on in the middle of the top.
There is also room for more small items to be dropped in after the cup is
stacked.
I easily got about 50-1x4 plates in afterward.
Again, thanks.
It's nice to see what others are doing.
|
|
| |
Having now visited both a Lego Imagination Centre and a Legoland, I have to
say that I prefer the pay-by-weight approach used at Legoland. I want to
spend my time choosing my bricks, not spend hours trying to pack them into
milkshake containers :-(
I found I bought a lot more bricks at Legoland simply because all I had to
do was shovel them into the bag and flash the credit card. The packing into
milkshake containers was just too tiresome, but you feel if you don't do it,
you aren't getting good value for money for all the air you are paying for.
Kerry
|
|
| |
> > Having now visited both a Lego Imagination Centre and a Legoland, I have to
say that I prefer the pay-by-weight approach used at Legoland. I want to
spend my time choosing my bricks, not spend hours trying to pack them into
milkshake containers :-(<<
I kind of agree that it is a little time consuming to do but we have no choice
here. If we don't stack'em & pack'em, we loose!
Tossing 2x4 blocks in the cup nets about 100 or so.
Pack'em and you're up to at least 138 PLUS other items for $12.95.
Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
Lego S@H cost is $13.98 for only 100 so the cups are a far better deal than
that.
Plus, right now the stores give you a free small cup at $50.00, a lerge cup at
$75.00! That lowers the cost to $11.10 per cup.
|
|
| |
> Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
~204 2x4's to the pound which is $28.00 at LLCA.................
= 18.95 for 138......
Thanx,
Mark
|
|
| |
"Jeff Reuland" <texmexsu1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HoJ3Fp.CIA@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> I kind of agree that it is a little time consuming to do but we have no • choice
> here. If we don't stack'em & pack'em, we loose!
> Tossing 2x4 blocks in the cup nets about 100 or so.
> Pack'em and you're up to at least 138 PLUS other items for $12.95.
[ ... snipped ... ]
I think this comes down to a money vs. time decision. Is it worth 10-15
minutes of your time to pack an extra 30-40 bricks?
I was at the Woodfield store a couple weeks ago and packed three cups. Tim
Courtney and Ondrew Hartigan were nice enough to pack a couple more for me.
I spent about an hour packing the three cups I decided to pack (granted, I
got better with each one I packed). It was a frustrating hour too - I would
have left a far happier customer if I could have simply bought them by
weight.
So is it worth it? For me, I don't think it is. My time is worth more to
me (and my family and my employer) than the extra $10 worth of bricks I got
for an hours worth of work. YMMV.
Mike
PS: I am not going to Boston tomorrow so I won't have a chance to check out
on of the stores up there.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mike Walsh wrote:
> > I think this comes down to a money vs. time decision. Is it worth 10-15
minutes of your time to pack an extra 30-40 bricks?<<
Mike
You are correct, it is exactly a money vs. time deal and here is my thinking.
I am 40 minutes from the Woodfield store.
I could just drop my 100 or so 2x4 bricks in each of 3 cups and be back on the
road in about 5 minutes.
Or I can pack in 138 blocks (plus a few others) in just under 10 minutes per
cup. Now my 5 minutes has become 30 but I have gained $13.00 worth of blocks.
That equals MORE than $26.00 worth of bonus Lego per hour spent packing!
As we have to purchase by volume here and not by weight packing 2x4's (and
larger) does appear to be worth spending a few extra minutes on stacking.
Cups are a far better deal on 1x1 tiles over buying by weight.
A $12.95 cup of tiles would probably cost $30.00!
(or more)
|
|
| |
> Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
~204 2x4's to the pound which is $28.00 at LLCA.................
= 18.95 for 138......
Thanx,
Mark<<
WOW! Thanks Mark.
Now I know that the 10 minutes spent packing the cup is well worth while.
We get 138 2x4's for 50% less than that AND there is room in the cup for other
small goodies!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark & Milissa Millère <MMillere@Knology.net> wrote:
>
> > Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
>
> ~204 2x4's to the pound which is $28.00 at LLCA.................
>
> = 18.95 for 138......
So if my math is correct (and it frequently isn't) it is still less expensive to
simply scoop 100 loose 2x4's into a cup for $12.95 than it is to pay by weight
for the same 100 2x4's. And the same volume presumably only gets heavier when
filled with smaller parts. So under this pricing scheme, buying by volume is
always a better deal than by weight, even if you don't take the extra time to
pack the cups.
Interesting...
- Chris.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Chris Phillips wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Mark & Milissa Millère <MMillere@Knology.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
> >
> > ~204 2x4's to the pound which is $28.00 at LLCA.................
> >
> > = 18.95 for 138......
>
> So if my math is correct (and it frequently isn't) it is still less expensive to
> simply scoop 100 loose 2x4's into a cup for $12.95 than it is to pay by weight
> for the same 100 2x4's. And the same volume presumably only gets heavier when
> filled with smaller parts. So under this pricing scheme, buying by volume is
> always a better deal than by weight, even if you don't take the extra time to
> pack the cups.
>
> Interesting...
>
> - Chris.
I guess in an ideal world I want to buy small parts by volume and large ones by
weight,then. :-) (ideal for us I mean)
But if you only get 100 2x4s for 13 USD, that's 13 cents a brick. That's way
over my threshold for 2x4s, a common part, unless they are in a rare color. I
can get red ones for under 2 cents or so if I get a good deal on a bulk tub...
I tend to use a lot more 1x than I do 2x and I suspect a lot of us (other than
sculpture builders) are like that... the only exception being where I am
building large things and using 2x in the inside for strength.
So I suspect I will probably patronise PAB only for things I can't get other
ways or for rare colors, And I bet a lot of fans probably are thinking the same
thing.
But for rare colors, I'm there! I got a LOT of earth orange in Billund last
month... every earth orange 1x4 they had out, in fact.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Chris Phillips wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Mark & Milissa Millère <MMillere@Knology.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
> >
> > ~204 2x4's to the pound which is $28.00 at LLCA.................
> >
> > = 18.95 for 138......
>
> So if my math is correct (and it frequently isn't) it is still less expensive to
> simply scoop 100 loose 2x4's into a cup for $12.95 than it is to pay by weight
> for the same 100 2x4's. And the same volume presumably only gets heavier when
> filled with smaller parts. So under this pricing scheme, buying by volume is
> always a better deal than by weight, even if you don't take the extra time to
> pack the cups.
>
> Interesting...
Chris
Yes it is, it works out to about $0.14 per 2x4, same as S@H.
Weight does work better and better then S@H retail, the smaller the piece is.
If someone can tell me how many 1x1 plates fit in the small and large cups, I
would like to confirm your theory.
Same goes for 1x1 bricks.
FYI......
~1050 1x1 bricks to the pound and
~2560 1x1 plates to the pound.
These numbers do vary slightly depending on color (Black is lighter then Blue)
and version of piece. i.e. hollow or solid bottom stud on the plate
Thanx,
Mark
|
|
| |
> > If someone can tell me how many 1x1 plates fit in the small and large cups, I would like to confirm your theory.<<
Not me! I'd go nutz counting that many plates(or blocks)!
But as Chris suggested, the smaller the part the better deal the volume theory
becomes.
I have a cup full of 1x4 plates that is heavier than a cup of 2x4's.
I also have cup almost full of 1x1 tiles that is far heavier than any other cup
I have filled!
Actually, I'd like to see someone prove the volume over weight theory wrong.
Even without stacking it appears that at the very worst it would be about even.
You simply cannot improve the cost per piece when purchasing by weight.
(or via S@H prices)
By volume you can, most times significantly!
If you figure time in, you must also consider the increased volume of your
spoils by stacking.
As I stated earlier, it figures out to about $26.00 more 2x4 brick per hour.
I will gladly pack your PAB cups for half that amount.
Could you imagine getting paid $13.00 per hour to stack Lego?
OK, not enough, how about $26.00 per hour???
(that's appears to be the difference in some situations)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Reuland wrote:
> Anybody know what 138 2x4's cost by weight???
When Pick-A-Brick first premiered at LEGOLAND and people were estimating price
per pieces, there was a link to a list of LEGO weights that Lutz Ulhmann had put
together. We're going to DL next month and I wondered whether we should try and
fit in a trip to LEGOLAND or just buy at the LIC, so I decided to figure out how
expensive things were by volume or weight. I used Lutz's numbers and the list
of pieces available at LEGOLAND and had Excel spit out this estimation of pieces
per 1/4 lb and price per piece.
http://www.geocities.com/hopemax.geo/legoweight.htm
You guys might find that helpful.
Since I don't have a cup yet, I haven't come up with great numbers by volume,
but roughly estimating we've decided to just stick with the LIC this trip.
Hope Maxwell
|
|
|
