Is this right?

cormie

Would anyone be able to tell me if the calculations of "D" here: http://www.vantasks.ie/index.php?page=10 are correct, the cubic feet/metres part. What should they be if they aren't?

Any help appreciated

Spear

Google can auto convert units, just stick it in the search box

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=5680+mm+in+feet&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

cormie

Thanks, I have the right measurements down for the length and everything in M/Feet, I'm just wondering is the cubic part calculated properly? I don't think it is..

Pherekydes

No. 11.29 is correct, but you've taken that figure and multiplied it by 3.281 to convert it into cubic feet. Multiply it by 3.281^3 to get the correct figure. Or else multiply out the three dimensions in feet.

Yakuza

Well, working in metres, and taking the Max Length * Max Width * Max Height (E * K * L in this case) you come up with:
3.399m * 1.762m * 1.885m = 11.29 m^3.

That would be the max volume if there were no wheel arches for the back wheels, so the max usable volume would be reduced by the volume that the wheel arches take up

If you take the max Length * Width between wheel arches * max height (E * I * L), you get
3.399m * 1.39m * 1.885m = 8.74 m^3 (which would be the largest solid single item you could put in (being limited by the wheel arches) but you would have some extra room down the sides of the van where there are no wheel arches. (This would be approx G * M * the difference in widths 1.885 * 1.25* (1.762-1.39) = 0.87m^3 (for a total of 9.61m^3

The figures in D look about right, given that it shows you'd have between 9.6 and 11.29 m^3 volume in that van (I guess it depends how bulky the stuff you want to transport is).

Hope this helps

Oops: I misread the question: I thought you were looking to see if the figures quoted on the site were correct, not the conversion from m^3 to ft^3. As the other posters have said, you have to multiply the the metre to foot conversion factor 3 times as you're converting in 3 dimensions, not 1.

cormie

Thanks for all the feedback
To be honest, I'm not sure what I'm asking But for example, I saw a fridge that was advertised at 19cubic feet, if my van is 37max, that means you couldn't even fit two of them in, but you could, you could fit loads more than 2 into my van. So would my van not be about 200cubic feet? The website is mine by the way and I just want to make sure I'm advertising it correctly. I saw on another site that the likes of a bicycle take up 10cubic feet, and you'd definitely fit more than 4 into my van. Is there something wrong in this way so or are they talking about something different?

Yakuza

Hi again.
If your van is between 9.6 and 11.3 cubic metres in volume, that's between 339 and 399 cubic feet. (or 40 bikes / 20 Fridges!)

Distance: 1 metre approx. = 3.281 feet
Area: 1 metre² approx. = 10.76 feet² (3.281 * 3.281)
Volume: 1 metre³ approx. = 35.319 feet³ (3.281 * 3.281 * 3.281)

cormie

Aha,
So should it really read something like 339 or 399 feet instead of 37 or so here:

D - Load Space (Measured in Cubic Meters and Feet) 11.29/9.69 37'/31'9"

Yakuza

Yep

cormie

Cool stuff, that makes a lot more sense now

I should probably just stick it to 339 so if people underestimate, I still have a bit to play with. So you're basically saying I could fit a rectangular block that's 339 cubic feet into my van? I take it the meters part is wrong aswell then? Should it read something like 112 cubic meters?

Yakuza

Yep the 339 ft³ would be the max size of a block (subject to the width, height and length being less than the maximum values you list), along with some extra space for smaller items down the side.

No need to change your m³ figures; they were bang on the money, just the conversion to ft³ was wrong as you multiplied by the factor to convert metres in distance, not metres cubed in volume.

cormie

thanks again, but if 1 metre approx. = 3.281 feet as you said, and it's 339 cubic feet, should it not be about 110 cubic meters or am I missing something?

focal2005

Yes , you are missing the point slightly.

lets say 1m=3ft for simplicity

Therfore 1m3(1m by 1m by1m) =3ft by 3ft by 3ft= 27ft3

Therefore to convert from m3 to ft3 multiply by 27 approx
And to convert from ft3 to m3 divide by 27 approx

Hope that clears it up for ya

Pherekydes

focal2005 wrote: »

Yes , you are missing the point slightly.

lets say 1m=3ft for simplicity

Therfore 1m3(1m by 1m by1m) =3ft by 3ft by 3ft= 27ft3

Therefore to convert from m3 to ft3 multiply by 27 approx
And to convert from ft3 to m3 divide by 27 approx

Hope that clears it up for ya

27 is far too crude. Use 35 instead.

Cormie, you're multiplying and dividing by 3.281. You need to multiply (or divide) by 3.281 THREE times. (for three dimensions)

cormie

I used to be in the top 3 in my year of about 60 people back in Primary school, damn my 1st and 2nd year "teacher" haha.

What's the most simple, most common way to publish these measurements that people will understand? I don't know if there is a universal system shipping companies use, but I know most others quote the likes of 200 cubic feet etc so if somebody could tell me what the best way to write the D line is, I'd really appreciate it and I think I'll just leave it at that

Fremen

I'd list it in cubic feet if you want to stick with one system, it will sound bigger. I'd say cubic feet would be easier for the average Irish person to relate to, as well.

My guess is that modern freight companies outside of the US would use cubic metres, though, so it depends who you're selling to.

cormie

I think I'd prefer to have both imperial and metric measurements available, but I'd like to list whatever is most understandable in both systems, as in 339 cubic feet, as opposed to 33³ or whatever is right. So should the sentance be:

D - Load Space (Measured in Cubic Meters and Feet) 9.69 cubic meters / 339 cubic feet

Is 339 cubic feet the "volume" so?

Thanks again for the help

Yakuza

Hi again,
Yes, the volume is 9.69 mⁿ or 339 ftⁿ, depending on your chosen unit. I'd leave all measurements in both metric and imperial, makes your ad more universal .

Volume is a measurement of how much space something occupies in 3 dimensions (height, width and length). You can measure it it in pints, litres, gallons, cubic inches, cubic feet, bushels...whatever tickles your fancy. You just need to know what units you're measuring in, and how to convert from one to the other.

Fremen

Gills, you forgot gills!

In future, google is your man for this kind of thing. Just type in, say, "Cubic meters in 339 cubic feet", and it doubles as a unit converter.

D - Load Space (Measured in Cubic Meters and Feet) 9.69 cubic meters / 339 cubic feet

That would work fine.

cormie

Ok, as long as you guys say 9.69 and 339 are correct, I'll just use that. I don't know where the "N" came from in the post above, I thought it was "3" after the number and it also looks strange that 9.69 is equal to 339, but I wont worry about it

Thanks a lot for all the help everyone

Yakuza

Oops, I meant to use ³, it was 1 in the morning (and I was using my TV as a computer monitor so I wasn't at my best )

cormie

Ok cool

So I'll change it to:

D - Load Space (Measured in Cubic Meters and Feet) 9.69 cubic meters / 339 cubic feet

once I get the chance,
Thanks for all the help everyone

cormie

jaysus, just realised last night after somebody asked me about the cubic loadspace of my van, that I haven't updated it. So just to double check:

Ford Transit Long Wheel Base, High Roof Van Dimensions Millimeters Feet

A - Overall Length (excluding step where fitted) 5680 18'7"
B - Overall Width (with/without mirrors) 2360/1974 7'8"/6'5"
C - Overall Height 2606 8'6"
D - Load Space (Measured in Cubic Meters and Feet) 11.29/9.69 37'/31'9"
E - Maximum Loadspace Length 3399 11'1"
F - Loading Height 710 2'4"
G - Side Door Entry Width 1250 4'1"
H - Rear Door Entry Width 1540 5'
I - Loadspace Between Wheel Arches 1390 4'6"
J - Rear Door Entry Height 1796 5'10"
K - Maximum Loadspace Width 1762 5'9"
L - Side Load Door Entry Height 1465 4'9"
M - Load Floor to Roof 1885 6'2"

Should be:

Ford Transit Long Wheel Base, High Roof Van Dimensions Millimeters Feet

A - Overall Length (excluding step where fitted) 5680 18'7"
B - Overall Width (with/without mirrors) 2360/1974 7'8"/6'5"
C - Overall Height 2606 8'6"
D - Load Space (Measured in Cubic Meters and Feet) 9.69 cubic meters / 339 cubic feet
E - Maximum Loadspace Length 3399 11'1"
F - Loading Height 710 2'4"
G - Side Door Entry Width 1250 4'1"
H - Rear Door Entry Width 1540 5'
I - Loadspace Between Wheel Arches 1390 4'6"
J - Rear Door Entry Height 1796 5'10"
K - Maximum Loadspace Width 1762 5'9"
L - Side Load Door Entry Height 1465 4'9"
M - Load Floor to Roof 1885 6'2"

I forget the reason I have The 11.29 and 37' from 11.29/9.69 and 37'/31'9".
I think it may have something to do with the load space if you were to fill it with sand as opposed to boxes so the sand would get in between all the nooks and crannies and you could put in 11.29 cubic meters of sand, but 9.69 of boxes.

Ford to actually have it in their documentation as 31'9", is this another calculation of 339 cubic feet?

RoundTower

The ' and " refer to feet and inches. You shouldn't use them to refer to cubic feet. So it's perfectly correct to say your van is (say) 11'1" long and its capacity is 339 cubic feet. But saying the capacity is 31'9" is misleading and probably meaningless. If Ford give 31'9" as the capacity of the van, I would guess it is a typo or you are misreading it.

If you are still confused about why the "cubic feet" number is so big compared to the "cubic metres", take a look at this. There are about 3 feet in a metre, but you could fit the little square in the big square way more than 3 times over.

cormie

Update:

It seems I brought this problem on myself, I must have done a simple metres to feet conversion to get the feet measurement when I first put it up because it's nowhere on the spec sheet of the transit :pac: Only cubic meter figures are given

It says:

Loadspace shown as SAE/VDA and measured in cubic metres. VDA method: This is the method used by the Verbund die Automibil Industri (VDA) in Germany. A VDA figure is determined by filling the loadspace with litre blocks, each measuring 200x100x50 mm. The blocks are then counted, and the numerical result is converted into cubic metres. SAE method: The SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) method simply measures the volume of a fine-grained material such as sand or rice which can be deposited into the loadspace. Ford favours the use of the more realistic VDA method of calculation for measuring 'useable' interior loadspace

and it gives the figure of 11.29/9.69 (cu.m)

I've only gone and changed this now would you believe. Kept forgetting!


Thanks very much to everyone for helping with this, much appreciated