Dimensions for automated shipping: rotating parts

Stragus

I have noticed some parts are rotated before being measured, in order for the dimensions to be as thin as possible for cheap shipping, such as this one:
http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-panel-4-x-4-x-6-corner-round-30562-46361

But other dimensions aren't rotated, such as that one:
http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-curved-panel-11-x-3-with-pin-holes-11954
although it certainly fits under about 11mm when rotated.

Should we systematically enter dimensions that minimize the thickness of the bounding box? (as flat as possible) I ask because I remember reading that dimensions should be axis aligned, rather than minimizing thickness, but the catalog presently holds a mix of both.

Thanks.

robernat

Alexis, the second part you are showing has a dimension of 8.8cm x 2.4cm x 2.1cm (recalculated from it's bricksize 11 x 3 x 2). afaik the system draws a squared box around that dimension, so in this case minimum 2.1 thick, then rotated. Now, when looking at the part, when placed on it's 2 long sizes, it creates a triangular form. In such case, the part could be measured in that form, the base (currently 2.4cm) would become wider and height (currently 2.1) would become lower (1.1cm according to your saying). When placed in a padded mail, it would (could) be placed in that triangular form to fit your shippingsize limit (I don't have that issue with that part), and it is exactly the reason why items need a 'packingsize' besides the bricksize and metric size. I hope people realise this will mean a lot of extra measurements (and there are already +35000 items without size), and don't expect much help from people who's limit's are higher then the one in Canada (I would gladly help, but then there's those 35000 items awaiting already). For your store, when you notice such a part, force quote on it, add in your description that it fits 20mm and be done with it, it's your best option right now in stead of scaring buyers away with an automated package rate.

Stragus

Yes, I have had a customer request a quote on his own for the part, he apparently knew it should fit under 20mm.

But which is correct?

If dimensions should be axis-aligned, following studs, then the first part (30562) has incorrect dimensions.
If dimensions should be rotated to minimize thickness, then the second part (11954) has incorrect dimensions.

Obviously I would prefer the second option, but I would like to confirm before submitting anything. I don't think it would be too troublesome, there are very few parts that have lower thickness when rotated arbitrarily.

Lawrence

Axis aligned at the moment, arbitrary when implement seperate packaging dimensions

robernat

I had a buyer from Hong Kong once sending me half an essay about how I would be able to pack large technics seats (after exploring my shipping methods), so he asked wether I could use his method. I tried, told him it would work and he ordered me a dozen of them
http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-technic-seat-3-x-2-base-2717
I actually also linked them together with technic axles and bushes to keep them nicely alined and avoid damage due to possible pressure on the padded mail.
I learned something that day

Yes, the size of part 30562 has clearly been modified *after* recalculation towards metric size (maybe I did LOL), I think Admin is better placed to answer the question wether this should be a standard or not. I'm more inclined to real sizes in 'build' situations and an additional measurement for 'packing', but when looking at a number of items it is clear things have been entered in a rather 'mixed' way. The advantage of a packing size is that the boxes also don't actually need a LxWxH name, just 3 boxes covering the size in regardless what order (as the system rotates everything anyway)and measured in the most economic form (inclined if needed).

Stragus

Understood.

Also, thanks Lawrence for confirming that separate packaging dimensions are on the to-do list, that'll really be appreciated! Please don't forget that it's always nice to know what solutions are being considered in response to the issues and suggestions posted.

robernat

And while I was writing Admins answer is there
So Admin, when may we expect this packaging dimension? I've been adding a bunch of sizes lately, it would be good if both could be entered at the same time.
Will the system then use Package size if 'known' and switch to 'real dimension' if package size is 'unknown' or would it only use the packaging dimension?