Travel Cubelet Size

[Shortie]

P.P.S. Maybe someday we'll make a slightly larger size of the Travel Cubelet! Hmm....

A slightly larger size would be good.

[BWeaves]

I don't see a problem. There's plenty of room for your lips.

[Sstj315]

OOOH. Consider my interest piqued.

Mine too. I would love a slightly larger TC....in Nebulous Grey and Dawn 🤞

[cazique]

A slightly larger size would be good.

Two words: Red Stripe

[loma]

Here's a few photos of the depth dimension we come up with when we measure the Travel Cubelet

I think I've seen a few posts where people were surprised by the actual dimensions, because they were expecting the published dimensions to match the distance from seam to seam, rather than the method shown here. Maybe it would be a good idea to publish both?

Knowing the seam-to-seam measurements is helpful because it means we can make a paper mockup of an item and get an idea of the size in 3D--something I did once after seeing a forum post about doing so. Now I'm realizing my mockup was inaccurate!

[tbsue]

Darcy, thanks for the pictures, and the welcome.

I can see now where you got the three inches for the depth. On the other hand, you seem to be paying Paul without robbing Peter, so to speak. Anything past the side seams that you add to the depth measurement really has to be subtracted from the width measurement. It can’t be both depth and width; you can’t change the circumference. I could take the same bag and put nothing in it but a really wide flat book so that the whole bag was pulled out flat and say that the bag was eight inches wide, but that wouldn’t be very helpful. Having seam to seam measurements and knowing that the bag is flexible I could make a pretty good judgement about what would fit.

Sorry to be so argumentative. I’m a retired programmer and I get hung up on details. I do like the bags very much. And I would love a slightly larger version to add to my growing collection.

[Cristina]

Darcy, thanks for the pictures, and the welcome.

I can see now where you got the three inches for the depth. On the other hand, you seem to be paying Paul without robbing Peter, so to speak. Anything past the side seams that you add to the depth measurement really has to be subtracted from the width measurement. It can’t be both depth and width; you can’t change the circumference.

Wouldn't the reduced width be measured at the same time as the increased depth though?

[BWeaves]

Welcome to the Forums, @tbsue

I'm jumping in a little late to this and am glad to see all the helpful responses from other folks. I'm sorry the Travel Cubelets you received didn't end up being the right size for what you had wanted to carry in them.

Here's a few photos of the depth dimension we come up with when we measure the Travel Cubelet:

Attachment 21045

Attachment 21046

Attachment 21047

We measure (in metric) what we consider to be a reasonably full bag. Depending on how full a bag is when you measure it, the dimensions you come up with may be different than ours. And because our bags are soft bags as opposed to rigid boxes, there’s always a certain amount of subjectivity regarding what a realistically or reasonably “full” bag is. The Travel Cubelet in the photos above is about as stuffed as mine is when I carry it on a walk around the city.

If it helps, our customer service crew is glad to answer whether a particular object will fit in a particular bag. We actually do this quite a lot: folks want to know if their water bottle, lunch box, or various other items will fit in a particular bag. Feel free to live chat us, call, or emailus@tombihn.com about that.

P.S. We do also check to make sure our measuring devices -- whether that's calipers or a kitty measuring tape -- are accurate.

P.P.S. Maybe someday we'll make a slightly larger size of the Travel Cubelet! Hmm....

Hum. That's not how I thought a bag would be measured. I assume it is measured empty, from seam to seam, because how I stuff a bag will be different from how you stuff a bag. Bulging bag is not depth of bag, but just bulge.

[ThomGault]

Wouldn't the reduced width be measured at the same time as the increased depth though?

The bigger problem I see is that the puffed 3" depth in the middle is not also available at the bottom; the bottom seam doesn't allow for any distortion of the dimension and appears closer to 2" instead of 3", which is a dramatic proportional difference. Which of course is fine if all customers understand and expect the variance, but, as an uninformed customer, I would expect a measurement from seam to seam, with a static depth from top to bottom on a non-flared bag (also assuming the cubelet isn't designed to flare on the sides---its name suggests pure 90 degree angles for every corner.)

[tbsue]

Wouldn't the reduced width be measured at the same time as the increased depth though?

I would have thought so, but the contents must have gotten shifted around during all the measuring because the width and height measurements listed are also slightly larger than those I got when I measured seam to seam.

The measurements on the website are 5.7” (w) x 7.3” (h) x 3” (d).
The numbers I got are 5.5” (w) x 7.1” (h) x 2.3” (d).

The circumference using their measurements would be 17.4". Using my measurements the circumference comes out as 15.6" (and I measured at the widest and deepest part of the bag). It's not an enormous difference but it's noticeable on such a small bag.

[grellowgal]

P.P.S. Maybe someday we'll make a slightly larger size of the Travel Cubelet! Hmm....

This is my dream bag. Especially if it were about SCB size, back slit pocket, zipper top. Omg. I love my SCB but dislike the non secure flap closure.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[backpack]

I'm afraid my ideal is actually closer to the travel cubelet. Given a choice, I'd sacrifice the organization and the umbrella-space of the side kick to get a slightly thicker travel cubelet -- at least for an EDC. I'd still keep the side kick for times when I needed more space (and, being me, I'd still wish the side kick were a little less tall, or that the side effect were just a little bigger and more organized ).

If the travel cubelet won't stretch then I'll just have to hope that either Tom Bihn will decide to make a slightly thicker version of it or an ereader manufacturer will decide to make a smaller ereader, though the trend is currently in the other direction.

Meanwhile it just means an ongoing battle between the clip-on sunglasses and the ereader. I like the travel cublets too much to give up on them. I'm afraid I somehow just found myself ordering one in viridian and I'm seriously contemplating a spare dawn one.

I'm not sure what it is about bags (and cases and pouches and covers). I'm not particularly obsessive about most things.

I understand perfectly how you feel!

I have dreamed for a long time of a mini Cafe Bag and the TC is just perfect in that way, it also fits in the Small Cafe Bag, perfectly. This might be the bag you want so the Kobo Clara can fit. I have a Kobo Aura and it can fit in the Small Cafe Bag.


Darcy's PPS is duly noted, "a P.P.S. Maybe someday we'll make a slightly larger size of the Travel Cubelet! Hmm...."

[backpack]

Darcy where did you get the kitty measuring tape?

It looks like it could be from Daiso.

[Kirri]

I would love a travel cubelet that was a little bit bigger...

[Darcy]

Darcy, thanks for the pictures, and the welcome.

I can see now where you got the three inches for the depth. On the other hand, you seem to be paying Paul without robbing Peter, so to speak. Anything past the side seams that you add to the depth measurement really has to be subtracted from the width measurement. It can’t be both depth and width; you can’t change the circumference. I could take the same bag and put nothing in it but a really wide flat book so that the whole bag was pulled out flat and say that the bag was eight inches wide, but that wouldn’t be very helpful. Having seam to seam measurements and knowing that the bag is flexible I could make a pretty good judgement about what would fit.

Sorry to be so argumentative. I’m a retired programmer and I get hung up on details. I do like the bags very much. And I would love a slightly larger version to add to my growing collection.

I hear you @tbsue — we have a couple programmers here at TB. I’m not one, but I get (and appreciate) that way of seeing things.

FWIW I don’t get the sense here you’re being argumentative — you’re making some points/sharing your opinion in a totally respectful way. This is a good example of constructive feedback.

I talked with Tom about this and he reminded me that we actually used to list the seam-to-seam measurements. We switched to the reasonably-filled-volume measurements because we got the opposite feedback: seam-to-seam wasn’t helpful because soft bags do “give” while in use in one direction or another. Therefore, the engineered or seam-to-seam dimensions do not reflect the actual or overall size of a bag in use. Specifically, folks wanted to know how a reasonably loaded bag would (or wouldn’t) fit into a specific rigid space, such as the overhead bin of an airplane.

Giving seam-to-seam dimensions for a bag like the Travel Cubelet makes sense because it’s relatively rectilinear (its seams are on its edges). Seam-to-seam dimensions on a more curvy bag like the Synapse are confounding and of little use because there’s hardly a straight line on the bag and the seams are not always situated on its “edges”, such as they are.

While we see that offering both the seam-to-seam and reasonably-filled-volume measurements could be* the answer, we’re hesitant to go that route because at this time we’re investigating other methods for conveying dimensions that we hope will work better for everyone.

*It’s possible that adding both sets of dimensions might lead to confusion. We’ll mull that over further if the other methods we’re investigating don’t pan out.

Darcy where did you get the kitty measuring tape?

It's from the local fair trade goods store! They always have some little cool treasure like that when I go there.