OT: [censored] thread, June, READ RULES IN TOP POST

[jgunnip]

bluefeet!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

life update? hope all is going well!

[microbet]

I had to record that answer so that I could get something in first.

# of cubes = volume per cube / total volume edit: I mean other way around

= volume * the inverse of the volume of a cube

That's why the 8 instead of 1/8 and the 3.37 instead of the 8/27

Also,

WASSSUUUUUUUUUP!!!!!!

[bluefeet]

Awesome, thanks. So I'm guessing my later assumptions are true?

--------------------------

Secondly (which makes perfect sense to me by the way...but I want to make sure) - the gym is asking that they have a "mix" of 6" and 8" cubes (as each size has performance/durability pros&cons). If I were to reduce each cubes totalling by half, I'm guessing I should have the same area covered.

Ex: 1,075 6" cubes PLUS 453 8" cubes...would fill the 16x8x3 pit.

Going with these numbers, I DO still have the entire volume covered correct? And while I'm nowhere close to a 50/50 split between the actual number of each cube size - the VOLUME that they are filling is 50/50...yes?

[bluefeet]

Hi Jg,

Busy, busy, busy. The gymnastics coaching thing has been crazy fun and busy. I got the IBM gig a few weeks ago. As an old mainframe guy, I'm finally inching my way closer to Indy's "poverty" line [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Another month or two I should have myself above the rest of the muck. Thanks for asking! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

ZJ runs so so good, lol. Oh and he's really good too.

If I see Aba I'm gonna break his kneecaps and rob him ofc, [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]

Awesome, thanks. So I'm guessing my later assumptions are true?

--------------------------

Secondly (which makes perfect sense to me by the way...but I want to make sure) - the gym is asking that they have a "mix" of 6" and 8" cubes (as each size has performance/durability pros&cons). If I were to reduce each cubes totalling by half, I'm guessing I should have the same area covered.

Ex: 1,075 6" cubes PLUS 453 8" cubes...would fill the 16x8x3 pit.

Going with these numbers, I DO still have the entire volume covered correct? And while I'm nowhere close to a 50/50 split between the actual number of each cube size - the VOLUME that they are filling is 50/50...yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a bit interesting. That would work if you were filling two spaces 1/2 the size, but you aren't. The cubes will sit together differently and the .7 airspace factor might not be right anymore. I would guess you would need a little extra.

[microbet]

Now what's this about the cubes' durability? First, mixing them could affect each of their durabilities. Second, if 1/2 the cubes wear out you still have to replace all the cubes anyway.

Perhaps mixing is good though because it prevents the cubes from lining up in an orderly way, which wouldn't be as cushioning.

[bluefeet]

I misspoke regarding durability (there ARE durability questions, but that is more on the chemical component side...Load Density, Weight, etc.). It's hard to see durability issues related to the fact that two size cubes will be interacting.

The size is more a factor regarding use. 8" cubes provide for more 'dead air' (less packing), which makes for a more cushioning landing for the bigger/competitive gymnasts. The 6" stuff works better for the little rec kids, as I'm told they 'slip through' the larger blocks easier (and it's harder to climb out of).

Good point about the 70% rule. Being of different sizes, you could probably argue that it might even create more airspace. Funny though, I've talked to a handful of providers & have since got varying opinions regarding that 70% (including one guy that suggested 115%!). Apparently much has to do with the type of tramp you have laid (that didn't sound right) at the bottom of the pit. Newer pits are designed with tramps mounted closer to the surface, but are much looser (like 2' above, 3' below), vs. the older/tighter tramps like ours.

Bottom line is I have x$ to spend. Our goal was to completely empty and refill the pit (where usually annual maintenance does the trick...pitching the bad/grumbled, replacing with new).

Our budget has us coming EXTEREMLY close to the 70% projections. If it ultimately isn't enough, we'll bottom fill with what we can salvage. But being so close, I wanted to make sure I wasn't completely off base trying to mix the two sizes (i.e. reducing the totals for each in half).

[microbet]

Now that you're throwing price into the mix it's getting more complicated. The 8" cubes are probably cheaper per volume aren't they? And the climbing out issue could either be no big deal (just harder for the kids) or a huge problem (you have to help the kids out constantly).

As far as cushioning goes, I'd probably err on the side of the larger cubes though. People might not know this, but the little kids aren't as fragile you one might think. They are only falling with their weight and they aren't falling from as high and they are pretty much made out of rubber. The bigger kids will be doing crazy tricks and weigh a lot more and are probably a lot more likely to get hurt.

I'll be up there in the morning to take a look around, take some measurements, look at your budget, interview some other gyms and talk to some vendors.

BTW, congrats on the IBM gig. Maybe those punch card jobs will stick around long enough for you.

[Dr_Jeckyl_00]

Maybe it has to do w/ not going busto. Do you have a big enoungh bankroll to last that long? Obviously you would need to play lower stakes than you would like, even if the higher stakes are soft, to make sure you can last. But if the higher games are soft, maybe it is not good to take this bet b/c it is more ev to play the higher stakes, even if you're not fully rolled for the variance in that buy-in?