3 ms·

From my limited experience in the freight and export business, I am skeptical that they managed to design a collapsable container and reduce weight without comp

From my limited experience in the freight and export business, I am skeptical that they managed to design a collapsable container and reduce weight without compromising the structural integrity of the container. Standing in a shipyard and seeing a 40-foot container almost being thrown around is awesome, but I can't see this standing up to the rigors of the day-to-day life of a container.

electromagnetic 17y ago
Reducing weight doesn't necessarily mean they've reduced the containers strength in anyway. Aluminum alloys, by weight, can easily be three-times stronger than Steel alloys. By volume, I believe it can easily be ten-times stronger than steel. By a three-fold price increase over a standard container, I'm certainly betting they've got aluminium in there. A fully aluminum container could be significantly stronger/lighter (not both) than a steel container, and it would have a significantly longer lifespan than steel as a rigid container could be virtually maintenance free for virtually ever. The only losses to the industry would likely be when a ship goes down, and then the containers would remain ready and waiting for salvage to return to work. However turning the entire freight industry from Steel to Aluminium containers would probably require depleting all the earths aluminium reserves, and then likely require discovering an extra-terrestrial source and probably depleting that too. Honestly, I don't think this new container will catch on for being light or collapsible. Also, a thing to wonder, is if the amount of rust washed off of shipping containers annually is helping promote algal blooms.
- hop 17y ago
  You just have to use 50% more aluminum by volume than you would steel - 3/8" plate instead of 1/4" to achieve roughly the same strength. The total aluminum would still be 25% lighter than a comparable strength steel container. Steel is much more abrasion resistant though and aluminum has low fatigue strength - something to consider if its bobbing in the ocean and on trucks for its 25 year+ lifetime. Wouldn't have to paint it though!
- avinashv 17y ago
  I don't think you got my point: I think, with (essentially) a giant hinge down either side, despite how much stronger whatever alloy is going to be, the container may not be as structurally stable as the current design. The current design is built entirely for longevity and strength--this new one seems to eschew that to me. That's not saying it isn't a good idea though. There is definitely a scope for improvement on the current design, and this might be a good start.
- eru 17y ago
  > However turning the entire freight industry from Steel to Aluminium containers would probably require depleting all the earths aluminium reserves, and then likely require discovering an extra-terrestrial source and probably depleting that too. The 8 most common elements in Earth’s crust (by mass): * 46.6% Oxygen (O) * 27.7% Silicon (Si) * 8.1% Aluminum (Al) * 5.0% Iron (Fe) * 3.6% Calcium (Ca) * 2.8% Sodium (Na) * 2.6% Potassium (K) * 2.1% Magnesium (Mg) (from http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/geology/crust_elements.html http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/geology/crust_e...)
fizx 17y ago
They do claim it costs 3x. If someone told me that they had a kit car convertible with the crash safety of a Honda Accord, but it cost $80k, I don't think I'd be surprised.

electromagnetic 17y ago

Reducing weight doesn't necessarily mean they've reduced the containers strength in anyway. Aluminum alloys, by weight, can easily be three-times stronger than Steel alloys. By volume, I believe it can easily be ten-times stronger than steel. By a three-fold price increase over a standard container, I'm certainly betting they've got aluminium in there. A fully aluminum container could be significantly stronger/lighter (not both) than a steel container, and it would have a significantly longer lifespan than steel as a rigid container could be virtually maintenance free for virtually ever. The only losses to the industry would likely be when a ship goes down, and then the containers would remain ready and waiting for salvage to return to work. However turning the entire freight industry from Steel to Aluminium containers would probably require depleting all the earths aluminium reserves, and then likely require discovering an extra-terrestrial source and probably depleting that too. Honestly, I don't think this new container will catch on for being light or collapsible. Also, a thing to wonder, is if the amount of rust washed off of shipping containers annually is helping promote algal blooms.

hop 17y ago
You just have to use 50% more aluminum by volume than you would steel - 3/8" plate instead of 1/4" to achieve roughly the same strength. The total aluminum would still be 25% lighter than a comparable strength steel container. Steel is much more abrasion resistant though and aluminum has low fatigue strength - something to consider if its bobbing in the ocean and on trucks for its 25 year+ lifetime. Wouldn't have to paint it though!
avinashv 17y ago
I don't think you got my point: I think, with (essentially) a giant hinge down either side, despite how much stronger whatever alloy is going to be, the container may not be as structurally stable as the current design. The current design is built entirely for longevity and strength--this new one seems to eschew that to me. That's not saying it isn't a good idea though. There is definitely a scope for improvement on the current design, and this might be a good start.
eru 17y ago
> However turning the entire freight industry from Steel to Aluminium containers would probably require depleting all the earths aluminium reserves, and then likely require discovering an extra-terrestrial source and probably depleting that too. The 8 most common elements in Earth’s crust (by mass): * 46.6% Oxygen (O) * 27.7% Silicon (Si) * 8.1% Aluminum (Al) * 5.0% Iron (Fe) * 3.6% Calcium (Ca) * 2.8% Sodium (Na) * 2.6% Potassium (K) * 2.1% Magnesium (Mg) (from http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/geology/crust_elements.html http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/geology/crust_e...)

fizx 17y ago

They do claim it costs 3x. If someone told me that they had a kit car convertible with the crash safety of a Honda Accord, but it cost $80k, I don't think I'd be surprised.