Technically, there’s probably a reason that a 10ft x 10ft canopy is 64 sqft, but it seems a little off! (no doubt it is due to the angle of the legs).
Thanks for the submission Bon!
Strange how the top 10ft x 10ft canopy provides only 64 sq ft of shade, while the bottom 10ft x 10ft canopy provides 100 sq ft of shade!!
3 thoughts on “Canopy math fail”
Maybe for the bottom canopy that costs twice as much they earn enough money to pay someone who can actually calculate stuff.
I think they’re referring to the coverage of the tarp when they mention the area. The dimensions are probably referring to the size of the base. Notice how the last one has straight supports.
Yeah, the angle of the legs. Plainly the top one has a 10′ x 10′ ground footprint but the legs angle in so there’s only an 8′ x 8′ roof, similarly for the 12′ x 12′, and the last one has vertical legs (shade matches ground footprint, but less stable). There’s some math fail going on here, but not necessarily on the part of the advertiser.
Comments are closed.