Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Universal Underpant Constant (UUC) P1

Although some of you probably think I have too much time on my hands, I have actually been doing serious study. Today I present Part 1 of my latest Nobel winning research.

Fact: We wear Underpants so that we don't soil our 'outerpants', meaning we can wear our (more expensive) outerpants for more than one day.

This is a fundamental economic construct of the 21st Century with billions of dollars being traded daily through companies manufacturing these intimates.

However, are we being misled?

Consider this, the average cost of a pair of Outers is $22. So, at what price point are underpants 'too expensive'?

For example; if, in a average week, Mr Average wears 8 pairs of underpants (the 8th being for a special night out) plus two pairs of outerpants at work, a pair of jeans covering the weekend and his special 'night out' pants his tally will be:

8b + 4a (Where a = Outerpants and b = Underpants)

However, what if he had decided to go commando and soil his Outerpants at work forcing a daily change. He also soils at the weekend but decides that denim is robust enough to take the abuse. We end up with this:

7a (i.e. he wears 7 pairs of outers and NO underpants!)

To solve the cut off point for Underpants, we must solve this equation:

8b + 4a = 7a

Given that the average price of Outers is $22 we can substitute and arrive at:

8b + 88 = 154

Rearrange to give

8b = (154 - 88)
8b = 66

Therefore b = $8.25

Sadly, for those guys wearing "quality" Underpants costing more than $8.25 you're just kidding yourselves.

Women, on the otherhand, should always wear two pairs of knickers. Coz they're are like slugs.


No one Really said...

An excellent theory and mathamatically sound.

I have always wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize, in fact I would kill to win one.

Keep up the good work, Manuk.

(Manx + Canadian or Canuk - Manuk)

PaulB said...

Can you really win a Nobel Peace Price for calculating pant soiling?

Genius, at least I can now justify my y-fronts to the wife, it just wouldn't be cost effective to buy new ones.

Donna said...

Ooh, Maths and damp knickers in one post - can it get better?

Aren't you back in the UK? Why still $?