[Mr_Pickles]

Hi guys and girls,

I am a little bit of a number's geek (which is ironic because I failed math twice), and I have always had an interest in seeing how mathematically busty a big boob model is. To my knowledge nothing like this exists except the archaic BWR, so I've been tinkering with what I call  Aggregate Bust Rating. The formula works as follows (hope it's not to confusing)

Numerical value of cupsize * Difference in bust - waist / Height x Bandsize x Chest measurement / Weight

For Example: Monica Mendez (a severely underrated model) 

6.2 (GG) * 17 / 65" (5' 5") x 34 x 42 / 135 lbs = 22.685

I've also devised categories:
0 – 5 : Average (Lest Topheavy)
5 – 10 : Sizable Bust (A Little Topheavy)
10 – 15 : Hefty Bust (Noticeably Topheavy)
15 – 20 : Huge Bust (Incredibly Topheavy)
20 + : Gigantic Bust (Absurdly Topheavy)

Granted this is not a perfect system, but I think it gives a good estimate as to a models true bustiness in relation to their bodysize.

So what do you guys think? Am I insane?
 

[TheBoobGuy]

On what basis is 6.2 representative of a GG? I would assume that AA-1 A-2 B-3 and so on making GG-10 Based on the difference on over and underbust.

Of course, numbers are not my thing at all.

[Mr_Pickles]

On what basis is 6.2 representative of a GG? I would assume that AA-1 A-2 B-3 and so on making GG-10 Based on the difference on over and underbust.

Of course, numbers are not my thing at all.

Woops I meant to write 7.2 (G = 7th letter of the alphabet), sorry about that. And Monica is a 19.91 not a 22.68

[TheZookie007]

Where's the .2 in the 7.2 coming from though?

[TheBoobGuy]

G is the 7th sure, but DD exists., as does FF. And DDD in America.

[Mr_Pickles]

Where's the .2 in the 7.2 coming from though?

GG = 7.2, two G cups

Of course if you guys think over/underbust would be better I'll go with that. I knew I should have gone with that

So GG = 7 +1

[Mr_Pickles]

I'm feeling like I want to completely redo this already

[rtpoe]

A worthy endeavor. You're doing something like calculating the equivalent of "Wins Above Replacement" for breast size.

You do realize you're trying to assign each model a point in a mutlidimensional space?

[Mr_Pickles]

A worthy endeavor. You're doing something like calculating the equivalent of "Wins Above Replacement" for breast size.

You do realize you're trying to assign each model a point in a mutlidimensional space?

Yeah, just like WAR it is more a rough estimate then an exact science like batting average. I realize there are more complex factors like breast mass, breast weight (yes mass and weight are different), etc. If you have any ideas I would love to hear them

[Mr_Pickles]

I'm toying around with making the bust numbers a completely different score, and calling it "truebust". The way I envision it truebust is:

Waist / Cupsize x Bust - Bandsize + Bust-Waist Difference

This would then divided by weight and multiplied by height for the aggregate

I am also toying with the idea of making both measurements top to bottom instead of bottom to top (IE the closer to zero the bustier a model is).

Thoughts?

[Nimrod]

Well, as a side project from some work I did here on the BEA, now many years ago, I hit upon a calculation that I called Breast Factor or Bf. It had been based on a rather involved calculation that was itself anchored on average woman's builds. It was a cumbersome calculation so to make it more accessible and use the fewest factors as possible I reduced to a more manageable formula.

One can see the simplified version here:

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9988498.msg10199861.html#msg10199861

The results yield numbers centered around about the value of 17. Well above or well below that point are relative larger or smaller boobs. (off of average for that height) I must point out that for cup sizes above G the resulting values start to shift, so dealing with the super large may require my original and very cumbersome formula. I was trying to use body factors that anybody to get on a person.

This was used to chart the top 50 most beautiful women in aggregate across several ranked lists to show that in order to be deemed truly in the top most beautiful one needs to be gorgeous and busty. This was shown here:

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9988498.msg10196479.html#msg10196479

Ultimately, this work was based on the "Is she really big" thread from way back which had sent me on a very interesting and rather revealing search for more information.
However the original "Is she really big" thread was damaged in one of the forum snafu - one can see elements of this in this thread:

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9980939.msg10038832.html#msg10038832

To read the remnants of the original thread (not complete) for the "Is she really big" you can view it here:
http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,420036.msg428026.html#msg428026
Much of the thread...after the last Tux post is gone - now around 10 years ago.
Note that the message index number is only six digits long versus the common eight digits of today.

I will study the submitted formula as one can see I like to dabble in such things. 

Quick Bf Chart Guide
Value 0 - 7    = Very Small
Value 7 - 14  = Small
Value 14 - 20 = Medium
Value 20 - 27 = Large
Value 27 - 33 = Very Large
Value 33 - 40 = Extremely Large

[Mr_Pickles]

Well, as a side project from some work I did here on the BEA, now many years ago, I hit upon a calculation that I called Breast Factor or Bf. It had been based on a rather involved calculation that was itself anchored on average woman's builds. It was a cumbersome calculation so to make it more accessible and use the fewest factors as possible I reduced to a more manageable formula.

One can see the simplified version here:

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9988498.msg10199861.html#msg10199861

The results yield numbers centered around about the value of 17. Well above or well below that point are relative larger or smaller boobs. (off of average for that height) I must point out that for cup sizes above G the resulting values start to shift, so dealing with the super large may require my original and very cumbersome formula. I was trying to use body factors that anybody to get on a person.

This was used to chart the top 50 most beautiful women in aggregate across several ranked lists to show that in order to be deemed truly in the top most beautiful one needs to be gorgeous and busty. This was shown here:

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9988498.msg10196479.html#msg10196479

Ultimately, this work was based on the "Is she really big" thread from way back which had sent me on a very interesting and rather revealing search for more information.
However the original "Is she really big" thread was damaged in one of the forum snafu - one can see elements of this in this thread:

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9980939.msg10038832.html#msg10038832

To read the remnants of the original thread (not complete) for the "Is she really big" you can view it here:
http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,420036.msg428026.html#msg428026
Much of the thread...after the last Tux post is gone - now around 10 years ago.
Note that the message index number is only six digits long versus the common eight digits of today.

I will study the submitted formula as one can see I like to dabble in such things. 

Quick Bf Chart Guide
Value 0 - 7    = Very Small
Value 7 - 14  = Small
Value 14 - 20 = Medium
Value 20 - 27 = Large
Value 27 - 33 = Very Large
Value 33 - 40 = Extremely Large

Thanks!

[pedonbio]

*SIGH*

I think at some point those of us with a math bent have tried this. My formula was developed 40 years ago when I worked in the business, and was based on a bust-waist-hip ratio which I have long since forgotten. What I do remember is that Trudy Scott turned out to be the closest-to-perfect model. She was nice, but I think my formula was flawed:

[Mr_Pickles]

*SIGH*

I think at some point those of us with a math bent have tried this. My formula was developed 40 years ago when I worked in the business, and was based on a bust-waist-hip ratio which I have long since forgotten. What I do remember is that Trudy Scott turned out to be the closest-to-perfect model. She was nice, but I think my formula was flawed:

Wish you could remember, it sounds like something I'd like to tinker with

[Nimrod]

Your welcome. I feel that a scale that starts at zero (0) and extends upward from there is better as it anchors everyone to the same starting point, i.e. No Boobs - where all women start.
Just how far they go along the range gives a feeling of general size.

Review of the submitted formula for B_r:
Numerical value of cupsize * Difference in bust - waist / Height x Bandsize x Chest measurement / Weight = B_r

Using the example of Monica Mendez:
6.2 (GG) * 17 / 65" (5' 5") x 34 x 42 / 135 lbs = 22.685
However when I did the math I repeatedly got this answer:
6.2 * 17 / 65 * 34 * 42 / 135 = 17.15 and not 22.685
6.2 * 0.2615 * 34 * 0.3111
1.6213 * 10.5774 = 17.149 or 17.15

When I used my wife Kithara as an example:
The result was a value of 17.55

So Monica is 97.72% Kithara

Using my B_f formula I got:
Monica B factor of = 57.17
Kithara B factor of = 59.40

Thus Monica comes in at 96.25% of Kithara in B_f

As both women appear to be similarly buxom in shape and general size I would agree that both systems are comparable.


97.72% vs. 96.25% is rather close for two different approaches.
----------------------------------------------------
Here is the post with my Bf formula and variables:

For those wanting to calculate their own Bf value I have simplified the formula as much as possible and reduced it to using 3 base values.
Cp = the cup size of the individual expressed as 1 for A, 2 for B, 3 for C... fractions would work too, so a large C could be 3.75.
Ht = the height expressed as inches, sorry if you want it in metric cm just convert. 1 cm = 0.393701 in.
Fb = a calculated bra band factor which is the result of (18 - bra band in inches/2) so a Bd of 34 in. = (18-34/2) or a value of 1.

Now take those values and run them through this "simplified" equation: Updated from missing "Is she really big?" revisions

{Cp - [Fb - (3 - Cp) * (-50 * Fb) + 250 ] * (Ht/Bd)  / 100} + Cp + [ Fb - (3 - Cp) ] = B_f

Because I have simplified the equation it does have to come with some limitations:
1) Accuracy starts to wane at band sizes above 44 or below 28, however most are within this range.
2) Accuracy starts to wane at cups above G cup, again most are within this range.
3) Totally irrational heights will yield irrational results so a 108" or 24" height will not mean anything.
4) Although it did not have any real significance, I have removed aspects of weight from the formula.

So any generic person you would normally meet could be used.