Have a moment to answer a few questions? We'd love your feedback on working with FoxyCart templates: Click here for more information
UPS live rates calculating too low
-
Hi all,
We're having a bit of an issue on a 1.0 site with UPS live rates. It seems the generated rates are returning really low. We have the client's UPS account info in place (though we've tried it without as well), and we originally had the "Drop Type" set as "Daily Pickup". An order came through yesterday totaling 17.5 pounds that had to travel a decent distance. The s&h cost only came through at $14.01 for UPS ground, when it should have been upwards of $30+ for that weight (according to the client).
I've since changed the drop type to "on call air", as I've seen that help raise the rates in the past, but they still seem low. I created this test product at 17.5 pounds to perform some tests, and costs still seem low even when putting 100+ lbs of product in the cart. For instance, I placed this product in my cart at a quantity of 1 and it charged me $19. I then put 3 in my cart (adding 30+ lbs of weight to the order), and it only raised the rate for ground to $23.
If anyone could provide some insight as to why the UPS live rates are generating prices that are too low, it would be much appreciated! -
@nickff,
Try using "Suggested Retail Rates" - that will give you retail rates as opposed to wholesale with the "Daily Pickup". More details on that here: http://wiki.foxycart.com/static/redirect/shipping -
@fc_adam,
Thanks for the idea. I've set it to SRR, and now the rates are a bit more...but they still seem too bit low. For instance, shipping a 50lb order from Vermont to NYC is only returning $20.38 for ground, when it should return at least $35-$40.
I suppose they could start charging a handling fee for all orders, but I would think that the rates returned would be more accurate. Anyhoo, if you have any other thoughts on this please let me know! -
@nickff,
What size box is your client shipping with? As we don't allow for custom box sizes currently (although we are working towards a complete rebuild of our shipping functionality which will), shipments default to a 1'x1'x1' package. That may account for some discrepancy.
One thing you could test is putting through the rate request on the UPS site using their website and see what rates you get returned versus what was returned in the store. -
@fc_adam,
I think their box sizes vary a lot, due to the type of product they sell (custom lighting). This could be the issue. Perhaps they should start over-estimating the weight of the products to account for this discrepancy...
I'll have them test the rate request as well. Thanks adam! -
@fc_adam,
Can you please elaborate on this supposed 1'x1'x1' default? I'm just not seeing it.
Test case #1:
3.25 lb package, $220 value, from California to France via UPS Worldwide Saver
Our store charges the the customer: $119.23
UPS estimate given 12 x 12 x 12": $228.18 (13 lbs billable)
UPS estimate with our packaging, 18 x 13 x 3 UPS Express Large box: $166.30 (6 lbs billable)
(Actual shipping cost - shipping cost collected): $47.07
Test case #2:
1.15 lb package, $130 value, from California to France via UPS Worldwide Saver
Our store charges the the customer: $89.95
UPS estimate given 12 x 12 x 12": $228.18 (13 lbs billable)
UPS estimate with our packaging, 18 x 13 x 3" UPS Express Large box: $166.30 (6 lbs billable)
(Actual shipping cost - shipping cost collected): $76.35
Unfortunately, test case #2 just happened at our store. Obviously, it's not sustainable if we have to eat a $76 shipping cost error on a $130 sale.
So... can you please elaborate on the actual situation here? -
@oskay,
So I've taken a closer look at this, and it seems I led you astray earlier - the default box size we're sending to UPS is in fact a 5"x5"x5" box, rather than a 12" box. Dropping that back brings the price back to around the $100 range. Again looking at the code, it looks like we're rounding the weight figure before sending that to UPS - so the 1.15lb weight would become 1lb - which drops the price down to around the $90 mark as well.
With your calculations there - for the test case 2 that you said did happen, did your actual shipping costs when it was physically shipped match the UPS estimate, or the price returned from FoxyCart? -
Hi @fc_adam,
Thanks for the response. A 5x5x5" box sounds much more like what would give that pricing.
Our actual cost was in line with the estimate on the UPS website, wildly different from the FoxyCart pricing. It would be *very* nice if we could submit a package size along with the weight. This gets expensive fast.
And, so far as I know, there is never any reason that you should round the weight down. If a package weighs 1.15 lb, we have to pay for 2 lbs to ship it. -
Thanks for the input, oskay. We have added product dimensions as reserved parameters to FoxyCart, but we haven't yet worked out the dimensional analysis necessary to figure out how a cart full of products of varying sizes would fit into a box or if multiple boxes would be needed. These are the types of things we're working on in the new shipping system.
As for rounding down, I completely agree. That doesn't seem correct. We'll take a look at it in 1.1 and see if it's an easy change we can make before that version is out of beta. -
Hmmmmmmm....
I understand how that could be quite a challenge.
Is there any chance that-- even before FoxyCart works out the package size math --you could add a method that would allow FoxyCart users to do the math, and declare what the package size is?
We already use a dimensional weight hack to filter which shipping methods are shown on the checkout page. If there were a way to connect the dots, I'm sure that we could calculate what box side we need with more detail as well.
-
@oskay,
Is there any chance that-- even before FoxyCart works out the package size math --you could add a method that would allow FoxyCart users to do the math, and declare what the package size is?
We're discussing that amongst the team presently - essentially allowing for you to pass in a width/length/height value that we will use instead of our defaults. Just as an FYI, we'd only be rolling this into our upcoming version 1.1, that is currently in public beta.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!