Estimate traditional vs Hyperspan project impact
Model outlet count, rack count, labour, project cost, running-cost reduction and sustainability benefit using a practical building-based design estimate.
Project inputs
Live project comparison
33.3% lower rack power burden. Est. annual electricity saving: £1,095
Estimated yearly electricity saving based on 1 fewer racks.
Projected five-year electricity saving from reduced powered infrastructure.
Estimated annual CO₂ reduction from lower rack electricity consumption.
Detailed project comparison
| Metric | Traditional Design | Hyperspan Design | Reduction with Hyperspan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total outlets | 72 | 72 | 0 |
| Outlets over 90m from original rack | 4 | 4 | Routed edge run: 53.3m | Hyperspan spans 3 floor(s) |
| Rack / comms room count | 3 | 2 | 1 fewer |
| Materials cost | £22,200 | £17,620 | £4,580 |
| Labour time | 8.7 days | 7.3 days | 1.4 days |
| Labour cost | £5,220 | £4,359 | £861 |
| Total job cost | £30,162 | £24,177 | £5,985 |
Fewer comms rooms
Extended reach can allow wider coverage from fewer locations, reducing rack hardware, space usage and ongoing support overhead in suitable buildings.
Simpler topology
With fewer intermediate locations, the network can be easier to understand, deploy, document and maintain over the life of the site.
Faster installs
When rack count drops, installers spend less time building out extra rooms, powering extra switches and coordinating additional cross-connect infrastructure.