1136
Trickflation (cdn.masto.host)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27121839

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 114 points 2 months ago

Fun fact, a taller, narrower can uses more aluminum!

[-] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

It's definitely more surface area per volume, but a 200 vs 202 lid and a smaller hermetic seal cancels some of those losses. Sidewall is cheap aluminum wise, but you're likely right in that it's a little more aluminum. Definitely costs more to make since they do fill a little slower.

Also fuck coke, what a bunch of assholes

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

The larger diameter of the original can plus the angled transition at either end probably means same surface area of aluminium. Small diameter differences make larger circumferential changes.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

They do, but overall the can end (lid) is a LOT more aluminum than you expect and the whole rest of it isn't as much as you expect.

So a little less lid is worth a fair bit more sidewall in terms of weight of aluminum

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Since they apparently have the same volume, could one of you be a hero and steal one of each and weigh them?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

If I still worked where I used to I 100% would. No cans around me now :(

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I guess I'm a bit rusty, so I am not sure at 355ml and the skinny profile if you can get a 202 end can, or have to use a 200

Hard to tell if it's sleek or slim

Edit: Actually no, that's a 200 not a 202. Look at the profile around the tab.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

They look so similar hard for me to tell

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Look at the indent around the opening. On the shorter can it goes from wide to narrow at the back of the tab. It's more of a straight line on the taller can

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[-] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

I thought it was the other way around. The thickest part of the can is the top, followed by the bottom. The sides are much thinner. I thought the reasoning behind switching to tall and narrow cans with the same internal volume was to save on aluminium.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

The top seems to be the same size, the old one just bulges more while the new one almost goes straight down.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

Tops are pretty much standars size on all cans I'm pretty sure. So that part should be constant.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That looks like a 202 vs a 200 can end, so a "sleek" not a "slim" (red bull can is slim)

The sleek can is 355 ml and uses a 200 end.

As for which uses more aluminum.... Good question. It's probably close

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Someone should weigh both and see!

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The only real way, speculation by photo is not that great. They also could have made the metal thinner.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Well, I assumed constant thickness, so if that's true, you might be right.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

you could use your coke scale to confirm

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The tops are the same on both

this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
1136 points (98.5% liked)

Memes

50790 readers
599 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS