• frank@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 day 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

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day 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.

        • frank@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day 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

          • schnapsman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

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

            • frank@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day 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.

                • frank@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  23 hours 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

    • AntY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • De_Narm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

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

      • Redex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • frank@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day 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