chant with me
dont
buy
american
So that’s why they changed the shape. I saw no valid reason so I just assumed they were trying to evade taxes in some way. I’ll admit I have no idea how much anything I buy at a convenience store costs.
I’m not sure of the shape change reason, but I prefer the thinner cans. I have a candy store with soft drinks and I can put more of the thinner cans on the shelf. Usually one more can per shelf.
If the cans were even shorter (closer to cube/ more efficient for amount of aluminum used) you might be able to put 2 on top of eachother
Love it!
Make it happen, captain.
This is over a year old and completely made-up.
If anything the taller cylinder will use more aluminum for the same volume, so they’re kinda shooting themselves in the foot here with aluminum and steel tariffs, lol
Seems pretty clear the only reason for this was to change the price without as many people noticing.
Regular cans are somewhat inefficient shapes as well, shorter and fatter would be more economical, but less ergonomical and for once that won out, for a while anyway. Now we get designed by marketing instead.
Yeah, there’s an awesome video on aluminum drink cans from TheEngineerGuy on YouTube. The ideal shape for holding pressure with minimal material is a sphere, but there’s 2 problems with that: They roll, and can’t be packed as efficiently as cylinders.
Yes! I love this comic (well, I guess it wasn’t originally) and reference it all the time. I was randomly very curious which shot glasses we own are the biggest and was trying to use this as an example because we have some tall skinny ones and short fat ones. “You know! The thing where kids think the tall one is bigger??”
This is Piaget’s conservation of volume test. I did this experiment at school (we went to the elementary school next door and ran tests on the kids). Most of the kids said the higher one held more liquid because it was ‘taller’, though some said the short one had more because it was ‘fatter’.
The liberal media wants you to think that the two volumes of liquid are equal using their woke science, but if you use your common sense, you can clearly see that the narrow tube is filled higher and therefore contains more liquid. There is nothing wrong with the economy, real Americans just need to use narrower glasses. Checkmate, leftists. /s
I mean it sucks and I drink coke (it’s my mix for booze) but it’s a welcome change (price increase). Soda pop should not be drunk as frequently as it is by people and anything to make it less common is a welcome change IMHO. If becoming more cost prohibitive to people makes them drink it less that’s not a bad thing
Now the challenge becomes, because America is becoming a 3rd world shithole it’s possible that coke is the only safe drink because thanks to the EPA being gutted over decades water isn’t safe in many areas due to contamination. That’s not cool.
You know that has a lot of sugar, which is a poison and will kill you right?
Everything will kill you in excess. Live life and don’t be a Debbie Downer.
Hey friend, I’m not the one complaining about the water or people drinking too much.
It’s friday and I’m going to have plenty of drinks, there will be no soda in sight.
I wish you a good weekend.It’s friday and I’m going to have plenty of drinks, there will be no soda in sight.
Um… congratulations?
Um…thank you
I wish you a good weekend too
with or without sodas
🤖take
This is a terrible meme
It has two red circles and bottom text, of course it’s a meme /s
“shitflation”
Quick ‘proof’ the taller the can, the more material used:
Consider two cases ignoring the top and bottom only focussing on the surface area. In the first case, you flatten so much the can has no height. This forms a ring that when unwrapped makes a length of 2 pi R.
Now stretch the can to be ‘infinitely’ long. By construction, this is longer than 2 pi r. Given both are made of aluminum, and have the same density, the larger can has more mass requiring more material.
The total mass must be a continuous function ranging from the linear mass density times the circumference of the circle to the same mass density time times the ‘length’ of the infinite line. This must remain true for any small increase in length between the two.
I’ll leave this as an exercise to the reader. What if the circle has an infinite radius?
Isn’t the larger the can proportional to how does both top and bottom shrink? like, being the same amount of material, but with a different distribution.
No he’s right. The solution for an optimal surface area to volume ratio is a sphere. The farther you deviate from a sphere the less optimal you become. The actual math for this is finding deltaSurfaceArea in respects to cylinder radius for a given volume and then finding the maxima, which is a Uni physics 1 problem I really don’t feel like doing. Long story short, optimal is when height = diameter, or as close to a sphere as a cylinder can be.
Thanks fot the aclaration.
It’s not really ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ it’s under a fixed set of assumptions. You raise a valid point. What does happen to the top and the bottom? I was ignoring them considering only the sides in the two most extreme cases.
If I understand your case when the can is flatted the area gets much larger and when it gets taller it shrinks to a pin point. An equally valid approach
Weird what happens when 40% of the currency was printed in the last few years.
Are we blaming the government who control interest rates, gamify the CPI to depress inflation, and who control the corresponding new money supply that drives up the price of basic goods?
If housing, gold, and crypto are any indication people have far too much money than they know what to do with. You’d have to be a fool to not accumulate some cantillon effect for yourself when you’re government is throwing money away.
Not only do they cost more, the greater surface area means your cold drink warms up faster.
Neat.
Greater surface area also means more material for the same product, which leads to less effective transport, more waste and increased polution. Non-standarized can size means every can storage system and cup holder which have taken can size into consideration will be worse. I’m sure a lot of vending machines will have to be modified or scrapped for this can design.
Everyone are worse off because of this, and it’s all for attempting to trick consumers and increase profits. Shit sucks.
Greater surface area also means more material for the same product, which leads to less effective transport, more waste and increased polution.
Weren’t soda companies whining about aluminum costs just recently? Guess they found some extra in order to fleece their customers.
Is this a new thing in the US? We’ve had these in Europe for years - and I mean 10-15 at least.
These are more easily stackable and take up less horizontal space, so they are more efficient for transport.
Hey we get this revolutionary super can which is supposed to keep your beer cool.
The ribs are supposed to reduce the contact area of warm fingers.
It doesn’t work obviously since they aren’t big enough and skin on fingers are flexible enough to touch everything.
You only pay 30 to 50% more for this nonsense.
Everyone tries to avoid them but somehow the normal cans are more than often ‘sold out’ in stores.
That’s what you get for drinking jupiler
I only partake in the finest carapils
Hey Stella snob, it’s not like you always have a choice.
Also it’s standard thirst or get drunk gulping beer, not a fancy trippel or geuze.
Doesn’t really matter that much.Ew gross, no Stella for me. Only the most alcoholic tripels for me.
You’re definitely not Belgian
Thank god for that
A tasteless peasant from the US banana republic I presume
Where is the one on the left no longer available? I live in the US and see those all the time.
Prices go up up up Never come back down down down
The invisible hand job economy
when they do go down economist scream that its the worst thing to ever happen (deflation)
Oil prices go up - petrol goes up.
Oil prices go down - petrol goes up.
Oil prices do nothing - petrol goes up.
Petrol is purposeful and independent.
Be like petrol!
Dickflation.
I’m surprised the new one isn’t something less than 12 ounces.
Good enough reason to boycott coke products, anyway.
The funding of Death Squads in Columbia is a better reason IMO but this works too, haha
Didn’t knew about that one
What’s up with that?Would have thought that a legal trade of coca leaves would work out reasonable…well, I’m naive it seems
Coca Cola is an old company with a long and dark history. If they appear reasonable, it’s only because they’ve used the massive weight of their resources to create an international marketing campaign over decades to make themselves appear benign and refreshing.
It was a way to break up worker organizing and strikes.
*ColOmbia
100% correct, thank you.
The reasons keep on stacking up.
Just like coke cans
deleted by creator
Fun fact, a taller, narrower can uses more aluminum!
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
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.
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
Aren’t these the same lid?
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.
They look so similar hard for me to tell
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
Since they apparently have the same volume, could one of you be a hero and steal one of each and weigh them?
If I still worked where I used to I 100% would. No cans around me now :(
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.
Well, I assumed constant thickness, so if that’s true, you might be right.
you could use your coke scale to confirm
Someone should weigh both and see!
The only real way, speculation by photo is not that great. They also could have made the metal thinner.
The tops are the same on both
The top seems to be the same size, the old one just bulges more while the new one almost goes straight down.
Tops are pretty much standars size on all cans I’m pretty sure. So that part should be constant.
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
