185
Trickflation
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
185 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14230 readers
683 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Less efficient use of aluminum for the same volume, too. They're wasting material to do this.
Yup. And in most cases less packing efficiency too. Although in this case I think it is slightly more efficient
Shorter rounder cans! With more volume!
Oh, I heard the very reason for this was that it used like 5% less aluminium
Assuming all the sides use the same amount of material per sq or you accurately measure that as well. Given its also more complex than a simple cylinder, weighing would be the easiest option. Could even weigh like 10 at once and average if your scale isn't precise enough for weighing one at a time.
The shape of a soup can is the optimal surface area to volume ratio for a cylinder. If the materials were evenly distributed, it's roughly the optimal shape for using as little metal as possible. Deviating quite a bit from that shape is probably going to use more metal unless they decided to make some parts much thinner, something they could presumably do with the other cans as well.
I think the point was that due to a different construction, the walls could be made thinner or something, idk. I can't find it now and it was probably false. Most articles I find talk about how the new cans "feel more luxurious" and thus sell better.
Seems to me that you can stack more on pallets due to the smaller diameter - I'd guess that it's less a savings on raw materials than it is a logistical one