cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27121839
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
1114 points (98.4% liked)
Memes
48482 readers
2515 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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 :(
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
Right
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.
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
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.
Well, I assumed constant thickness, so if that's true, you might be right.
you could use your coke scale to confirm
The tops are the same on both