• NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]
    ·
    9 months ago

    Less efficient use of aluminum for the same volume, too. They're wasting material to do this.

    • Flyberius [comrade/them]
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yup. And in most cases less packing efficiency too. Although in this case I think it is slightly more efficient

    • jayWL@lemmy.ml
      ·
      9 months ago

      Oh, I heard the very reason for this was that it used like 5% less aluminium

        • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • Maoo [none/use name]
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • jayWL@lemmy.ml
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

    • The_Walkening [none/use name]
      ·
      9 months ago

      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