• @frank@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      313 days 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
        23 days 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
          63 days 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

            • @frank@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              3 days 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.

    • @AntY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      314 days 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.