Stupid shape for a can too, tips over In a vehicles cup holder
You sure about that?
Cylinders of the same volume will have the same area, so it should be the same amount of aluminum?
Maybe less, even, since the lid and bottom are thicker than the sides and on the taller can there’s less of that thick top/bottom
Ignore things like the bevel, wall thickness, etc. Just calculating for a basic right cylinder, you can see how the surface area changes for different heights with a constant volume. I’ve outlined the standard dimensions of a can(inches). https://youtu.be/gL3HxBQyeg0
same size top/bottom for both; only difference is that the standard has a wider body bevel, and the sleek can goes nearly straight down. same lid on both cans, as well. not sure what it does for the scaled material cost, but since the lid is by far the most expensive part, it’s probably negligible, compared to the ability to inflate the price on a taller can.
I can’t fully explain the trend, but ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic beverages are a big hit for the industry, and even moreso when presented in the truly/high noon shape. maybe it’s a generational thing? I don’t get it, but I’m also not the target demographic.
bonus fact: the conversion costs of filling sleek cans is pretty steep for most independent brewers, so craft beer will take a couple years to adapt, if ever.
The easiest way to imagine how cylinders have different surface area for a given volume, is imagine how closely a shape matches a sphere, it should have a lower surface area.
Imagine a soda can with the width of one water molecule. The cross section of that can would be on the order of four aluminum atoms for that hair thin can. Then imagine a can that’s nearly a cube or a sphere and how all the liquid can be hiding behind other liquid atoms: hence fewer can atoms per liquid volume.
Blood vessels have high surface area. A pint of blood has low.
That can’t be true.
Consider a cylinder cut in half, giving a circular cross section. Cover each new circular gap with new aluminum.
Now you’ve enclosed the same volume in cylinders, with a different surface area.
I thought the cand were extruded from discs… Maybe they use a larger disc, but I think the taller cans have thinner walls.
Source: https://youtu.be/V4TVDSWuR5E
…do people think the tall can is bigger? If anything, I’ve always assumed that they were smaller 🤷♂️
Oh hey we watched that video in my psych class. Funny phenomenon. Kids are dumb
In my highschool psych class we actually went to an elementary school and did this experiment with the kiddos. It was a while ago but if I recall correctly, 9/10 times they thought tall = bigger. I bet some people never grow out of that mindset or at least at first glance our less smart brain goes “tall is big!”
I guarantee these big corporations have psych majors working in their marketing teams and it’s 100% intentional.
Area is just hard to discern. Manipulating the radius a little bit will alter area quite significantly (because its quadratic) but you won’t be able to perceive it. By comparison, height is much easier to see. So you can decrease the radius a bit and add height some and you can fool people.
The great thing is you don’t need it.
That’s a 2.24x price increase. That’s even beyond Argentina-hyperinflation levels of increase. Are we sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison? Like, was there a sale or bulk discount that made the shorter can relatively cheaper? I’m struggling to believe a retailer would engage in such a brazen markup in a single week. (Not to say it’s not possible, but it’s extreme enough that I’m not taking the word of some random hand-written graphic on the Internet.)
I mean… I’ll regularly go to the grocery store and see soda prices vary by 200-300% week-to-week. Sure, it’s all based around “sale” value, but it amounts to the same thing. If it’s $9 for 2 12-packs one week and then $11 for a 12-pack the next week, it isn’t an invalid markup because you had to buy 2 to get the first price.
Always purchase by volume/weight, not container
It’s not always an available option. If an ink maker deprecates old containers and starts selling smaller ones for almost the same price you can’t just buy something else if you need consistency. Coca-Cola probably thinks that you can’t just replace Coca-Cola®™© with substitutes and I know some people would agree
Well, I meant within brands. Drug packages are the worst. I’ve seen two boxes of the same drug side by side and the smaller box had more tablets. That is to say, containers can be deceptive. Look at the volume and weight of the product.
Have yet to see those, but I met packaging for 1 (yes, one) capsule that was about half of a phone size, looked like the usual package for 20 something tablets. In this case it could be a matter of standard package though
But then there’s Velaxin that was cheaper in 20×75mg pack then 20×32.5mg, and this I cannot understand ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
do other countries not have comparative price? here in sweden that’s listed right under the absolute price, e.g. a bottle of soda might cost 2 bucks and the comparative cost is 1.8$ per liter.
my dad drives me mad because he utterly ignores that and instead manually tries to estimate the comparative price, it’s baffling
