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.

[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago

The top seems to be the same size, the old one just bulges more while the new one almost goes straight down.

[–] Redex68@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tops are pretty much standars size on all cans I'm pretty sure. So that part should be constant.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[–] eating3645@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Someone should weigh both and see!

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The only real way, speculation by photo is not that great. They also could have made the metal thinner.

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, I assumed constant thickness, so if that's true, you might be right.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

you could use your coke scale to confirm

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

The tops are the same on both