So that's why they changed the shape. I saw no valid reason so I just assumed they were trying to evade taxes in some way. I'll admit I have no idea how much anything I buy at a convenience store costs.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

If anything the taller cylinder will use more aluminum for the same volume, so they're kinda shooting themselves in the foot here with aluminum and steel tariffs, lol

Semms pretty clear the only reason for this was to change the price without as many people noticing.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Regular cans are somewhat inefficient shapes as well, shorter and fatter would be more economical, but less ergonomical and for once that won out, for a while anyway. Now we get designed by marketing instead.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah, there's an awesome video on aluminum drink cans from TheEngineerGuy on YouTube. The ideal shape for holding pressure with minimal material is a sphere, but there's 2 problems with that: They roll, and can't be packed as efficiently as cylinders.

[–] GrosPapatouf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

The tall cans have more surface area. It does mean slightly more materials (but not that much because the can thickness is not uniform), but also more visibility in vending machines and stores. It's a purely marketing decision.

[–] Zess@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

This is over a year old and completely made-up.

[–] imvii@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure of the shape change reason, but I prefer the thinner cans. I have a candy store with soft drinks and I can put more of the thinner cans on the shelf. Usually one more can per shelf.

[–] Yoga@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If the cans were even shorter (closer to cube/ more efficient for amount of aluminum used) you might be able to put 2 on top of eachother

[–] imvii@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

Love it!

Make it happen, captain.