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
In the grand scheme of things, it’s not using much more. And if the prices are correct in OP, the markup on the new can is way higher than any extra cost they are incurring from additional raw materials. They probably had some marketing study show that a taller looking can makes consumer’s less angry about a price increase or some other crazy nonsense.
I always thought that narrower pressure vessels could contain higher pressure, because the curvature is more severe, meaning that for a vessel that needs to retain a similar level of pressure, you could just use less material in the walls of the vessel. Is this not the case with these new cans, and they have the same wall thickness, or is the tradeoff just one that still works out to be in favor of more total aluminum usage?
Force inside a cylinder vessel is just pressure times surface area. If you have the same pressure(soda carbonation) with more surface area, then you are putting less force on the walls. I don’t have any specialty in the materials engineering for canning, but i suppose less force on the walls means you could use thinner materials. However, soda can walls are already pretty thin to start with and from what I can find online, the tops are usually 2.5-3 times thicker. So, I could see it potentially cutting some cost from the tops by making them thinner but i doubt they are manufacturing different tops. It’s probably just marketing.
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.
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
I had a feeling it’d math out something like that if I opened my fat mouth, lol
I do wonder if thickness of the walls or lid/bottom does have an effect, though, as there must be some reason they make these weird ass cans
In the grand scheme of things, it’s not using much more. And if the prices are correct in OP, the markup on the new can is way higher than any extra cost they are incurring from additional raw materials. They probably had some marketing study show that a taller looking can makes consumer’s less angry about a price increase or some other crazy nonsense.
The lid uses more aluminum than the rest of the can, making that smaller will have a bigger impact than the height of the can.
and both of those cans use the same size lid
Just a marketing trick IIRC, since energy drinks got popular and beer cans got unpopular among gen z.
True, look at the seltzer market for instance.
pretty sure it just lets them fit more cans into the same box for shipping, same logic as how you can pack more sand into a box than you can pebbles
a sphere (think bubbles) minimizes area for a given volume
I always thought that narrower pressure vessels could contain higher pressure, because the curvature is more severe, meaning that for a vessel that needs to retain a similar level of pressure, you could just use less material in the walls of the vessel. Is this not the case with these new cans, and they have the same wall thickness, or is the tradeoff just one that still works out to be in favor of more total aluminum usage?
Force inside a cylinder vessel is just pressure times surface area. If you have the same pressure(soda carbonation) with more surface area, then you are putting less force on the walls. I don’t have any specialty in the materials engineering for canning, but i suppose less force on the walls means you could use thinner materials. However, soda can walls are already pretty thin to start with and from what I can find online, the tops are usually 2.5-3 times thicker. So, I could see it potentially cutting some cost from the tops by making them thinner but i doubt they are manufacturing different tops. It’s probably just marketing.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
You also created 2 cylinders where once there was one, which is not what was being discussed. You even mention that you added material:
I could have said “2 cylinders of the same volume” but I felt context made that clear
Yes I did say that I added material. That’s the point: you cannot do this transformation without adding material.
But you’re saying this is only with two cylinders?