2 ms·

Coke has played around with various "slim" or smaller 7.5oz or 8oz cans/aluminum bottles that are a higher cost per oz, though they don't seem to have caught on

Coke has played around with various "slim" or smaller 7.5oz or 8oz cans/aluminum bottles that are a higher cost per oz, though they don't seem to have caught on too much. Or with (somewhat questionable) alternative products, like the somewhat new 8oz coke with coffee.

Scoundreller 5y ago
Tall skinny cans are a waste of pkging material. An optimal cylinder is double the diameter in height. Drives me nuts. I think they’re trying to avoid a tobacco style lawsuit for the sugar content in a decade or two because we all know the hazards of sugar. The Canadian coke formula used to have more sugar and they’ve reduced it. I think this is why.
- hyperhopper 5y ago
  This stack exchange question says that the optimal cylinder is one with a height twice the radius, not diameter https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radius-ratio-for-maximum-volume-cylinder-of-given-surface-area https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radi...
- bell-cot 5y ago
  IIR, that optimal cylinder assumes that the cost per unit area of the sides is the same as the top & bottom. A can of coke - or beer, or other carbonated & pressurized beverage - breaks that assumption. The curved sides are mostly supported by the pressure of the contents, and can be far thinner than the top and bottom. But commercial success is much more driven by consumer preferences than by optimized packaging. So don't expect to see many tall, thin coke cans. (Which may tip over too easily, feel odd in the hand, slosh when one takes a quick drink, etc.)
gruez 5y ago
>Coke has played around with various "slim" or smaller 7.5oz or 8oz cans/aluminum bottles that are a higher cost per oz, though they don't seem to have caught on too much. Probably because in my area the slim/mini cans tend to be more expensive than the regularly sized cans.

Scoundreller 5y ago

Tall skinny cans are a waste of pkging material. An optimal cylinder is double the diameter in height. Drives me nuts. I think they’re trying to avoid a tobacco style lawsuit for the sugar content in a decade or two because we all know the hazards of sugar. The Canadian coke formula used to have more sugar and they’ve reduced it. I think this is why.

hyperhopper 5y ago
This stack exchange question says that the optimal cylinder is one with a height twice the radius, not diameter https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radius-ratio-for-maximum-volume-cylinder-of-given-surface-area https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radi...
bell-cot 5y ago
IIR, that optimal cylinder assumes that the cost per unit area of the sides is the same as the top & bottom. A can of coke - or beer, or other carbonated & pressurized beverage - breaks that assumption. The curved sides are mostly supported by the pressure of the contents, and can be far thinner than the top and bottom. But commercial success is much more driven by consumer preferences than by optimized packaging. So don't expect to see many tall, thin coke cans. (Which may tip over too easily, feel odd in the hand, slosh when one takes a quick drink, etc.)

gruez 5y ago

>Coke has played around with various "slim" or smaller 7.5oz or 8oz cans/aluminum bottles that are a higher cost per oz, though they don't seem to have caught on too much. Probably because in my area the slim/mini cans tend to be more expensive than the regularly sized cans.