they aren't "ripping you off" as long as they clearly label the can with the size.. right now, i've got a can of Pepsi Throwback that i'm working on and it says it has 12 fl oz in it..
a lot of times, they put the stuff in smaller containers so they can sell it at a given price point to maintain their profit margin- instead of raising the price from 99 cents to $1.10, they make the container 10% smaller and still sell it at 99 cents. this is called "inflation"- your dollar buys less than it used to.
Grtechguy wrote:
you know...it's all about saving material... that .5 oz worth of aluminum really adds up manufacturing costs.
One would think that, but they waste a lot of aluminum with that format. If you do the calculus, the ideal size for a soda can (the greatest volume with the least amount of material) is a can that is something like 4.3" diameter and 3.5" tall.... but who would buy it?
Marketing suggested that taller cans are more appealing and easier to drink from, so they waste aluminum to make more money.
curtis73 wrote:
Grtechguy wrote:
you know...it's all about saving material... that .5 oz worth of aluminum really adds up manufacturing costs.
One would think that, but they waste a lot of aluminum with that format. If you do the calculus, the ideal size for a soda can (the greatest volume with the least amount of material) is a can that is something like 4.3" diameter and 3.5" tall.... but who would buy it?
Marketing suggested that taller cans are more appealing and easier to drink from, so they waste aluminum to make more money.
I would think it's easier and cheaper to make the sides of the can taller, than the top and bottom wider. Look at the complexity difference.
Osterkraut wrote:
I would think it's easier and cheaper to make the sides of the can taller, than the top and bottom wider. Look at the complexity difference.
Very true... those calculations only take into consideration the amount of material used. There is also the amount of carbonation (vapor pressure) in the drink. A long skinny can will hold more pressure than a short fat one. But, the crossover of thicker material vs. less material still occurs at a far fatter/shorter can than what is marketed now.
Complexity has little to do with it. All it would really take is some new machinery with different dies and stamps. With manufacturers stamping out cans like mad (and constantly tweaking their manufacturing process) cans have become cheaper. Better alloys allow for thinner material. The question is (with the latest alloys and materials) which can would be cheapest.... and would that can be something that you would enjoy?
Most cans in Canada have 355 ml, which is 12.00398 oz
curtis73 wrote:
Osterkraut wrote:
I would think it's easier and cheaper to make the sides of the can taller, than the top and bottom wider. Look at the complexity difference.
Very true... those calculations only take into consideration the amount of material used. There is also the amount of carbonation (vapor pressure) in the drink. A long skinny can will hold more pressure than a short fat one. But, the crossover of thicker material vs. less material still occurs at a far fatter/shorter can than what is marketed now.
Complexity has little to do with it. All it would really take is some new machinery with different dies and stamps. With manufacturers stamping out cans like mad (and constantly tweaking their manufacturing process) cans have become cheaper. Better alloys allow for thinner material. The question is (with the latest alloys and materials) which can would be cheapest.... and would that can be something that you would enjoy?
Most cans in Canada have 355 ml, which is 12.00398 oz
i work at a company that makes food packaging machines.. about a year ago we made a machine for Miller/Coors to put the filled cans into 6 packs, and then 4 of those 6 packs into cases and then shrink wrap them... to change the diameter of the cans to bigger than a standard can would be a pain in the ass that would require much of the machine to be totally re-engineered, but to change the height of the cans only requires a few easy adjustments that can be done without any tools in about 10 minutes.
failboat wrote:
They are trying to save us from ourselves. What is this, New York?
Atleast I can still have my 40
