what happened to the Metric system?

The Bollox

I went into work today and saw some coke bottles and they looked tiny! like they were 'snack size' or 'bite size' and I put one of the bottles next to one of the usual ones and I took a picture of it, so you can judge for yourself, but you need to see it firsthand to believe it!

RobertFoster

The smaller one is bottled in the North I bet. One of my locals gets them cheap from there and charges the same price as the larger size

The Bollox

the thing is, you can't see it, but both bottles say 200ml on them (sorry, meant to add that into the main part)

Dizzyblabla

have you tried pouring them both into the same size glass to see if there's the same amount of liquid?? the glass bottle is gonna be thicker so it just might appear bigger!

rugbug86

the one with the red label is shorter and fatter than the one with no label

D

[/nerd] Well actually the most efficient way to hold volume is a sphere and the more squat the container is the more volume efficient it is. Basically the aspect ratio on the bottle on the left is lower so that even though it looks smaller it actually holds the same amount. [/nerd]

In the picture they have the same volume but different aspect ratio. Some people might think that the red shape would hold more though. Besides in the original picture the level of the coke is only slightly different. In packaging you always try to increase aspect ratio to make the public think they are getting more.

Rabies

Maybe I'm missing something but what does this have to do with the metric system

Blisterman

Pub drinks are usually measured by the imperial system anyway.

Badly Drunk Boy

Well, if both of them contained 200ml, then both of them are using the metric system....just a different design of bottle.

seamus

Pubs in Ireland are now stocking 200ml bottles of coke, instead of the more usual 250ml. And guess what, yep, they're charging the exact same price. Just another way of screwing the punter for a few extra cents.

Victor

D wrote:

[/nerd] Well actually the most efficient way to hold volume is a sphere and the more squat the container is the more volume efficient it is. Basically the aspect ratio on the bottle on the left is lower so that even though it looks smaller it actually holds the same amount. [/nerd]

Of course, spheres aren't very practical on shop shelves, what with their habit of leaving gaps and / or rolling off the shelf.

NotMe

You can still get coke in glass bottles?

BrianD3

seamus wrote:

Pubs in Ireland are now stocking 200ml bottles of coke, instead of the more usual 250ml. And guess what, yep, they're charging the exact same price. Just another way of screwing the punter for a few extra cents.

AFAIK 200 ml is the standard size and has been for around the last 15 years. I say this because I have a coke bottle from around 15 years ago which only holds 185 mls.

seamus

seamus wrote:

Pubs in Ireland are now stocking 200ml bottles of coke, instead of the more usual 250ml. And guess what, yep, they're charging the exact same price. Just another way of screwing the punter for a few extra cents.

Coke bottles use to be 250ml?!

I never noticed.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Coke bottles use to be 250ml?!

I never noticed.

Afair. I only remember because when you were a kid, you'd pay more for a bottle in a pub with your parents than a can in the shop, which was 80ml more.

Never seen a 185ml bottle myself Brian

Capt'n Midnight

was it not 186 ml ?

Kernel

D wrote:

[/nerd] Well actually the most efficient way to hold volume is a sphere and the more squat the container is the more volume efficient it is. Basically the aspect ratio on the bottle on the left is lower so that even though it looks smaller it actually holds the same amount. [/nerd]

Wouldn't a square be more efficient? Think of the wasted space used at the lower circumference part of the sphere, which would be of uniform width in a square?

Chalk

im guessing he means efficient in terms of surface area to volume.
since a sphere is equal all the way round your using the best amount of space possible.


wheres at the corner of a square with the most amount of surface area your holding the least amount of liquid

Kernel

Chalk wrote:

im guessing he means efficient in terms of surface area to volume.
since a sphere is equal all the way round your using the best amount of space possible.


wheres at the corner of a square with the most amount of surface area your holding the least amount of liquid

Ahh right, surface area. Thanks for the info.. sounds sad I know; but I reckon my hungover brain will be pondering this one over coffee at breakfast!

EDIT: BTW, when I worked in a pub, I checked that a small whiskey glass holds 1/2 pint of water... the same as the longer half pint glass... you wouldn't have thought that by looking at them either though.

Bard

I used to work in a bar and the bottles of Coke, 7Up etc. were 22cl (220ml) and were €2.40. The bottles of Coke I get out of the vending machine in work nowadays are 250ml and cost me €2.10.

BrianD3

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

was it not 186 ml ?

The bottle I have says that the minimum volume is 185 mls or 6.5 fluid ounces. I would post a pic but I don't have the bottle in front of me now. This was the size available in Irish pubs around 15-20 years ago.

Apparently, collecting old coke bottles is a pretty common hobby. There are thousands of different types to collect from all over the world

Victor

Kernel wrote:

Wouldn't a square be more efficient? Think of the wasted space used at the lower circumference part of the sphere, which would be of uniform width in a square?

Squares are very bad at holding volumes, what with them being flat.

Cubes and cuboids make poor bottles as the corners form weak points.

Hence the current fashion of bottles being tubular with curves (minimize surface area) and ribs (strength).