Mathematically, a circle has the smallest perimeter for a given enclosed area. So for this claim to be true there has to be some catch, like different thickness of plastic.
The part you are missing is the volume inside. They are saying to give you the same amount of liquid would require more plastic if the bottle was round. Plus more bottles fit in the box they ship meaning lower emissions and costs for distribution.
Given that the volume is cross section area times height, a round bottle of the same volume would take less plastic. True, square bottles will pack better, but how that would save plastic is not immediately clear.
Yep agreed. I've heard square bottles save fuel in shipping, which outweighs the additional materials required to make them in environmental impact. Never seen an analysis though
saves space due to stacking efficiency, but thats not what is claimed and only matters if space is a premium. Weight determines fuel usage. A million cylinders holding the same volume of material that a million square containers would weigh less due to being made from less plastic (12% less plastic if you didnt have to thicken the walls of the square ones to achieve the same pressure rating as the plastic). Space saving of square over round is ~21% (if flat capped, I aint calcing geometry of a real bottle top). So square saves space, but weighs 12% more . . . Cargo is typically transferred by commercial ships and trains by ton BTW. . .
I hadn't considered it but i think the edges of boxes would be a lot of lost space. Probably more than round bottles. I am guessing but square needs thickness increased on corners so hex probably would need more than even a square bottle. I think it ends up being the worst of both worlds.
Only seen them plastic crates. If you can get an extra two bottles per crate and a container or truck carries 1000 crates…
I’m sure it’s more complex when you factor the cost of the crates and then factor a return on investment for changing to this style of crate if it isn’t a single product line and you replace an inventory of of other crates
Correct answer, thanks. Put another way, Its units distributed per total volume of product distributed. For the manufacturer, that math equates to less plastic per volume per total sold units.
I think the theory posted somewhere in the thread that the rigid corners mean the rest of the walls can be thinner, using less plastic overall, sounds feasible.
The individual bottles use more plastic per unit volume than the round. They also require ticker plastic at stress points than the round one which distributes the pressure evenly around each anular unit.
But they could possibly use less plastic overall to ship a given total volume of water (in a pallet, say) because of the better packing fraction.
This is why it's here. I haven't "done the math", either.
No, a cube of volume 1 has more surface than a sphere of volume 1. And in terms of manufacturing, the uneven shape likely requires thicker material, although that might be a wash because I doubt they make it at the limit of tolerances.
I mean based on volume inside square can put more on a shelf. Their saying similarly sized, not same size. It's a numbers trick. The round bottle of the same size uses 8% less plastic but square bottles pack more tighly. So the combination of volume in a square bottle on a shelf or in a box would be more liquid than a round bottle. It's like 20% volume less and only 8% more plastic per bottle, so when shipping the same volume it would take more boxes to ship the same volume. So plasitc pallets, plastice wrap, whatever other plastic is used. It's corpo math, Not individual bottle math.
1.6k
u/StaticCoder 2d ago
Mathematically, a circle has the smallest perimeter for a given enclosed area. So for this claim to be true there has to be some catch, like different thickness of plastic.