Nimbus comes out AGAINST cans

Reads 2022 • Replies 29 • Started Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:03:37 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen
 
RABinCO
beers 1511 º places 103 º 10:00 Sun 8/17/2014

Originally posted by drowland
Anybody find the long Nimbus post?


https://www.facebook.com/NIMBUSBEER/posts/10152694254945452

 
RABinCO
beers 1511 º places 103 º 10:03 Sun 8/17/2014

Scared of BPA, but no concern about chugging 13% BA stouts every night.

Beer bros bro.

 
drowland
beers 11069 º places 430 º 10:04 Sun 8/17/2014

Not only is their post full of BS, it seems weird to me that they’re so tired of answering questions about it that they sponsored the post to show up in newsfeeds.

 
flabeer
places 2 º 11:17 Sun 8/17/2014

Cans are cheaper. Period. They’ve been around since the 1930’s, so why are they all of the sudden the be-all, end-all package? No need for labels, carrier, per unit price is next to nothing. That’s the main factor behind the current canned beer movement. Breweries that have moved from bottles to cans are saving upwards of $1 per six. Somehow the shelf price never changed. Do they keep out light better than green or clear glass? Yes, but brown glass does the same thing. It’s not light that’s the enemy but UV light. Bottles are made of silica, one of the most abundant minerals on earth and are infinitely recyclable just like aluminum. "Cans cool down faster"...well, yeah. They also heat up faster and are much more susceptible to temp changes.
I’m not ant-can, but the zeal with which everyone defends them doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Originally posted by flabeer
Cans are cheaper. Period. They’ve been around since the 1930’s, so why are they all of the sudden the be-all, end-all package? No need for labels, carrier, per unit price is next to nothing. That’s the main factor behind the current canned beer movement. Breweries that have moved from bottles to cans are saving upwards of $1 per six. Somehow the shelf price never changed. Do they keep out light better than green or clear glass? Yes, but brown glass does the same thing. It’s not light that’s the enemy but UV light. Bottles are made of silica, one of the most abundant minerals on earth and are infinitely recyclable just like aluminum. "Cans cool down faster"...well, yeah. They also heat up faster and are much more susceptible to temp changes.
I’m not ant-can, but the zeal with which everyone defends them doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
???

A couple of things:
-Is it bad that breweries can save money canning? Isn’t that a pretty legit reason right there to use them instead?
-I can’t speak for your area, but on average I find that cans are cheaper than their bottled counterparts here in Louisville, sometimes more than a dollar a beer on single cans.
-Regardless of the kind of light, it’s not getting through a can. There’s still a chance with glass bottles, though less of one with brown glass.
-Cans heat up faster… and bottles break more easily. You can’t easily stack a sixer of bottles on a shelf. Cans, on the other hand, are stackable.

I’m not usually one for getting behind trends, but I do prefer cans to bottles almost universally when it comes to beer. If BPA is truly a concern, it would give me pause, and I will read whatever comes out about the amount we ingest with cans.

 
drowland
beers 11069 º places 430 º 13:41 Sun 8/17/2014

Also, I almost always pour my beer out, regardless, so cans getting warm isn’t a big deal to me.

 
evergreen0199
beers 5930 º 13:52 Sun 8/17/2014

I’m a huge fan of cans, they don’t break, keep out light, they are easy to transport, easy to stack/store and generally look better.

 
drowland
beers 11069 º places 430 º 14:12 Sun 8/17/2014

Seems to be a reactionary marketing ploy to me as opposed to them being morally responsible for the health of their consumers. They attack breweries that can beers and tell consumers to avoid canned beer at all costs. It comes across to me as them being threatened by the movement. Instead of making better beer, they try to scare everyone with the dangers of canned products.

 
StefanSD
beers 2449 º places 57 º 14:35 Sun 8/17/2014

Originally posted by drowland
Seems to be a reactionary marketing ploy to me as opposed to them being morally responsible for the health of their consumers. They attack breweries that can beers and tell consumers to avoid canned beer at all costs. It comes across to me as them being threatened by the movement. Instead of making better beer, they try to scare everyone with the dangers of canned products.


Also, why is Nimbus afforded any credibility here? There are any number of breweries I’d take vary seriously on this issue, but Nimbus isn’t one of them.

 
drowland
beers 11069 º places 430 º 16:52 Sun 8/17/2014

Originally posted by StefanSD
Originally posted by drowland
Seems to be a reactionary marketing ploy to me as opposed to them being morally responsible for the health of their consumers. They attack breweries that can beers and tell consumers to avoid canned beer at all costs. It comes across to me as them being threatened by the movement. Instead of making better beer, they try to scare everyone with the dangers of canned products.


Also, why is Nimbus afforded any credibility here? There are any number of breweries I’d take vary seriously on this issue, but Nimbus isn’t one of them.


They are certainly dropping some pretty big fact bombs with no references to back it up, such as:

"The west coast styles of beer (such as we produce) typically being more aggressively ’hopped’ as is with the IPAs being produced throughout the craft beer industry being all the rage, the more bitter the beer, the higher the risk are to these exceptionally dangerous chemicals."

Shows a lot about their knowledge of bitterness and correlations to style and hoppage as well. Some stouts out there must be the most dangerous of all!