Do you like the sound of pre-mixed vs. powdered, or the 2.0 formula?


#21

There is no point because you can already do this manually. At first companies providing ‘deals’ for different services sounds good but…then you end up with places like TWC/Comcast. I’d prefer they keep the ordering system simple with each item priced simply. I’m sure this was the motivation behind ‘removing the bulk discount’ which resulted in a price hike.


#22

Out of interest, do we know what the environmental impact of 1.5’s packaging is like? Are the bags recyclable?


#23

I didn’t get the sense from the Ars article that the next powdered formula change would bring formula parity with 2.0, although re-reading it I realise it doesn’t specifically say either way:

As far as aligning the powder and liquid versions’ nutritional contents and version numbers, Rhinehart says that’s something that will happen eventually, but for now the two will remain a bit different. Rhinehart says he expects to release a new version of the powder later this year, but it won’t be numbered 2.0.


#25

Would it? How?

If it’s because it would have less water in it, when camping wouldn’t you end up carrying more water (all other things being even) to drink if you’re getting less water from Soylent?


#26

I wouldn’t think so? They’re not paper or plastic, but they’re very thin and lightweight. I’d be interested to hear if RL has considered that.

But recycling plastic bottles isn’t a complete freebie it still uses a lot of energy, plus only like 20-30% end up getting recycled in the US.


#27

Really? What the heck are they then? Cotton?


#28

Not 100% sure but seems like a thin layer of plastic on the outside bound to aluminum or something on the inside. Just checked and there’s no recycling logo on it


#29

Could be this type of material. http://www.packagingknowledge.com/degradable_biodegradable_bags.asp


#30

What happened with 1.4 that made you not a fan?


#31

Could be, although you’d think the Soylent marketing material would mention that if so.


#32

I loved 1.3. 1.4 makes me gag. The taste and texture is just terrible. The only way I can ingest it is if I freeze it into popsicles.


#33

Yes you would have to drink the same water, but no you wouldn’t be carrying all that water. If you went on a several day backpacking trip you would not carry several days of water with you. But rather, you would refill your water along the trail. From streams and the such.


#34

Gotcha, that makes sense.


#35

They are Mylar. Not recyclable, per se. But California has three drop-offs where they are farmed out for art projects.


#36

It eventually occurred to me that the great thing about 2.0 for newbies is that it reduces uncertainty, hassle, and cost.

It reduces cost because the standard amount of initial purchase is less. This is great for someone who just wants to try Soylent out.

It reduces hassle because most users will simply open, pour, and drink.

It reduces uncertainty because hardly anyone will be asking how much water to add. Flavoring threads on 2.0 will be much shorter until a powdered version is released.

I prefer a powdered version because of efficiency/weight issues, but that is not much of a factor for newbies. I suspect I will prefer the taste of 2.0, so I wish it was available now in powdered form, though I am also happy with the taste of 1.5.


#37

In desert regions such as the Mojave, backpacking with 2.0 might be as good or better as with powdered versions, especially for short trips of a few days. I can imagine with pleasure my backpack getting lighter as I drink up the Soylent. There are areas where water needs to be carried in, especially in drought seasons.


#38

I can see myself always having a few bottles of pre-mixed Soylent around but primarily using the powder for cost reasons.

By the way, I think it was a huge mistake to name the drink “Soylent 2.0”. It really sort of butchers the naming system they’ve had. It should be two separate products with two separate version sequences: Soylent Powder 1.5 and Soylent Drink 1.0. I can’t think of any reason for naming the drink “Soylent 2.0” except pure misleading marketing.


#39

In the Ars Technica interview with Rob Rhinehart, it sounds like they’re planning for the powdered formula to eventually become the same as the current 2.0 liquid formula. So I don’t think it’s particularly misleading; I think the version number is mean to communicate that Soylent 2.0 is where Soylent is going.


#40

It occurs to me that powdered is basically a lot “fresher” than pre-mixed. With powdered, you are doing the last stage of manufacturing in your home. I don’t know whether that has any real nutritional significance.


#41

I think I see what you mean, although obviously at the moment the liquid and powdered forms have different formulas. It’s possible that the ingredients used in the liquid Soylent stay “fresher” in liquid form.