A viral video says cones deliver 18.8% more THC. That number came from a real 2026 machine study, but it describes THC captured per puff, not more total THC and not a stronger human high.
CONE
STRAIGHT
What the study actually found
The May 2026 report was titled HBI Innovations Smoke Study: Cones vs. Cylinders. Researchers machine-smoked seven RAW Classic Kingsize Cones and five straight RAW Classic joints. Each held one gram of the same Peaches and Cream flower.
The clearest difference was pacing. Cones delivered more captured THC with each programmed puff and took fewer puffs to finish. When the researchers added up the full session, total captured THC and the measured terpene totals were not statistically different.
Per puff and total are different questions
Switch the view below to see why both statements can be true. The cone made fewer, denser machine puffs. The straight joint spread a similar total across more puffs.
Result: The per-puff difference was statistically significant in this sample.
Result: The total difference was not statistically significant. The study did not prove that either shape delivered more THC overall.
How the test worked
The team used a Cambustion SCS smoking machine with a cannabis-specific puff profile. The programmed puff had a 41.7 mL per second peak flow rate and a 59.31 mL volume. Particulate matter was caught on Cambridge filter pads for chemical analysis.
A controlled machine can repeat the same draw pattern, which helps compare formats. It still cannot reproduce every detail of a human session, including lips, pauses, relights, sharing, wind, inhalation depth, or individual absorption.
The full result table
| Measurement | Cone | Straight joint | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| THC per puff | 2.40 mg | 2.02 mg | Higher for cones in this test, statistically significant |
| Total captured THC | 48.96 mg | 46.83 mg | Small numerical difference, not statistically significant |
| Major terpenes, total | 1.67 mg | 1.46 mg | Not statistically significant |
| Minor terpenes, total | 1,182 micrograms | 1,174 micrograms | Nearly identical in this sample |
| Average puff count | About 20 | About 23 | Cones finished in fewer programmed puffs |
| THC transfer to filter | 32.97% | 31.54% | Similar overall capture efficiency |
| Total smoke resin variability | 2.9% CV | 16.5% CV | Cones were more consistent in this small batch |
CV means coefficient of variation, a way to describe how tightly results cluster. A lower number means the samples were more consistent with one another.
Why might a cone change the pacing?
The report points to geometry as a possible explanation. The tested cone had a wider burning face than the cylinder, so more material may have combusted during each programmed draw. Packing can matter too. Air follows the open paths between pieces of ground flower. A very tight section can restrict flow, while a loose pocket can make the burn race or canoe.
That is a plausible explanation, not a proven cause. The cones were packed and tamped, while the straight joints were formed with a rolling machine and loaded by hand. Because shape and preparation changed together, this test cannot separate the effect of geometry from the effect of packing.
What this study cannot tell us
- It did not measure how high a person felt or how much THC entered the bloodstream.
- It tested only 12 joints, one cultivar, one paper brand, and one machine profile.
- The report is preliminary and has not been peer reviewed.
- The work involved HBI Innovations and RAW products, so independent replication would strengthen confidence.
- A nonsignificant total difference does not prove the formats are identical. It means this small test did not establish a reliable total difference.
Which shape might fit your session?
A cone may suit you if…
- You want an easier fill-and-pack format.
- You prefer fewer, denser draws.
- You like a wider start that narrows toward the filter.
A straight joint may suit you if…
- You enjoy rolling by hand.
- You prefer more, lighter draws from the same amount.
- You want direct control over width and packing along the paper.
The better choice is the one that burns predictably for you. Use an even grind, distribute flower consistently, avoid crushing the airflow, and stop if the joint becomes harsh or uneven. Our guide to smoking THCA flower explains grinding, packing, bowls, bongs, vapes, and concentrates. If you are planning around quantity, try our eighth-to-joints calculator.
Frequently asked questions
Are cone joints stronger than straight joints?
This test found more THC captured per machine puff from cones, but similar total captured THC across the full joint. It did not test subjective strength in people.
Do cones waste less weed?
This study did not prove that cones waste less. Total THC transfer to the filter was 32.97% for cones and 31.54% for straight joints, a small difference that was not established as statistically significant.
Why did the cone finish faster?
The cone averaged fewer programmed puffs. Its wider burning face may have combusted more material per draw, but packing and preparation also differed, so shape alone was not isolated.
Was the cone study peer reviewed?
No. The identified May 2026 report is preliminary and has not been peer reviewed. The small result should be treated as an interesting first test that needs independent replication.
Does grinding and packing matter?
Yes. Particle size, moisture, distribution, and density can change airflow and burn behavior. An even medium grind and consistent pack are generally easier to keep lit than a mix of powder, large chunks, tight plugs, and empty pockets.
Want to compare flower before you roll?
Browse current lab-tested THCA flower and review the batch information on each product page.
Sources and research notes
- WeedWorldReport: detailed coverage of the May 2026 HBI Innovations Smoke Study. This article identifies the research team, methods, results, and preliminary status. A public copy of the complete report was not located during our review.
- Cambustion: SCS smoking and vaping machine. Manufacturer information about the controlled machine used for repeatable puff profiles and particulate collection.
- Pomahacova, Van der Kooy, and Verpoorte, 2009. Peer-reviewed research on cannabinoid delivery in cannabis smoke and vapor, included as context rather than proof about joint shape.
- Meehan-Atrash and Rahman, 2019. Peer-reviewed analysis showing that cannabis smoke chemistry and delivery vary with the sample and smoking conditions.
Editorial review: Reviewed by Chris Garcia, Owner and CEO of Plenny. Last reviewed August 13, 2026. This page is educational and does not claim that a machine result predicts any individual experience.
Chris Garcia, Owner and CEO
August 13, 2026
How this page is prepared: Plenny compares available product details and batch COAs with linked primary and reputable sources. General strain, flavor, and effect descriptions are not guarantees.
Commercial transparency: Plenny sells products discussed on this website. Educational pages are not medical or legal advice, and content is not medically reviewed unless a named licensed reviewer is shown.