Carbon Fiber Bear Canister

[Lawson Kline]

Hey Everyone,

As you all know carbon fiber bear canisters like the Bearikade are lightweight and bomb proof but they are expensive. Does the cost keep you from buying one or do you prefer a polycarbonate model like the Bear Vault?

Would you be interested if the prices looked more like this?

12"long x 9" diameter x 1-1.5 lbs: $125?

[Jim W.]

I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I need a bigger capacity but just can't afford $320 (with tax & shipping) for the Bearikade.

The problem is getting the design properly bear-tested and vetted by an agency like the SIBBG.

I suspect that Bearikade could double their profit if they halved their profit margin.

[Nia Schmald]

Lighter, bigger, cheaper? You bet! It would need be approved in Yosemite and SEKI for me though.

[Christopher Smith]

That would get me to buy one. I've never bought a bear canister and always rented or borrowed them cause I really don't like the size, weight, or function of the other canisters on the market. I've always wanted a Bearikade but the price has just kept it way out of my reach.

[Brad Rogers]

I wouldn't be interested at the moment because they are not required where I hike, but perhaps in the future when I hike out west.

I do think they would sell very very well but like Jim said, the time consuming and expensive part is getting them approved for use in required areas. Without that approval, they would be worthless to most users.

[Josh Leavitt]

First problem: IGBC and the now semi defunct SIBBG are no longer taking containers for testing, and have not done so for about 2 years.

I'll bite, tell us more. But please disclose your mothers maiden name, and use the pass word, so as to not get your post deleted.

[Lawson Kline]

I have heard that! Sounds like a controlled monopoly to me.

[Steven Evans]

We don't require canisters up here, but last season I was putting a trip together to the adirondacks and needed to carry one. I was going to buy but they were a. Too heavy b. too expensive (for my amount of use).

I'd probably pick one up at the weight/price you stated.

I actually began to design one a while back, but when I looked into the requirements they have to meet, it basically said (IIRC) they let some grizzly go at it for a couple of days or something like that. If it's in good shape, it's a pass.

Take a look at the Ursack…I thought that was a really good idea. But I guess the grizzly damaged it because it isn't approved.

[Lawson Kline]

Howabout three different sizes

8.5" diameter x 8.5" long for solo trips
8.5" diameter x 12" long for group trips
8.5" diameter x 16-18" long for extended group trips

??????

[Jeff Antig]

People are interested in it …it is not the matter of the size. WE COULD ONLY USE IT IF IT IS CERTIFIED.

[James Naphas]

I'd jump on it in a heartbeat at those spec's and price…if you could get it approved for use in Yosemite and SEKI. Most of my backpacking involves at least some of the trip going through a canister-required area, and having a lighter, cheaper canister does me no good if I end up with a significantly lighter wallet from using it and getting ticketed.

[Keith Selbo]

I own a Bearikade Expedition and a Bearvault 500. The reasons for my choices should be obvious from the following chart. It is the lowest lb/ci. canister of all those I surveyed.

(please note that the original chart listed the bearikade at 2.0 lb. I weighed my canister and it came to 2 lb 4 oz) The above chart reflects the corrected weight.)

The Bearikade Expedition is the lightest canister on a lb. per ci. basis, but it's big. When a smaller canister is called for, the oz. per ci distinction isn't all that great, so I went for price. The Bearvault compares very favorably to the smaller bearikades and is a third the cost per cubic inch.

[Anonymous]

If you are doing a "start-up" on those specs, I'll put my order in now>

[Anonymous]

"The Bearvault compares very favorably to the smaller bearikades and is a third the cost per cubic inch."

It all boils down to how much weight you want to haul around and how much money you're willing to spend to lighten your load. Conceptually straightforward, not so straightforward in practice. Sort of like life in general.

[Lawson Kline]

As you all stated the bear canister has to be approved. Before I build anything I want to make sure its something that folks are interested in. I have already worked out all the details on the approval process but wanted to see if there is a market. I would hate to invest the time and money for nothing.

Are their features you would like to see in a canister that don't currently exist?

[Raymond Estrella]

I have a Bearikade Scout and Weekender. If you make a large size and get it OK'd for the Sierra I would try it.

[Ed Engel]

I also would be game for an approved cannister.
Aloha

[P. P.]

I'm a pretty content Bear Vault user but I would be willing to try it out.

[Dirk Rabdau]

I'd agree that a size between the Bearikade weekender and expedition class cannisters would be ideal. You can special-order one in that size (as I have) but I am surprised it is not offered in their lineup. I think that is of prime interest to many hikers venturing into the Sierra for four to six days.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Lawson

Please remember the BPL rules about disclosure of any vested interest in the product being discussed. You should have made it explicitely clear in your first posting that you are looking at making these yourself. Just a heads-up for now. Surveying requirements via this channel seems reasonable.

If you want to start talking about any commercial production later on it should be done in the Gear Deals column.

Cheers (and good luck)
Roger Caffin
Online Community Monitor
Backpacking Light

[Lawson Kline]

Hey Roger,

Thanks for the info. I am new to this great site and will remember what you said for the future.

[Mike Klinefelter]

Am I the only one that noticed this, but in the comparison chart of bear canister weight to volume efficiency, the reason the Bearikade Expedition looks so good is because the weight shown is incorrect. The correct weight for the Expedition is 2 lbs 5 oz, which would make it 2.31 lbs., not 2.0 lbs. This would make the lb/ci efficiency 0.0026, not 0.0022, still the lowest assuming the numbers for the other canisters are correct, but not as low as indicated in the chart. Using the correct numbers for the Expedition and since that is still the most efficient it would be considered 100%, it will increase the relative efficiency of the other canisters.

[W I S N E R !]

Just keep in mind, none of this really means anything for most of us if it doesn't get approved by the parks.

[Jim W.]

Mike,

Another way of looking at it is to consider performance for 600 and 900 cubic inches of volume.

The Bearikade Expedition rates 0.0038 lb/ci for 600 ci; and 0.0026 for 900. All the others are much worse because you would need two cans to get 900 ci.

For me, once the bear can exceeds the Garcia's end-to-end circumference I have to carry it vertically. At that point I'd rather have it big enough to handle lots of food for long solo trips or for shorter family trips. It looks like Bearikade adds 1.5 ounces and 60 cubic inches per additional inch.

[Anonymous]

Roger,

This is perhaps the most underdeveloped gear item for weight reduction and I think the post belongs here for now, anyway, to allow members and guests express their interest in minimizing this ugly monster that causes us to give up valuable weight reduction after spending a fortune to gain an advantage. Contrary to your admonition to move it to another possibly less visited forum, it should remain here where most of us hang out. We, who hike in areas where these heavy cans are required, are crying for relief. Please, let’s encourage anyone who has a viable idea in this underdeveloped area of weight reduction.

With best regards, John

[Author]

Posts