Carbon Fiber Bear Canister

[Roger Caffin]

Hi John

There are two issues here:

* Discussing the idea of a new item of gear. Quite suitable for here. Go for it!

* Someone promoting a new item of gear which they are producing. That goes in Gear Deals.

Cheers
Roger Caffin
Online Community Monitor
Backpacking Light

[Lawson Kline]

Since the forum already exists I will just add my comments to it rather than start a new forum.

Would you rather have a fixed bear canister like whats currently on the market or canister that has the ability to collapse like a trekking pole?

Say a carbon fiber canister that could extend from 8"x8" to 8"x14" depending on what you had inside. This feature would add a little bit of weight and cost (3-4oz and $25 est.) but then you would only need one canister for all your trips.
Let me know what you think.

FYI. The goal is a SIBBG & IGBC "certified" canister since that is really the only reason most lightweight folks carry one.

[Nia Schmald]

"Would you rather have a fixed bear canister like whats currently on the market or canister that has the ability to collapse like a trekking pole?"

Not worth the weight penalty to me. A system that had different size cylinders and re-used the same lids might save a little cost with no weight penalty.

[Mary D]

Collapsible? It would need not to collapse when, say, 400 lbs. of black bear or 800 lbs. of grizzly decided to sit on it!

Plus the SIBBG and IGBC tend to frown on any container whose use might possibly require some intelligence on the part of the user. I suspect that an adjustment mechanism might fall into that category.

Note to Roger: IMHO, until the canister is actually developed and is available for sale, it should be out here in the general forum. The OP is not offering it for sale yet; he's asking for user input. Just my own 2 cents….

[Jim W.]

I'd probably rather just get the biggest size that I'll need and call it good.

The telescoping feature would potentially give a bear something to get his claws under. It also adds weight and complexity.

I'm interested in where this goes, but until a hungry bear gets hold of one for testing I'm going to be doubtful.

[Jeff Patrick]

The collapsible idea might be worth it if the extension piece could be removed when you arent using it. That way, instead of buying two which would double the price you could suit both your needs for just a minimum price penalty.

Plus this way you wouldnt have to carry around the extra weight.

I guess you'd have to manufacture two tops for this and use some sort of a twist and lock to secure them. Then the second top would be more like a shorter bottom and you could use the flat top to screw onto it and make an even smaller bear cannister giving 3 size options total. Does that make any sense?

Edit: If you made both top and bottom flat, removable pieces, gave a regular size cylander, and an extender piece (that would screw and lock in like the lids): Then by buying one piece you could take care of size small, medium, and large and would not have any weight penalty while you were on the trail. I think that makes more sense than above.

[Laurence Beck]

>Would you rather have a fixed bear canister like whats >currently on the market or canister that has the ability >to collapse like a trekking pole?

It seems that the collapsing mechanism could turn out to be the weak link in regards to being bear proof. I guess that would be cool but I am not sure it would be worth the weight and cost penalty. Are you saying that this product would be lighter than the Bearikade Weekender (31oz) and be at least that large? And not so costly?

>FYI. The goal is a SIBBG & IGBC "certified" canister >since that is really the only reason most lightweight >folks carry one.

There is also peace of mind. I was on the JMT in Yosemite last summer and a member of our party took liberties with the rules and stashed her food trying to keep it away from the bears. It did not work. In the morning our entire campsite was littered with debri but my Garcia and my other friend's Bear Vault were not even tipped over.

[Lawson Kline]

I agree the collapsible option would be heavier and a little more expensive but I don't think for one minute it would be more complex or a weak link. If it was then it couldn't be approved.

I see everyone's concerns but 3-4oz is a few gulps of water.

Think how nice it would be to have a canister that adjusted to how much food you were carrying and on long hikes would get smaller and easier to pack as the days went on. Just my two cents!

[Mary D]

Lawson: "…3-4oz is a few gulps of water."

You're talking to folks here to whom 3-4 _grams_ weight increase is sacrilege! :-)

[John Whynot]

>>I agree the collapsible option would be heavier and a little more expensive but I don't think for one minute it would be more complex or a weak link. If it was then it couldn't be approved.

Yellow-Yellow might disagree, she learned to open approved canisters…

[Nia Schmald]

"I see everyone's concerns but 3-4oz is a few gulps of water. "

Yep but you can't drink it so it's fairly useless.

As I eat food I just start putting more stuff inside the bear canister so the space is never empty. So that's not really a useful feature.

So for me it's extra weight and extra cost for nothing. Looks more like a marketing thing to me.

[Brad Rogers]

I don't think the collapsible idea will fly with the powers that be, but a top and bottom that can fit on different length carbon fiber tubes so people can afford to have multiple canister sizes for different length trips sounds like a winner and like it might be a feasible design.

[Franco Darioli]

What came to mind was something like a big version of the Caldera Caddy. However in the name of KISS I would think that what Nia does makes more sense.
Franco

[Dave Heiss]

If the canister can collapse in response to food consumption, then I see a potential problem in being able to use the canister as a camp chair. Goodbye dual-use!

[Raymond Estrella]

"I agree the collapsible option would be heavier and a little more expensive but I don't think for one minute it would be more complex or a weak link. If it was then it couldn't be approved."

It could not help but be more complex and a weak link to boot. And as much as I have gone through with Bear Vaults over the years I see this idea never coming to fruition.

"I see everyone's concerns but 3-4oz is a few gulps of water."

Not to beat a dead horse, but 4 oz more puts you close to the weight of existing bear cans, lower priced and undoubtedly structurally more sound.

"Think how nice it would be to have a canister that adjusted to how much food you were carrying and on long hikes would get smaller and easier to pack as the days went on."

Yes, that is a nice thought, but as we had to bring a pack that would hold it in the first place it won’t help that much in my experience. (I use them a lot.) When mine get to a point there is space (if I even carry my food in it in the first place) I just start storing stuff in it.

Between Dave and I we have bought 5 Bear Vaults and one Bear Keg over the years. I liked the weight of the BV's but I am so happy I switched to the more expensive and lighter Bearikades. At least that way I don’t get told every year or two that my can is not allowed when I show up to pick up my permit.

I said I would be interested in one and am, but I really doubt a collapsible can will get approval, and I would not trust it anyway. Do you know how many people cannot adjust their trekking poles…?

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for piling on in as much as others have already said it well, but it can't be said often enough-we need a light weight bear canister!! Any feature that is going add weight will make it just another heavy bear can. We already have enough heavy cans to choose from.

[Jay Wilkerson]

I just purchased a Bearikade Scout—-It ways 28 oz. Sweet!!! I will use the Scout and the PCT bear bag method..As long as I have Bear canister in my pack I am good to go when it comes to rangers and permits. It is very small and takes up less Ci in your pack—-I cant wait until next season!!!!!

[Thomas Bennett]

The most awesome thing ever imo would be a system of extensions to a base size canister. The extension threads could be keyed from inside the canister to prevent tampering.

[Lawson Kline]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for your input. I like to think outside the box and was trying to come up with some other options. By no means would a collapsible bear canister be my flagship model. I still plan to build 2-3 fixed size canisters with the smallest one being around a pound with an estimated cost of $125+/-.

8"x8"
8"x12"
8"x16"

[Anonymous]

xx

[Joshua Billings]

I think a lot of the extra costs of bear canisters is the testing and approval. You are also talking lawyer fees. Just something to think about before you invest a lot into something. I'm all for it though. I like the idea of a stackable canister that could bolt together from the inside.(titanium bolts)

[Lawson Kline]

Lawyers fees? Please explain.

[Joshua Billings]

I don't really know what I am talking about. I just think there will be hidden costs.It sounded good at the time. Maybe patten lawyers and other stuff.Good luck though, I would buy one at the price you listed at the beginning of your thread.

[Lawson Kline]

Your probably right but I don't plan on patenting the design. As you said it takes alot of time and money (lawyer fee's) plus I don't see a need to backlog the patent office anymore than they already are just for a bear canister.

[Rick Hancock]

Although most of my hiking is East Coast, AT etc. I would be interested in this storage system. I don't think a "dial-in-size" would be very practical but I do think that offering the container in several sizes with one size lid would be a selling feature. Plus competition is always a good thing!
Rick

[Author]

Posts