Bear cannister shape

I think bear canister shape is determined by what will actually hold up to a bear chomp or stomp. A flat side would hold the canister immobile on the ground while a bear stomped on it, and would give a side for a bear to get his teeth into. Every year I see people making suggestions to make bear canisters more comfortable to carry but I've always seen them shot down because the more comfortable shapes compromise the ability of the canister to hold up to a bear.

like this more here

There was a guy on here last year working on that. It doesn't seem like it amounted to much:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=68141&skip_to_post=582025#582025

The real problem is weight. Bear canisters are heavy. That is why people are willing to shell out hundreds of extra dollars for a bearikade to save a few ounces (and end up with a canister that can't be used in Grizzly country). An ergonomic design would be nice, but you are giving a leverage point for the bear. That means you have to make it bulkier to resist the additional forces… that means it has to be heavier.

There are three main ways to orient a bear canister inside a pack, but the best way depends on the dimensions of your particular canister and your particular pack. A round cylinder is the strongest practical shape.

1. You can orient it with the axis straight up and down. This fits a small pack best, but it puts maximum pressure against your spine.
2. You can orient it with the axis right and left horizontally. This fits very poorly in a small pack, although it works OK in a very large pack, and it tends to put the canister weight more on your hips.
3. You can orient it with the axis forward and backward horizontally. This puts the top or bottom flat against the spine, and this works the best for me. However, I use my BearVault 450, which is not a very tall canister.

–B.G.–

A Bearikade is no good in Grizz country?

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

I think there is a better thread somewhere, but:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=60298&startat=80

half way down the page you'll find some photos by g. mihalik

Here are IGBC approved devices: http://www.igbconline.org/images/pdf/130128_certified_products_list.pdf

Ben beat me to it.

ya,ya,ya. I know the bears want in. But would you prefer a flat, or at least flatter side? What if it costs an oz in thickness for strength? 2 oz?

I'm fine with the cyclindrical design. My BearVault(s) fit transversely across the top of my pack just fine, putting the weight high and forward where I want it. My frame prevents contact between my back and the packbag, so that's fine (and airy).

Whoa! That sucks about the Bearikade, but that photo has a way of making a point.

HJ
Adventures in Stoving

the Bearier 700 that Anna posted about seems interesting. However… Camp4Outdoors hasn't updated their site since mid 2011. I wonder if they gave up or couldn't get approval?

Definitely like the idea of splitting up the halves and packing them flat, also the expandability for longer trips.

I don't see why a flat side to a bear can should give a bear any more leverage than the flat top and bottom already do. I think could be made so that the curved side and the flat side do not meet at a "corner" but rather round that off to prevent it from becoming a leverage point.

A cylinder supports itself when stomped because of the nature of the cylinder. The weight of a bear stomp is evenly distributed if it stomps from the top or bottom.

If you have a D-shape, that structural integrity is lost, and the bear canister will fold and crack on the flat side if stomped from the top or bottom.