Sawyer Squeeze 0.1 mini and regular flow rates

I don't have any current numbers to add to yours but my general impressions are as follows.

Mini is more predictable than my original full size filter. It will gradually slow with use but backflushing restores it.

Mini is much easier to backflush with the syringe than the original.

Mini's flow rate feels and looks about the same as the full size filter.

I'm very satisfied with the mini and have no plans to buy another full size one.

it seems like the flow rate of Sawyer filters is wildly variable

like Bob Gross reported that when he changed the length of output hose a little it made a big difference

I only use Squeeze mode, and sometimes it seems like I have to squeeze harder

When I backflush before and after each trip, it seems to always be usable

Hey, don't blame it on me. I only called it like I saw it.

I do not see a great amount of flow difference from one brand of filter to another, as long as the filter is clean and in good shape. Different filters have different life expectancies. The small change in hose length surprised me.

–B.G.–

Which Sawyer filter is the big mini? =)

I had the squeeze and then the mini, and for me the mini had better flow. The membrane tubing is supposed to be the same on these filters, just less of it in the mini. IMO there is too much possible influence from outside forces to be able to compare the filters directly, factors such as how clogged or clean each is, how each was first backflushed (which could create more-or-less permanent paths of least resistance), altitude (both are a lot slower up high), etc.

"I found the sawyer mini annoyingly slow on my last trip"
Same here. Love the compact size, but I'm probably going back to the Squeeze for regular use.
I use an Evernew bag on the dirty side, and am pretty heavy-handed.
Just timed them both filtering 16oz of tap water into a measuring cup-4 times each.

Squeeze: ~9 seconds all four times.

Mini: ~40, 23, 32, and 25 seconds, respectively.

The Mini got much slower in actual use when filtering water twice a day for a week, recently. Had to be backflushed via a flip-top Smartwater bottle daily just to keep it flowing at a decent rate.

I've only used the Squeeze for up to 4 days at a time, but don't recall ever *having* to backflush it. I do it preemptively sometimes, though, since I use a water tornado and Platy bag on the clean side, and can backflush any time they're hooked up.

"Mini is much easier to backflush with the syringe than the original."
With the syringe, my Squeeze and Mini backflush exactly the same.

I use the 0.1 micron filter out of a Sawyer Personal Water Bottle, connected below the dirty bag with 5′ of tubing and with a 4-5″ piece of tubing at the outflow. When this setup was new, I was getting a flow rate of 1 L in about 55 seconds.

I cut pre-filter disks out of 1-micron diesel filter pouches, to put in the plastic fitting at the output of the dirty bag. Check out the results of a 3-day trip to Aloha Lake in the Desolation Wilderness:

Dirty disk

I had similar silt issues after one night at Frog Lake south of Echo Lake on the PCT. Flow was reduced to a trickle — many minutes needed to filter 2 L. I used two such disks that night and was left with only one clean. Luckily that lasted the next 3 days. I will take more spares on future trips (they do not register on my gram scale).

I had not thought of back-flushing with distilled water, which was recently mentioned in another thread on storing Sawyer minis. Living in SoCal downstream of the Colorado, this seems like a no-brainer vs. using tap water.

"(they do not register on my gram scale)."

You need to get scale with finer resolution : )

For me, the new car smell has worn off with the mini. I'd rather deal with the extra bulk of the squeeze than read War and Peace while filtering water with the mini.

"I found the sawyer mini annoyingly slow on my last trip"
Same here. Love the compact size, but I'm probably going back to the Squeeze for regular use.

That was also what I wanted to check other experiences, my conclusion is hovering around it not being worth it to bring the mini because it takes so long to filter the water. Fine for gravity hanging in camp though.

Hopefully there will be some more actual user data so I can compare.

The 9 seconds to heavy handedly filter a liter explains the failed bags reported, lol. Heavy handed data though doesn't help since that too relative, when I say 'light handed' I mean, a light squeeze with one hand on the bag, just enough to create a bit of extra pressure, otherwise there's no actual data to compare.

What I'm looking for is actual data however, I'm curious what people actually get from their filters in a comparable test, ie, 16oz filtered no squeeze and light squeeze.

What I can't figure out is why the mini was relatively fast in one test, and the normal size slow.

I believe to emulate regular use, you have to get it wet, let it sit for a while, then start the tests.

I'm also debating cutting off the sawyer mini input tube, and enlarging that hole, that's a very small space for water to enter, and I am wondering if at least part of the difference between the mini and regular is that inlet tube, the regular has a large hole on the input side, vs about a 3/16" hole inside the connector tube on the mini. Since I never use the input tube for anything, it would not be a loss.

So in other words, what I'm looking for is a clock, 2 cups of water, or a liter if you prefer, so that apples can be compared to apples, plus the results.

I think I'll modify the mini to get rid of the input tube and enlarge the inlet hole that would be left, if I can get in there without breaking stuff.

Also note, I picked up a 2 oz syringe at a medical supply store, it has a tapered tip, not like the one that sawyer gives you, that's a silly product because it's made for insertion into a screwed type catheter connection, not pushing into something to get a seal. If you use a tapered tip and an output hose you get a perfect connection every time and there is zero difference between backflushing the mini or regular, I consider the syringe as part of the filter myself unless it's a trip under 3 days, so that's included in the weight of the filtration system, particularly with the mini.

"The 9 seconds to heavy handedly filter a liter explains the failed bags reported…;"

and possibly failed filters too… perhaps he just blew a hole through the filter material?

Billy

Ok, tested both again, now the results match my in the field experiences.

Note that I pulled off the input tube from the mini, which makes it pretty fair to compare them since the input holes are now the same size, roughly, and the output tube length is similar, 3-4". Note that the no squeeze test is the best one to check actual flow rate of the filter since there is nothing subjective. I used a 900ml evernew bag and just hold it by the top. For the light squeeze, I lightly roll it up while squeezing it.

2 cups no squeeze except to start:

mini: 3:15 – 3:30 over a few tests.
regular: 1:00 – 1:15

light squeeze:
mini: 1:15-1:30
regular: 40 seconds.

That's what I saw in the field roughly. Squeezing is hard to gauge accurately, I probably sqeezed less hard on the regular is my guess.

There's a pretty major difference between flowrates for the two without a squeeze, as you can see, this is the most interesting piece of information to me, and it explains why I was starting to carry 16-32oz extra of water rather than wait to fill at every creek, which would be in the region of 'stupid light' for my style, ie, carrying more water to avoid filling up waits with the mini. ie, to save 1.5 ounces or so on the filter, carry 16 to 32 of water.

I always bring a syringe on any longer trip, and I use it, so it's not a question of clogging.

I'm curious if anyone else can reproduce the no squeeze speeds for the mini and/or regular. As you can see, it's almost 3x slower with the mini in my tests, which probably corresponds exactly to the number of tubes in both is my guess, ie, the surface area total or tube total, however it works.

None of this applies to the sawyer mini being used as an inline filter, that's how I used it most I now realize since that's fine. I'm not sure I'll bring it again for longer trip though where I'm mainly filling up at creeks.

I have found with my regular (inline, prior to the squeeze version) that when the filter is "dry" it will filter slowly, sometimes very slowly. When filtering normally I can filter a liter in about a minute. When it is filtering slowly it can take 5 minutes. When it's dry I now suck a little water through the filter until I get a good flow. That has always worked once I figured that out.

Added:

To accurately test squeezing, lay the bladder on a table at the edge and place a book on top of it. The heavier the book the stronger the squeeze.

that's a great way to repeat pressure, good idea.

So that's two things that can be reproduced, the hanging flow rate, no squeeze, and a book, heavyish I would guess, but it will be the same in each test.

I retested, and the flow rate differential is similar:

5 pound book:

mini: 2:30
regular: 60 seconds

5 pounds might be too light though, I think 10 pounds is probably better.

so 2.5 to 3x slower, that fits with what I experienced with both on 6 day trips, subjectively.

The regular was not annoyingly slow, and did not change my behavior, the mini was, and did.

Using the table works well, book on bag, end of bag hanging off table, attached to filter, cup under it.

That also makes the squeeze non relative, so if you are getting vastly faster slow rates and also have blown out bags, now you know why.

[update}
10 pounds is too hard to balance on a water bladder, heh heh, tests showed:

mini: 1:40
regular: 1:00

but the stuff is wobbling around too much to be really reliable, plus the stuff is on its side, not vertical, oh well.

two pieces of wood with a bungie cord connecting them will give steady pressure, but that's only if science demands such accuracy, I think the slowness is in the mini because it's well, smaller.

Anyway, the natural flow rate with no squeeze should represent the actual squeeze flow rate fine since it's the same chanels/tubes.

I used a 10 pound barbell flat round weight, that is easier to balance on the bag.

Because the bag is horizontal on the table, I added a cup of water, but timed only 2 cups as before.

The results are consistent:

mini: 1:20
regular: 0:38

ie, 2x faster for regular.

So the mini does not appear to be smaller lighter and the same, but rather appears to be smaller, lighter, and slower, which is what I thought, I wasn't sure if they used the same element in it, but it looks like it's a smaller one.

Also, the times here are with 10 pounds squeeze, which is pretty heavy, I don't think I'd want to put 20 pounds on the bag consistently, I would hazard the guess that this explains a lot of the burst/failed bags as well.

For the regular, with this data, that would give a liter filter3ed at 1:15, which is a more than light pressure on the bag. The mini would be around 2:40 for a liter, using a moderate, not light pressure.

But I'm still wondering what the variance is between people's sawyers using the same no squeeze/10 pound squeeze, though the data is consistent in my tests between my two, so maybe that data is actually good.

"The 9 seconds to heavy handedly filter a liter explains the failed bags reported, lol."

That was 2 cups. Did 1L in ~19 seconds, matching a youtube video I found, when I "tested" it awhile back.
In the field, I usually just sit on a rock or log with the dirty bag under my leg, so there's no effort involved. Numbers from the kitchen sink don't mean much beyond establishing which is potentially faster.
I've been using the same 1.5L Evernew bag with both the Mini and the Squeeze(s) for 22 months, and filtered water with it 100+ times.
Must be doing something horribly wrong…

Owen, as I assumed everyone reading this would be aware, the bag failures in question are the sawyer bags, particularly the older bags, which had/have a terrible reputation for durability. The method you described certainly seems to be a great way to make the weaker sawyer bags fail, particularly if you were following a youtube video, I'd assume that you weren't the only one to do so. Not to say they were not too thin or defectively made, but that amount of pressure in a thin plastic bag of already questionable quality/durability certainly would have increased the odds of failure significantly.

Re your experience with the evernew 1.5 liter dirty water bag bag, it's nice to know that evernews will handle at least about 25 person-days of such use (assuming 4x+ a day filtering), speaks well for their build quality and overall durability, but that's really not related in anyway to the topic of this thread, though it is an interesting data point.

I was actually hoping to get confirmed the flow rates as I described above but I think the results I am seeing on my own are pretty typical, though I wanted actual data to confirm that.

The 'kitchen sink tests' were to test something I'd seen on the trail using the two types, and the tests did (confirm it, that it is).

Hopefully this is clear enough. However, this thread didn't seem to attract anyone interested in checking the results, so that's fine.

I found the mini to be consistently significantly slower. I have switched back to the larger Sawyer for now.

Harald,

Here are some numbers from my two filters, for comparison. 500ml

Mini

Squeeze mode-First try = 51 seconds. Second try= 44 seconds Firm squeezing.

Gravity mode with no squeezing at all = 2 minutes 43 seconds.

Regular

Squeeze mode-First try= 1 minute. Second try= 54 seconds Firm squeezing.
Gravity mode with no squeezing =4 minutes 50 seconds

Additional Info

Both filters have been used to filter about 10 gallons of water.

As usual, the regular filter had to be coaxed back to life. No water would go through it when I first took it out of storage. I used the garden hose to get it started. It went from no-flow to full flow suddenly, as if something inside the filter became unstock.

So, for the two filters I have the mini is the clear winner on all counts. Maybe my regular filter was defective?