[pct-l] Cannisters and Bears- Backapackers Cache

[steve_peterson at sbcglobal.net (Steve Peterson)]

Bruce,

Carbon fiber won't give back as much weight as you hope. The bearikade from 
wild-ideas is made from CF and their little one weighs nearly 2lbs.

See http://www.wild-ideas.net

  The problem is that thin walls (necessary for light weight) will "oil can" on 
you and once that happens, the bear is into the food. Thicker walls means lots 
of epoxy and epoxy is (relatively speaking) very heavy. I know, I've been 
hand-laying some carbon fiber for a pack frame and it adds up fast.

--Steve

Bruce Harvey wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Garcia Machine folks:
> I've copied below part of a post by a hiker to the pct-l mail list.  The 
> topic of bear canisters is a perennial one.  There are literally several 
> hundred posts each year, almost all of them expressing dismay and 
> concern about weight of canisters.  That's understandable, since folks 
> hiking long distances have a fetish about pack weight.
> 
> Before someone else does so, I suggest that the Garcia Machine company 
> seriously pursue producing the present canister design using different 
> materials to significantly reduce weight.  The design could be produced 
> in carbon fiber and epoxy resin at possibly less than a pound.  
> Construction of sailboards (windsurfing boards) typically use carbon and 
> epoxy, and are very light.  I have ten-year old board that has 105 
> liters of volume which weighs less than 15 pounds.  It's construction is 
> frp (carbon fiber, ceramic fiber, epoxy resin) over a foam core, and 
> with ABS over the frp.  As demonstration of toughnes, a salesman hit it 
> with a carptenter's hammer several times, really hard hits.  There was 
> no visible effect then, and there isn't now, ten years and lots of use 
> later.
> 
> Garcia Machine could certainly continue to produce the canister in ABS, 
> and produce a premium higher cost, lightweight, frp version.  If that 
> were to be done, I believe that after due considereation of  cost versus 
> weight tradeoff for material in the lid that the premium canister might 
> very well use the ABS used in the current canister.
> 
> Personally I think the current design is fine in many respects.  
> Competitors state that the Backpackers Cache isn't waterproof.  That 
> hasn't concerned me; I set it overnight upside-down, on duff and in 
> brush that can keep it upside-down.  I haven't yet faced a swimming 
> ford; I suppose I'd apply duct tape if faced with one.  Garcia folks are 
> welcome to e-mail me for discussion.
> 
> Regards, from a fellow Califonian
> 
>> I am still on my campaign for "let's have a small bear canister under 1.5
>> pounds" for 3 to 4 days worth of food.  Enough to get me to the next 
>> resupply or
>> off the trail if I get hit by Mr. Bruin.  This 2 - 2.5 pound canister 
>> stuff is
>> ridiculous.  That is like carrying two solo tents or two REALLY warm 
>> sleeping
>> bags.  Crazy.  I cannot believe 5 years from now, we will be carrying 
>> these
>> heavy canisters.  There has to be reasonable cost alternative materials
>> somewhere in the world.  May be we could get some inexpensive titanium 
>> canisters from
>> China.  Everything seems to be made there now.  Panda bear proof, 
>> etc., etc.
>>
>> Getting ready to Section hike/attack the PCT in March, your buddy, 
>> Switchback
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pct-l mailing list
>> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
>> unsubscribe or change options:
>> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>