[pct-l] ursack and titanium

[jeffmoorehead1 at cox.net (Jeff Moorehead)]

never old news, Shelly. I thought a titanium bucket would be better, rather 
than the half-bucket with open ends. That would take care of the 'memory' 
problem-- which to me points out one of the biggest problems of the 
half-cylinder. That is, a bear could eventually get its jaws around food 
items inside the Ursack even with the aluminum lining. It could really do 
some 'shape modification' of said items even if it's not able to extract and 
steal them. The titanium bucket would be extremely expensive and might begin 
to work against the whole idea of enclosing everything in a kevlar sack.
May the quest for a lightweight bear cannister continue!
[And we better get off this subject before we get black-listed :)]



>I realize this is old news, but I noticed today that the current version of 
>Ursack has received conditional approval.  This is a combo 5.9 oz bag with 
>a 14 oz aluminum liner.  I sent an email to tomcohen@ursack.com inquiring 
>whether he has considered a titanium version of the liner.  He replied that 
>he was in contact with a manufacturer who told him that the material would 
>cost about $40 and would have less "memory" than aluminum.  He didn't say 
>what the weight differential would be.  It sounds as though he left it at 
>that.  If anyone besides me would be interested to see further research 
>into the titanium option, you might encourage him with another email at the 
>address above. :-)
>
> Shelly
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l