[pct-l] ursack and titanium

[dsaufley at sprynet.com (dsaufley@sprynet.com)]

I like the idea of the flexible aluminum insert.  One of the beefs I have with bear cannisters (aside from the weight) is their inflexibility.  You could "downsize" the current SIBBG approved system to accomodate the amount of food you're carrying.  However, a lighter weight titanium version that is flexible, rather than an inflexible bucket,  would be my preference.  If SIBBG approved the open ended version, it's okay by me -- as long as the rangers let me through and the bears can't eat my food.  I also plan to use their odor barrier bags to hopefully help minimize bears being attracted in the first place.  

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Moorehead <jeffmoorehead1@cox.net>
>Sent: Feb 21, 2006 10:01 AM
>To: pct-l <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] ursack and titanium
>
>
>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 
>
>_______________________________________________
>pct-l mailing list
>pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
>unsubscribe or change options:
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l