[pct-l] ursack and titanium

[msaenz at mve-architects.com (Mike Saenz)]

And whatever happened to that Vidette bear who learned how to pop the
BV300's?
(Don't worry Jaime & Cindy, I won't resurrect THAT thread...)

Michael Saenz ,  Associate Partner
McLarand    Vasquez    Emsiek   &   Partners,   Inc.
A r c h i t e c t u r e  |  P l a n n i n g  |  I n t e r i o r s
MVE          MVE    Institutional         MVE    S t u d i o
w  w  w   .   m  v  e   -   a  r  c  h  i  t  e  c  t  s   .   c  o m

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces@mailman.backcountry.net
[mailto:pct-l-bounces@mailman.backcountry.net] On Behalf Of
dsaufley@sprynet.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:54 PM
To: Jeff Moorehead; pct-l
Subject: Re: [pct-l] ursack and titanium

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

_______________________________________________
pct-l mailing list
pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
unsubscribe or change options:
http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l