Have you seen this new Bear Canister.

Lighter1

With in the last week, Lighter1 has received confirmation of product approval from IGBC and only waits for approval from Yosemite. Full scale production of both size canisters starts immediately and should be available soon.

Edited by jeffm22 on 01/22/2012 15:37:07 MST.

I don't care for the lidless pot gimmick lid. Price seems high if you are only interested in the little one. What size capacity do they have? My wife wife heard the music on the video and said that alone would stop her from buying whatever I was watching.
We'll see.

Edit I see 5 and 11 liter sizes listed.

Oh and the buy two deal only includes one lid

Edited by kthompson on 01/22/2012 18:31:11 MST.

We might all think about this one if they could stop the music on the video.

--B.G.--

$80 pan with plastic thing attached to it.

At that price, weight, being transparent, and the dual-purpose lid, it's one I'd seriously consider. I'd be left to make my own UL pot lid, but that's easy. It's actually a pretty good diameter for good canister stove efficiency.

After previous posts, I was expecting some horrid head-banger music, but didn't find it an issue. But I checked and my mute button worked just fine.

@ Ken,
Why don't you like the lid design that doubles as a pan? I normally don't carry a pan but if I have to carry a bear canister than a pan would be an extra I would think..

They gave the dimensions of the small one as 7" X 9". Assuming a 9" diameter, that gives volume of ~427 c.i. Even if the diameter is 7", the volume is still ~333 c.i.

If it is the former, this could be a real improvement. If one is careful, they can get a lot of food into 427 c.i. In my case, probably 5-6 days worth at just over 19 oz/day. Even if the volume turns out to be only ~333 c.i., it is enough space for 3, maybe 4 days.

I'll be watching this one very closely.

Dimensions are normally given as the external dimensions. The volume is normally given as the internal volume. Big difference.

It is only slightly lighter than the small Bear Boxer, and for significantly more money.

--B.G.--

What happens if Yosemite says no?

The little Bareboxer Contender is $50 1.6 lbs 275 ci 7.4 inch dia. 8 inches tall for comparison.

I am not fond of the see through aspect either. Get some sun on your can and the contents get all sweaty. Chaff that.

Edited by kthompson on 01/22/2012 18:39:10 MST.

@ Sam What happens with your canister while you are eating or off rinsing out the pan? Only takes a few unguarded moments for your food to be gone.
I'm all for dual use. When it makes sense.

"What happens if Yosemite says no? "

That's why the Lighter1 web site was filled with forward-thinking words and no committed dates or promises.

--B.G.--

I thought about the metal lid/dinner plate problem too Ken.
When i cook on trail i use the freezer bag method or rehydrate food in a hard sided ziplock container.

An option to have a lighter ABS or Poly carbonate lid would seem like a way to save weight and cost here as well as avoid the problem dual use would impose.
Which is; having an open bear canister while using the lid as a pan and having a bear canister lid that smells like cooked food (unless you just boil water in it).
I am also wondering if that internal support is neccesary or if it was just to give the pan/lid a handle.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/22/2012 18:25:51 MST.

Let's see now...... a 6 oz metal fry pan/handle/top........


Do I REALLY want to cook in (part of) my bear can? Seems like that would add significantly to the food odor problem. I might as well put a dinner bell on the bear can.


What if I get really careless and over-heat it; will it warp? How much deformation would it take much before the closure was no longer secure?


No, thanks. I'll stick with my Bearikade Expedition.

In the King Range here your canister must be lidded and locked if out of arms reach.

"Dimensions are normally given as the external dimensions. The volume is normally given as the internal volume. Big difference."

That doesn't leave much to work with, since they only specified dimensions in the video. Any idea how big a difference? It would be interesting to know how thich the wall of the body is. That would make a volume calculation simple.

Edited by ouzel on 01/22/2012 20:39:09 MST.

The video provided the volume in liters.

"The video provided the volume in liters."

By golly, you're right, Eugene. I missed it the first time thru. 5 liters is only about 300 c.i., which doesn't fill the bill for me. Phooey, I was really excited there for a few hours. :(

Bob was spot on in his comment that there's a big difference between inner and outer length and diameter specs.

Ken stated: "The little Bareboxer Contender is $50 1.6 lbs 275 ci 7.4 inch dia. 8 inches tall for comparison."

So, the small one here is slightly roomier inside and slightly lighter in weight for a higher cost. It's no breakthrough.

--B.G.--

"Let's see now...... a 6 oz metal fry pan/handle/top........


Do I REALLY want to cook in (part of) my bear can? Seems like that would add significantly to the food odor problem. I might as well put a dinner bell on the bear can."




I tend not to use an odor proof bag, so the pan isn't a negative for me. I don't cook, so it's not a plus for me either, but I can see how it would be a great multi use item for some hikers.

Let's see, if this gets Yosemite approved, then it costs about the same as a bearvault 500, has 1/2 a liter less capacity give or take, and weighs 5 oz less.

Ignoring the silly frying pan gimmick, which as noted you can't use in bear areas anyway since that would leave the canister open, that seems like a good deal.

The bearikade weekender has about the same capacity, and weighs 5 oz less, but costs 225.

Ideally they would dump the frying pan lid marketing angle which sort of makes them sound silly, and if they can lighten it even more without that, would be interesting.

Hope they get full approval of it, and that they figure out why frying in your canister lid is a bad idea..

Edited by hhope on 01/23/2012 02:39:09 MST.