Ultra Light Bear Canister
Display Avatars Sort By:
jeff mchenry
(jeffm22) - M
Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 15:31:32 MST Print View

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.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 15:38:42 MST Print View

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.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 16:09:37 MST Print View

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

--B.G.--

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 17:06:08 MST Print View

$80 pan with plastic thing attached to it.

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 17:21:28 MST Print View

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.

Samuel Kau
(Skau)

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 17:55:43 MST Print View

@ 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..

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Interesting possibility on 01/22/2012 17:59:39 MST Print View

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.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Interesting possibility on 01/22/2012 18:07:04 MST Print View

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.--

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 18:07:40 MST Print View

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.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 18:10:56 MST Print View

@ 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.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 01/22/2012 18:12:02 MST Print View

"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.--

a b
(Ice-axe)
UL Bear canister on 01/22/2012 18:19:09 MST Print View

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.

Bob Bankhead
(wandering_bob) - MLife

Locale: Oregon, USA
UL Bear canister on 01/22/2012 18:26:39 MST Print View

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.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: UL Bear canister on 01/22/2012 18:54:19 MST Print View

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

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Interesting possibility on 01/22/2012 20:36:23 MST Print View

"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.

drowning in spam
(leaftye) - F

Locale: SoCal
Re: Re: Re: Interesting possibility on 01/22/2012 20:38:40 MST Print View

The video provided the volume in liters.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting possibility on 01/22/2012 20:44:17 MST Print View

"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.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting possibility on 01/22/2012 21:12:01 MST Print View

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.--

drowning in spam
(leaftye) - F

Locale: SoCal
Re: UL Bear canister on 01/22/2012 21:18:34 MST Print View

"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.

Harald Hope
(hhope) - M

Locale: East Bay
sounds interesting on 01/23/2012 02:28:26 MST Print View

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.

carl becker
(carlbecker) - F

Locale: Northern Virginia
Re: sounds interesting on 01/23/2012 07:39:59 MST Print View

The lighter 1 is 10 ounces lighter than the Bearikade and IMHO much smaller as well as cheaper. The pan part makes no sense what so ever. I have a small Bear Boxer which has a heavy lid also. I am sure a lighter carbon/kevlar version $$$ would be much lighter and would really like a 7" dia by 9" long can, fits my pack better.

Erik Basil
(EBasil) - M

Locale: Atzlan
Hmmm, interesting on 01/23/2012 08:48:27 MST Print View

I'm not as quick to condemn it, and I'd like to check one out to get a feel for issues/questions like the "will the pan warp" and "can I fill it as full as a BearVault with the brace in there" type stuff. Otherwise, seeing a lighter, transparent canister is always good.

Okay, I admit to some humor at the prospect of having the lid of my canister being what I sizzled trout or marmot steaks in. I reckon that's more food odor than the utensils I'm gonna stash in the can.

I guess this is the season for bear canister testing and release, so let's keep our hopes up for good stuff.

Greg F
(GregF) - F

Locale: Canadian Rockies
Boil Water on 01/23/2012 09:44:40 MST Print View

I kind like the pan idea. For boiling water only if it can hold 3 cups it is not a bad solution. No odor will be transferred and you save 3.5 ozs on your pot so you are up to about 8ozs total savings. It is definately worth looking at if it gets all of its approvals.

As for leaving your bear can open while you eat personally that is not too big of an issue for me because if a bear sneaks up on me and steals my food with is within arms reach of me while I am eating supper it is probably not safe for me to eat supper.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Hmmm, interesting on 01/23/2012 10:45:03 MST Print View

"marmot steaks"

Erik, I bet you have a good recipe.

--B.G.--

USA Duane Hall
(hikerduane) - F

Locale: Extreme northern Sierra Nevada
Good Marmot recipe? on 01/23/2012 11:15:47 MST Print View

I'm with Bob, it would save packing a few dinners if we had a good Marmot recipe. :)
Duane

shane sibert
(grinder) - F

Locale: P.N.W
Bear can on 01/23/2012 11:17:28 MST Print View

Kudos for innovation.

But...as others have mentioned, dont like the frying pan lid idea because of smell and mess. Also, dont like how there are more parts then need be. Would hate to lose those screws, just another tiny thing to have to keep track of. If you lost them, looks like you are SOL.And in Bear country, it is a serious matter to have food secured for safty to you and your food supply.


Also, what if the lid does get punctured by a bear tooth or the like, now you have a hole in your frying pan!

Alex Wallace
(FeetFirst) - F

Locale: Northern California
weight on 01/23/2012 12:41:21 MST Print View

I just wanted to make sure everyone realized that the 1 pound, 5 ounce weight for the smaller unit is for the cut up Alhambra water bottle only. It does not include the weight of the "frying pan" lid nor internal support. Those two items add an additional 6 ounces, which brings the total weight for the smaller unit to 1 pound, 11 ounces.

I e-mailed the company and they confirmed this. They explained that since the lid/pan and internal support/pan handle can be used with both the smaller and larger unit, they don't include the weight into the description of each individual unit.

Seems a bit misleading to me, but maybe I'm the minority here.

Edited by FeetFirst on 01/23/2012 14:18:15 MST.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: weight on 01/23/2012 12:58:36 MST Print View

"Seems a bit misleading to me, but maybe I'm the minority here."

It's misleading. But that is what a marketing department is for.

--B.G.--

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Re: weight on 01/23/2012 13:17:21 MST Print View

Alex: Thanks for tracking that data down.

Yes, it's misleading. Each canister spec should include its weight AS USED, since if you have the lid on the other canister, the first canister is just a goldfish bowl.

Lots of people are calling it a frying pan, but unlike HikinJim, I'd don't do omelets or pancakes on the trail. And I certaily don't cook fish or any meat in areas with real bears (brown, polar) around. I see that pan as a way to boil water and do normal pot things, especially if I made a lightweight lid for it.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: weight on 01/23/2012 17:04:19 MST Print View

"Seems a bit misleading to me, but maybe I'm the minority here."

Add one to your count. I'm done with these guys. I don't deal with people who practice deception in their marketing. At 1# 11 oz for 300 c.i., this is nothing but a mini Garcia and likely not as bombproof.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: weight on 01/23/2012 17:07:52 MST Print View

You know, if you have a good product, sooner or later it will "sell itself."

If you don't have a good product, then you need a marketing department that is ethically challenged.

--B.G.--

John Kays
(johnk) - M

Locale: SoCal
Ethically Challenged! on 01/23/2012 17:15:02 MST Print View

I actually didn't mind the music and was developing a positive feel for these cans until I was overtaken by the frustration of trying to compare the volume with other cans and the blatant misrepresentation of the weight.

drowning in spam
(leaftye) - F

Locale: SoCal
Re: Re: weight on 01/23/2012 17:18:22 MST Print View

While I think the pan idea can be useful, I stopped paying attention when they listed the volume in liters instead of cubic inches. Either they're out of touch with their potential customers or they were trying to obfuscate the volume and making it harder to compare to its competitors.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Ethically Challenged! on 01/23/2012 17:22:06 MST Print View

The first thing that caught my eye was their forward-thinking statements and promises. Well, they probably feel that they are forced to do that. They probably recognize that their product is slightly inferior, so they have to increase the hype in order to get it to move at all. Their other tactic might be to lower the price.

--B.G.--

Alex Wallace
(FeetFirst) - F

Locale: Northern California
Re: Re: weight on 01/23/2012 17:48:52 MST Print View

DavidinKenai, "Alex: Thanks for trackign that data down."

Your welcome, David. When I first read the less than possitive comments in the thread, I thought "c'mon guys, give a new product a chance." I went to their site, checked out the specs, and began to compare the numbers with the other offerings to see how their products stacked up against the competition. While reading the product description and specs, I felt like the way the information was presented seemed awkward (e.g. "cannister" weight and lid weight seperated), which is what prompted me to e-mail the company for a confirmed total wieght. The good news is that the company replied to my e-mail in a couple of hours, but as you all know, not with the response I would have liked to receive.

Harald Hope
(hhope) - M

Locale: East Bay
wow, that really is misleading on 01/23/2012 22:39:04 MST Print View

That's astounding, so the canister 11 liter size weighs 2 pounds 4oz plus 6 oz for the lid, ie, 2 pounds 10 oz? A touch more than a bearvault that is?

Talk about deceptive advertising, I agree, I'll skip these guys in any future canister considerations.

Good to see some active BS detection goin on here, I thought at first it was a negative over-reaction, but it appears to have merely been a a finely honed BS detector at work.

So I guess the bear canister weight/price issue really is a hard nut to crack, explains why bearvault hasn't changed all that much, or the Garcias.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: wow, that really is misleading on 01/23/2012 22:54:57 MST Print View

A couple of years ago I saw a backpacker loading up his pack at a Yosemite trailhead, including his bear canister. At least that's what it was supposed to be.

It was a home-made bear canister made out of a Rubbermaid container and a lot of duct tape.

First of all, I don't think it would do more than slightly slow down an eager Yosemite black bear. Second, if a park ranger caught him with that kind of crap, I'm sure there would have been a citation.

I don't know whether the backpacker didn't know any better, or whether he just didn't care.

--B.G.--

Donna C
(leadfoot) - M

Locale: Middle Virginia
Re: sounds interesting on 01/24/2012 03:59:43 MST Print View

I'm all for innovation,especially in bear canisters. The thing I am not fond about is the price. The smaller is the same as the larger? Really? And if I buy both and get only one lid, that won't work very well. If I go out with a friend and we take both canisters, what do I use for lid? Buy a new one? And the price is? probably $50.

I would like to think that customer service would be good, especially if a bear can gain entry into it and a new lid is redeveloped....getting a free replacement.

They need to just give weights of each item and one can figure it out. The lid doesn't bother me. I wouldn't cook with it, so no problem there. I do wish they showed a much more detailed way of locking and unlocking the lid.

I'll keep my Bareboxer for short trips.

Edited by leadfoot on 01/24/2012 04:47:15 MST.

Steven Kleen
(Skleen) - F

Locale: Southern California
Comments from Lighter1 on 07/12/2012 11:25:45 MDT Print View

After nearly 5 years of waiting, Yosemite/SEKI has only recently been able to communicate with us regarding our product due to a lawsuit involving another bear canister that has finally been resolved. We are in process of finalizing our webpage and the input from this blog has been most helpful. We will rework our measurements into cubic inches. We must do a better job of educating the readers that Lighter1 is actually two products, a cooking pan for heating water and a bear canister. When used for dual purposes, there are few alternatives that are any lighter. I am a retired eye doctor and we are a Christian family. We are bothered that there are misconceptions as we felt we clearly state that there are two products. We will reword the webpage to make it as clear as possible that we are two products, a cooking pan for heating water and a bear canister to avoid any misunderstandings. We recognize that not everyone will always see value. For our family, we had to carry a pan for heating water and a bear canister to carry food, both of which took up space and weight. The dual purpose of this product effectively reduces both the weight and volume from our packs. We will be addressing the above issues when we do our final webpage update in the next few weeks and begin more active sales of our product. Thank you all for your opinions and insights. Steve

Hiking Malto
(gg-man) - F
Sorry on 07/12/2012 13:13:24 MDT Print View

Your explanation doesn't make sense. You claim it is two products yet you could never get certified without using the two of them together. So in reality it is one product with a dual use for one of the components. I would scrap the whole frying pan idea if it added even a penny to the cost. If you are cooking away on your frying pan and need to get more water you would have to carry your open canister with you or risk having your whole canisters food eaten as the aroma of you dinner acts like a dinner bell.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Sorry on 07/12/2012 13:15:30 MDT Print View

You would think that a retired eye doctor could see the truth.

--B.G.--

Angus A.
(mangus7175) - F

Locale: http://theshadedtrail.blogspot.com
Re: Comments from Lighter1 on 07/12/2012 15:07:35 MDT Print View

"We must do a better job of educating the readers that Lighter1 is actually two products, a cooking pan for heating water and a bear canister."

So if a buyer decides NOT to purchase the lid, is there an alternate lid that can be purchased? Or does the buyer HAVE to get both products?

Why market the lid and the canister as two products if you need them both to work together as intended? Doesn't make sense to me...maybe I'm missing something here.

Edited by mangus7175 on 07/12/2012 16:30:31 MDT.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Re: Sorry on 07/12/2012 17:15:32 MDT Print View

I think he is an optometrist, not an ophthamologist.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Comments from Lighter1 on 07/12/2012 18:02:19 MDT Print View

They are two products only if you can use them independently. Your advertising is misleading! You are not selling a 1 lb 5 oz bear canister, because it only becomes a bear canister once you add in the 5 oz lid and 1 oz support. And as for trying to tug on religious sympathies... well I am not a member of your religion; is your product only geared toward Christian backpackers?

All that being said, I am still quite interested in your product. I like to fry fish when I backpack, so this would be a 2 for 1 for me. At its true weight of 27 ounces it is still an ounce less than the Bearikade Scout at less than 1/2 the price (albeit 3/5th the volume... but still big enough for a weekend).

So ... if you want to sell your product... I, as a potential customer, have some suggestions as you rework your website:

-clarify the price... you list price but don't say if that includes shipping and handling. Is tax charged anywhere?

-add contact information both email address and a physical location. I am not going to send someone with a website money if I don't know where they are located.

-list the actual total weight of the bear can... then advertise that weight includes the weight of the pan and handle.

-list volume on the website, not just in the video

-don't autostart the video

Additionally I would appreciate if you could address on here (and your website) if using the lid as a fry pan will cause it to warp and become unusable as a bear canister.

Steve B
(geokite) - F

Locale: Southern California
Relevant on 07/13/2012 11:13:34 MDT Print View

Ya, the statement "I am a retired eye doctor and we are a Christian family." was soooooo relevant to the product and this forum.

Steve

Erik Basil
(EBasil) - M

Locale: Atzlan
Don't spaz, fellas on 07/21/2012 10:34:14 MDT Print View

Are you deeply fearful of religion? Does even that question spark so much fear that you're ready to expound some alternate explanation? Are you old enough to realize you've been baited by the preceding sentence and to be mature enough to shut the hell up and focus upon THE PRODUCT being discussed?

We'll see.

Now, I'm off to the intarwebz to see if the web listing is updated. Like others, I believe the "product" isn't a product with a weight and price until all the necessary parts are together. I remain, however, ever optimistic regarding the creation of a better mousetrap.

[edit:] Yeah...okay, not thrilled with the marketing. I think it would be more truthful and useful to advert/sell the complete item, plus a "total set" with two bins and one lid, plus extra lids. This doesn't cost $85, it costs $125, minimum, right?[edit]

Edited by EBasil on 07/21/2012 10:40:01 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 08/18/2012 22:46:14 MDT Print View

I see that they have updated the way you can order. Says they got Yosemite approval.


Everyone will lose that little screw rendering it useless as a canister.

Edited by kthompson on 08/18/2012 23:07:27 MDT.

Kevin Burton
(burtonator) - F

Locale: norcal
reverse on 08/18/2012 22:56:46 MDT Print View

I think the REVERSE would be better. A large POT with a lid attached. You could throw the food in a stuff sack. I wonder how much more it would weigh ?

Either that or make it a partial pot so I can cook more water with it... I don't use a pan... Hm...

Robert Blean
(blean) - MLife

Locale: San Jose -- too far from Sierras
Summary on 08/20/2012 00:28:39 MDT Print View

Now that the Lighter1 products are approved for Yosemite and SEKI, I got to thinking about them again. Here is a summary I made to help me organize my thoughts. I'm sure someone will point out any errors in my thinking :) Besides, some may find it nice to have all the info collected in one place.

Counting the products just as bear canisters, I do not see either of the Lighter1 products as lighter than the competition:

Small Lighter1 -- comparison is the Bare Boxer Contender
*) Size is nice -- 7" diameter is the slimmest I know. As long as that is bear-proof, great -- fits better in small packs.
*) Weight -- Lighter1 is heavier (28 oz vs 26 oz)
*) Volume -- Lighter1 is a little roomier (300 ci vs 275 ci)
*) Price -- Lighter1 is much more expensive ($85 vs $39 (@ Detour Gear))
Lighter1 costs more than twice as much, is a little heavier (2 oz), and a little bigger (25 ci)

FWIW: Bearikade Scout is much more expensive than Lighter1, the same weight, and 2/3 bigger (500 vs 300 ci)

Big Lighter1 -- comparison is Bearikade Weekender, since Lighter1 is claiming light weight:
*) Weight -- Lighter1 is MUCH heavier (43 oz vs 31 oz, a 12 ounce difference)
*) Volume -- same -- both are ~650 ci
*) Price -- Lighter1 is much less expensive
Lighter1 is much less expensive, but also much heavier

Big Lighter1 -- comparison is Bear Vault 500, to keep the price closer
*) Weight -- Lighter1 is heavier (43 oz vs 41 oz)
*) Volume -- Lighter1 is smaller (650 ci vs 700 ci)
*) Price -- Lighter1 is more expensive ($90 vs $72 (Amazon) or $80 (REI))
Bear Vault 500 wins on all counts, though not by a huge amount

Now Lighter1 would claim I am forgetting the dual use cover. Here are some comments on that:

Many folks interested in a light pack are using a Caldera Cone -- in that case the Lighter1 "pot" is not usable, so there is no weight offset and the above points remain undisturbed.

The Lighter1 pot is usable if not using a Caldera Cone. In that case, let's compare to the Evernew 900ml titanium pot + lid -- 4.2 oz (pot alone is 2.9 oz)

Take your pick:
*) 2.2 oz saving: 4.2 oz vs Lighter1 pot lid of 2 oz for mfr supplied lids
*) 2.9 oz saving: assumes make own lid for each, so we ignore those weights

-- the small Lighter1 is less than one ounce lighter than the Contender, for more than double the price

-- the large Lighter1 is still much heavier than the Weekender, and less than one ounce lighter than the Bear Vault 500 (while still more expensive)

As noted earlier in this thread, there are some serious questions about using the Lighter1 pot:

*) You need to keep the (open) container within arm's length until you are done cooking (or eating) and ready to close it back up, even if you only boil water. That could be awkward.

*) If you cook in the "pot", then you are adding food odors to the bear can -- I know the canister is bear proof, but you still might want to think about odorizing it more than necessary.

*) If you use the pot's lid, then you have something with food odor that you cannot put in the canister (the lid is 7" diameter, and the canister opening is only 6" diameter). That is, among other things, illegal.

Edited by blean on 08/20/2012 00:29:39 MDT.

Mary D
(hikinggranny) - MLife

Locale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge
Ultra Light Bear Canister on 08/20/2012 03:11:41 MDT Print View

One advantage of the Bear Vault and Bearikade is that you can sit on them, which almost makes up for the weight and bulk. I don't think I'd want to sit on the Lighter 1, especially while frying fish! :-)

carl becker
(carlbecker) - F

Locale: Northern Virginia
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 08/20/2012 06:30:27 MDT Print View

I don't see this as much of a difference over the small Bare Boxer I currenlty have. The best feature is the size. 7" dia by 9" long is what I like. The price is higher though. I don't see the pan as anything more than the lid to the container. It needs to be on at all time. 1.5 lbs vs 1.6 lbs. I would love a Bearikade in these dimensions even at much greater cost. 325 cid would be nice also.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 08/20/2012 06:57:49 MDT Print View

Another advantage with all the other designs is that there are only two pieces to keep track of, not four. I'm telling you that little screw that holds it all together will be the center of much swearing in the backcountry. Better have a spare. Don't strip out the threads in the handle either. Don't loose that handle either.

Scott Bentz
(scottbentz) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Lighter1 on 08/20/2012 11:03:42 MDT Print View

Because of this thread I went to the Lighter1 website. It is still confusing as it shows a bear proof canister at 1 lb. 5 oz. and then the lid at 6 oz. and the handle at 1 oz. They really can't classify it as 1lb. 5oz. canister if the lid is not attached since it is just a plastic bottle at that point.

Kind of weird marketing if you ask me. Back on 7/12/2012 they said they would address the issue. I don't think it has been addressed. It just needs to be marketed as a 1lb. 12oz canister which INCLUDES a dual use cook pot.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Lighter1 on 08/20/2012 17:02:04 MDT Print View

"Back on 7/12/2012 they said they would address the issue."

To be fair to them, they only said they would clarify that they are selling two products. They did put the first line under the product as, "Lighter1 is two products!" I agree that is confusing.... what are the two products? They have stopped saying it is a 1lb 5oz bear canister and now call it a 1lb 5oz "polycarb" canister. They absolutely refuse to honestly and clearly tell their consumers how much their bear canister weighs.

I would still like to know if the lid can be used as a frying pan or is it only for heating water?

''V'' (veylupek)
(CzechClown) - MLife

Locale: JMT/PCT
LIGHTER 1 - POLYCARB CANISTER on 11/11/2012 10:20:29 MST Print View

With all the comments regarding this Bear Canister (Polycarb Canister) most all of them negative.

Has anyone purchased one or know of anyone who has purchased one?

''V'' (veylupek)
(CzechClown) - MLife

Locale: JMT/PCT
LIGHTER 1 - POLYCARB CANISTER on 12/22/2012 00:16:49 MST Print View

Has Anyone, purchased one of these canisters ? Anyone ?

''V'' (veylupek)
(CzechClown) - MLife

Locale: JMT/PCT
WTB: lighter1- ultra light bear canister on 01/02/2013 00:12:56 MST Print View

WTB: Does anyone have a lighter1 bear canister?

I would like to try a new bear canister this year on a 5 week trip PCT/JMT.

a b
(Ice-axe)
Lighter One on 01/02/2013 00:20:56 MST Print View

They were listed at the Mather Ranger station as approved bear resistant canisters.

Rangers still rent Garcia Machine Bear cans.

Still have not seen anything other than bear Bearvaults and Bearikades "in the wild".

Sure would like to see a seasonal approach to food storage.

How about Ursack S29 approval from Jan 1 to May 1st for the Yosemite and Seki?


.Jack Main Canyon
.
An example of "bear canister country".

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/02/2013 00:22:43 MST.

Open Skies Beckon
(OpenSkiesBeckon)

Locale: Colorado
Real World User on 04/04/2013 15:21:27 MDT Print View

Of a couple of 'em...

Back in the day I lived in the Sierra Nevada and hung food. Hated it. What a pain, tying up rocks, finding a tree with a branch that works, yada yada. As one who loves treeline and above, hanging food was extremely irritating.

Used a Garcia a couple times, thing was heavy and huge.

Then I got a BearVault BV450 Solo. I actually really like the twist top (even in cold temps, it was easy to open and didn't need any tools to do it). And I also really like that it's transparent. Easy to find things. And the wide opening is really convenient as well. It's really been great. LOVE that I didn't have to hang anything! Forgot to brush my teeth? No problem, didn't have to bring down my hanging stuff-bag mess just to get the toothpaste.

Then I got more and more into photography, and with 10 pounds of photo equipment, and my legs not gettin' any younger (go figure), I started the process of lightening my load (I hike solo, so whatever I need, I have to carry).

I downsized from an Osprey Aether 70 to a Granite Gear Blaze A.C. 60. After that, I found that the BearVault was just a wee bit too heavy and too big, so I wondered if there was anything a bit smaller.

Then I saw the BareBoxer (yes, it's spelled Bare) Contender online and went for it. On my small scale (EatSmart Precision Pro) it's 26.7 oz, or 1.66666- pounds. So a tad heavier than advertised. But who knows how accurate scales are. Philosophically, how does one ever truly know? Do you have to buy ten scales, weigh everything and take the average (minus the scores from that one judge from Germany)? Let's say your scale is off 1/2 oz and you have 30 items (large or small) in your pack, that's 15 oz or about a pound of difference. But I digress...

Anyway, love the size, the weight savings is nice. It's basically a baby Garcia. The BearVault on my same EatSmart scale is 33 oz, so 6.3 oz savings and again, a bit smaller, but that smaller size is much more convenient. Fits my Blaze really well now; the BearVault was just a bit too large and made it pack funny. The opening is a little strange but makes sense once you get used to it, and I do have a multi-tool (I know, I'm not a true ultralighter) that makes it easy. My only concern is just that, really: needing a tool to open it.

I miss the transparency, the larger opening and the tool-free operation of the BearVault. But the compromise is worth it. I've toyed with the idea of getting the ursack, but the comfort of a hard-sided bear canister that I don't have to tie up anywhere is at this point worth the tradeoff. It takes me 30 seconds to deal with my food once I'm done eating and such. I walk a few dozen yards from my campsite, and I'm done. I don't have to care if there are rocks or trees for tying and all that.

So if you have any questions that I haven't covered about the BearVault BV450 vs the BareBoxer Contender, fire away. No, I don't intend on selling my BearVault at this point. It's the perfect size for when my wife and I backpack together, and I don't see any 5+ night jaunts for us in the near future.

Added: Oh, and as far as fitting food into it, I think I could fit a 4-5 night trip in it, HOWEVER I do not cook on the trail (weight goes to photography equipment). Well, 5 might be pushing it... BearVault could handle 5-6 nights if all cold meals.

Edited by OpenSkiesBeckon on 04/04/2013 15:29:29 MDT.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Real World User on 04/04/2013 16:30:17 MDT Print View

Has no one around here tried a Lighter1? It reports to be the same weight and size as a bareboxer and you have multi-use potential. I am definitely thinking about getting one, but am a bit hesitant considering there response on here. I like that it is clear and doesn't appear to have a recess.

I wonder how well that closure system works. I am also wondering how well it would work for frying fish.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Real World User on 04/04/2013 17:19:38 MDT Print View

"Lighter1?"

We had quite a discussion about it here. As I vaguely recall, the issue had to do with the metal cap or no metal cap. The reported weight did not include the metal cap, yet the thing was non-functional without some kind of hard cap. If you added the metal cap, it blows the weight figures out.

It certainly sounded like one of those things that looks good on paper until you actually hold it in your hands.

I own a Garcia, three BearVaults, and one BareBoxer, so I don't really need another.

--B.G.--

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Re: Re: Real World User on 04/04/2013 17:33:03 MDT Print View

They definitely got a well deserved crappy welcome around here because of their deceptive advertising and unwillingness to admit the error. But... by my adding skills, even with the metal cap, it is within an ounce of the bareboxer.

Open Skies Beckon
(OpenSkiesBeckon)

Locale: Colorado
Re: Re: Re: Re: Real World User on 04/04/2013 23:00:47 MDT Print View

My assessments/educated guesses:

It probably behaves similarly to the BearVault in regards to transparency and large opening — both big plusses in my book as one who has used the BearVault a lot.

Weight: okay, so adding the canister portion (21 oz), cross bar (1 oz) and lid (6 oz), it comes to 28 oz IF the weight listed on their website is accurate. If you add the frying pad lid (yes, there's an optional lid for the lid that's 2 oz), then you're at 30 oz. My BareBoxer on my own happy li'l scale is 26.7 oz.

So, weight difference is nothing. cut off a few tags and leave out a few peanuts and raisins. Unless you want the 2oz Lid Lid.

BearVault BV450: only $47 at CampSaver if you wait for one of their 20% off deals. Weighs the most (33 oz on my scale), but opening it is easy and no need for tools.

BareBoxer Contender: $55 + $12 shipping via their website ($12 shipping is steep for the weight). Lighter than BearVault (26.7 oz on my scale), opening needs a tool, but more compact than BearVault. It fits nicely in my Granite Gear A.C. 60 and I would imagine in smaller pack quite well.

Lighter1: $85. I'm REALLY curious about how easy it is to open and close. Can't find anything (yet) that explains it. It looks like at least 2 screws that hold the crossbar in place. That would mean, I'd assume, a tool is necessary to open it.

NOTE #1: The Lighter1 claims 300 cubic inches with a 7" diameter and 9" length. The BareBoxer claims 275 cubic inches with 7.4" diameter and 8" length. WIth just those measurements, it's 344 cubic inches to 346 cubic inches, so all I can figure is that the plastic is thicker and/or the curves are more pronounced on the BareBoxer to give it that much less volume. Or that nice big opening on the Lighter1 is part of the equation.

NOTE #2: I've found that the more narrow, the better. So in theory, the Lighter1 would be beneficial, however it is 1 inch longer than BareBoxer, so it might really stretch a narrow pack if packed horizontally.

NOTE #3: I've found the price differences aren't worth caring about for something like this: get the product that is best for your need, the $20-40 difference will be long forgotten in a year.

SO...

If weight is most important: BareBoxer (26.7 oz). Then Lighter1 (28 oz or 30 oz with Lid Lid). Then BearVault (33 oz).

If easy access is most important: BearVault wins. No tools. I've never had any problems, even if I've had to take off a glove for 5 seconds on the coldest mornings. BearBoxer needs a tool, Lighter1 has at least 2 Mystery Screws.

If cost is most important: BearVault wins. Wait for a C@mpS@ver 20% special, you can get it for $47.

If transparency is most important: TIE between BearVault and Lighter1.

If wide, easy access is most important: TIE between BearVault and Lighter1.

If smallest diameter is most important: Lighter1.

If largest volume (of the three in question) is most important: BearVault.

If length/height is most important: BareBoxer.

If having a built-in frying pan (with our without Lid Lid) is most important: Lighter1.

For me: I'd be intrigued by the Lighter1, but I'm wary of how it opens and closes, it's 1 inch longer than BareBoxer, it's 2 oz heavier and it's $20 more expensive. So for me, I'll stick with my BareBoxer.

But if you like what you see with the Lighter1, go for it. It's light, small, semi-affordable and keeps bears from eatin' your twinkies.

Edited by OpenSkiesBeckon on 04/04/2013 23:02:09 MDT.

Barry P
(BarryP) - F

Locale: Eastern Idaho (moved from Midwest)
Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 04/05/2013 14:56:53 MDT Print View

There’s a lot of info on this thread. So this is what I got out of it:

Bear Canister chart

-Barry

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Re: Ultra Light Bear Canister on 04/05/2013 16:34:07 MDT Print View

http://andrewskurka.com/2012/bear-canister-shopping-guide/

http://tinyurl.com/cpjxy8m

Edited by jshann on 04/05/2013 17:38:45 MDT.

''V'' (veylupek)
(CzechClown) - MLife

Locale: JMT/PCT
"Ultra Light Bear Canister" ........ lighter 1 on 05/13/2013 21:04:50 MDT Print View

Yes, but has "ANYONE" purchased one?

http://lighter1.com/

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: "Ultra Light Bear Canister" ........ lighter 1 on 05/13/2013 21:44:37 MDT Print View

hope nobody has wasted their money on that one.

Kevin Burton
(burtonator) - F

Locale: norcal
ursack. on 05/13/2013 22:51:28 MDT Print View

Still very happy with my ursack. I haven't had any problems with bears either.

This reminds me that I actually wanted to start putting my food inside an OP bag so I'm going to add that to my TODO.

I HATE the hard sided bags as they just leave too much inflexibility.

Greg Mihalik
(greg23) - M

Locale: Colorado
Re: ursack minor. on 05/14/2013 06:30:52 MDT Print View

UrsackMinorHoles

Rodents can work over the Ursack Minor.

Make sure you hang them. If they are sitting on the ground or on a limb that gives the critters something "stable" to chew on, they Will get in.

This is an issue acknowledged by the Urasack folks, and not an isolated event.

Edited by greg23 on 05/14/2013 06:41:53 MDT.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Ursack on 05/14/2013 06:59:56 MDT Print View

Not a canister. Not allowed many places. I love mine, but to bring it up here is pointless. I got a deal on a Bearikade and haven't looked back.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Re: "Ultra Light Bear Canister" ........ lighter 1 on 05/14/2013 08:42:01 MDT Print View

"hope nobody has wasted their money on that one." - jshann

Why do you say that John? I have been quite critical of lighter1's advertising, but I think there is a lot to like about the can. I am planning on getting one.

Jim Leonard
(mxracer33x) - F

Locale: West Coast
Lighter1 Review on 05/20/2013 22:08:52 MDT Print View

I just received a Lighter1 Lil Sami. I had planned on using it for my JMT thru hike in July. Besides the pics on the manufacturers website this was the first I have seen of one. I couldn't track anything else down so I made a video instead of pics.

Watch the video then we can discuss. http://youtu.be/6AwLEgVraLQ

(and no Im not monetized on youtube)

Poly Can = 20 oz
Canister Lid/Pot = 6.42 oz
Handle/Support = 0.89 oz
Screws and Retainers = 0.38 oz
Pot Lid = 2.22 oz

27.69 oz total weight

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Lighter1 Review on 05/20/2013 22:19:47 MDT Print View

Thanks for taking the time too do a video. Very informative, I still think it is a terrible design. Having the lid being used as a pot is not a good idea. Not legal to be used like that in the King Range as I have stated before. Better off with a Bearvault if you are considering this one.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Lighter1 Review on 05/21/2013 09:43:34 MDT Print View

"Not legal to be used like that in the King Range as I have stated before." - Ken

That is not accurate. You just can't leave uncanistered food out of your reach. Why would your canister be out of your reach when you are cooking? You need the cook-pot and food at the same time. This makes perfect sense as a dual use item.


"I just received a Lighter1 Lil Sami...." -Jim

Thanks for the review Jim! I am glad to actually get an independent look for once. It's good to finally see how the locking mechanism works. If you don't like how the knurled nuts protrude, you could get some button nuts at the hardware store to replace them, but then you would need to bring along a screwdriver (or equivalent). Likewise you *could* slip a nut in the inside to replace the handle, however I think doing that would invalidate the bear rating. I think the handle plays an important structural role in this design. The opening is the weak spot on any bear canister. I am not sure the metal cap provides enough structural rigidity by itself.

I agree that the handle seems to protrude quite a bit into the can. If the handle went in the other way (with the cross-beam on the outside instead of the inside of the can) it seems like you would get much more useable space. Have you verified it only slips in the way you did it?

Pete Staehling
(staehpj1) - F
Re: Re: Lighter1 Review on 05/21/2013 10:19:25 MDT Print View

"Why would your canister be out of your reach when you are cooking?"

All well and good if you never walk away from your dinner while cooking on the stove, while it is continuing to cook in a cozy, while it is cooling, while eating, while washing the pot, or anywhere in between. It seems like a slam dunk that the thing will be walked away from while open at some point by most if not all users.

Jim Leonard
(mxracer33x) - F

Locale: West Coast
Lil Sami on 05/21/2013 10:51:35 MDT Print View

My use is purely as a Bear canister. I do not plan on cooking with the pot/lid. the dual use part of this is not of any concern or use to me. With that said, I would do some things differently. I do not think the handle is necessary. It is easily as stout as a Bear Vault when laid on its side and compressed without the brace. I may modify it to use Dzus Buttons to close instead of the standard mechanism it has now. This will lay nearly flush and be as or more secure. (Dzus buttons or 1/4 turn fastners are what secures the Garcia canister. http://static.speedwaymotors.com/RS/SR/Product/91007151_T.jpg) A tool would be required.

As far as turning over the handle to get some more room, you cannot. The shape does not allow it. The bends made to hold the pot interfere with the pocket to hold it in the canister.

I may just return it and get a BV450 and eat the 5oz.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Lighter1 Review on 05/21/2013 11:42:04 MDT Print View

Give the BLM a chance to actually see one of these. I guarantee they will adjust the wording. You need to be smarter than the bears.

Jim Leonard
(mxracer33x) - F

Locale: West Coast
Lighter1 on 06/14/2013 11:13:38 MDT Print View

The Lighter 1 Lil Sami got to go out for a night of use after all. I went to pick up a BV450 but the local shop was out of stock. So here was my impression:

Fits perfectly in the bottom of a Z-Packs Arc Blast. I used my Merino top to protect the pack from the Screws.

I fit Food for 2 people for 2 days in it. But very tight. The cross brace was only a minor inconvenience.

I didn't cook In the Lid/Pot so nothing to report there.

I would swap out the screws for some button head screws that would be more cuben pack friendly.

The volume wont be enough for my JMT thru so Im going to get rid of this one and pick up a BV450 or Bearikade again. Hopefully I can test the 9" diameter today. I really like the can in the bottom.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Lighter1 Initial Review on 06/19/2013 09:20:25 MDT Print View

I got a lighter1 little Sami in yesterday and wanted to give an initial look review:

Stats:
canister = 20.85 oz
cap/pot = 6.40 oz
handle = 0.90 oz

total bear canister = 28.20 oz

pot lid = 2.20 oz

I am very impressed with this bear canister. It is a very nice size for a weekend trip. The clear shell is nice for seeing where stuff is located inside. The metal cap/pot is pretty solidly built. I was afraid that it would be made out of thin metal, but it is a very nice pot. I might even try frying up something in it sometime. My only gripe would be the knurled screws are a little small. I had no problem unscrewing them, but it could be a problem for someone with weak hand strength or arthritis (though I would think most bear cans would be a challenge for those people). I can also see Jim's point about the screws possibly catching on UL fabrics. To counter that though, the shape factor of the canister would probably end up fitting much nicer into those same UL packs.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Lighter1 Initial Review on 06/19/2013 11:57:48 MDT Print View

It is about the volume of the small bear boxer but $30 more cost. WOM.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Re: Lighter1 Initial Review on 06/19/2013 12:16:32 MDT Print View

I agree, its about $30 more, an ounce or two more, and you get 25 cu in more (10% more space). Lighter1 and bear boxer are pretty comparable (slight edge to bear boxer just on those stats). The reason to get the little Sami in my mind are: 1) IF you buy into the dual use of using the lid for heating water (which I do) 2) you absolutely cannot get your stuff into a bear boxer. You get smidgen more room and a better form factor IMO (vertical walls and a wide opening) with the little Sami. 3)You put a high premium on being able to see your stuff in the can (I don't).

I struggled between the two. Based on what I consider Lighter1's deceptive advertising I had made up my mind to get the bear boxer. I sent an email to them about the possibility of picking the can up in person but they did not respond. After that I put them even in terms of customer service. I liked the dual use of the lid/pot so I decided to go with Lighter1.

Mike Farrell
(mjf)

Locale: C.A
Lighter 1 on 06/20/2013 10:12:19 MDT Print View

I have a BV450 and a old Garcia. The very heavy Garcia actually fits my Circuit better than the BV450 due to the tapered diameter. The BV450 turns it into a barrel. I like the small diameter of the Lighter 1. It will fit small packs much, much better than the others. For my solo weekend trips the small physical size will make my life happy ;) And maybe fry up a trout in the pan. I think I'll try one.

JJ Willcoxon
(H2Oboy) - M

Locale: Midwest
Picked up 3x BV500's for $67 each... on 07/01/2013 22:22:15 MDT Print View

At Moontrail. If you buy 2-3 they go for $67 each. More than 3 they get even cheaper. We needed 3 for our fall trip anyways. The other two guys decided to stay with the bearbag approach and save their dough.

It'll be my first time with a canister instead of baggin' it. So many places on my bucket list of places to backpack require them now, that I thought I'd better see how one works into my kit. One thing is for sure. About a week's worth of food and toothpaste, deet, etc. is all we're getting into a BV500 and that's packing it darn tight.

Since we'll be 12 days on a loop, without an accessible place to cache or resupply, I guess we'll be cannin' it AND baggin' it the first three or four days.

Seems a shame that eight lbs. of food requires almost three lbs. of protection. All the trouble I went to cut my base weight and I just gained a bunch back.

I am looking forward to not having to toss rope, sweat the other little critters, and/or worry about camping below treeline though. Might just be worth it.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Picked up 3x BV500's for $67 each... on 07/01/2013 22:32:41 MDT Print View

The BV500 also makes a good camp chair.

--B.G.--

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
What's with the hostility? on 07/02/2013 11:37:43 MDT Print View

Wow. I just read this whole thread and I have to say that I'm rather surprised. What's with all of the open hostility to the dual-use aspect of this Lighter1 thing? It's certainly innovative, and seems like something about which most ULers would be atwitter. An approved bear canister with useable pot at about the same weight as a BearVault? What's not to like? If you don't use a pot- okay, good on ya. Don't buy this. But poo-pooing it because YOU don't use a pot is kinda juvenile.

Just sayin'.

This looks genius, to me. The pot looks like an excellent candidate for a cat can stove and a simple aluminum flashing windscreen- it is wide and short. The handle would unbalance it, though, so for this use might have to be left off.

If this thing had been available back when I was in the market for a bear canister I would have given it VERY serious thought.

Ken's criticism about how you can't put the lid on the canister while you're using it to cook also strikes me as.. well... very odd. Having a bear wander by in the quarter or half hour that you're using the pot- especially if all you do is boil water as do most of us- is rather remote. I think that almost any reasonable use would qualify as "within reach" while the lid was off.

Regarding "misleading advertising"- I don't think that the manufacturer is really a hiker, per se, so may not be fully hip to the conventions that we expect. Or is just not very articulate. (The website doesn't exactly look professional.) And I'll also say that I had no trouble puzzling out the website- which I checked out BEFORE I got to the whole "misleading advertising" discussion in the thread, so I wasn't forewarned. All of that being said, this was possibly the most valid criticism I saw- and I don't think it is very damning at all, frankly.

Bringing religion up in what was essentially a business discussion WAS a bit odd on the manufacturer's part, though. But I have noticed that quite a few devout Christians seem to expect that mentioning their piety will automatically get them extra kudos from most Americans- whom they seem to think all share their devotion or something- so it's at least not actively surprising. Personally, I'd be more sympathic if they'd said it was Made In The USA...

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: What's with the hostility? on 07/02/2013 12:06:00 MDT Print View

I agree completely Dean.

As far as misleading advertising, they did clarify the website somewhat after they received comments on here, but their response was pretty underwhelming to say the least. I still think it is confusing that they never add the weights together to tell you how the thing is going to weigh to have a bear canister out in the field. It is not clear to me that when they quote the canister weight it does not include the lid or handle which are both required to have a bear proof canister.

I wasn't too happy with how they handled this thread, but I ended up ordering and am very happy with it. The lid is a very nice pot and is an excellent profile for an alcohol stove. I agree, that I don't get why people are hostile to the dual use aspect. People mentioned its not a good idea to cook with your bear can, because it will smell like food. But... isn't that the whole idea of a bear can? To isolate your food smells to a single thing. It's not like bears don't know there is food inside bear cans. People really underestimate bears ability to smell and just how much information they get in that whiff.

SHAWN HILL
(ssejhill) - F

Locale: Western NY
Re: Re: What's with the hostility? on 07/09/2013 09:43:35 MDT Print View

Ben ... thanks for your review and your open-mindedness. So many other posters have disparaged the product so much that it's hard for any of us to get an actual informed opinion of the Lighter1. There were several posts asking if anyone had actually purchased and tried one and your post was one of only 2 that actually had used it hands on, and we appreciate that you took the time to let us know your thoughts.

It's unfortunate that so many just attacked this product and the company for such minor issues (the lid as a cook pot and how the weights are listed on the website). Let's cut the manufacturer a bit of a break. It sure sounds like this is their first go-round on creating a product for backpackers. Is it perfect for everyone ... no. What product is? Everyone has different criteria that on their list. Some may want a see-through container, others want a lid that can be removed without tools, one may want a container that is short and wide, others - tall and narrow. Some may even find it convenient to be able to use the lid of their bear container as a cook pot so they can leave their other cook pot at home.

I don't have an issue with stating your opinion that this one isn't for you and the reasons why, but leave it at that. Stop hammering away post after post after post. I like to read some one else's 2 cents, but some of these posts go way beyond that.