Ultra Light Bear Canister
Display Avatars Sort By:
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.