Forum Index » GEAR » Bear cannister shape


Display Avatars Sort By:
Nathan Hays
(oroambulant)

Locale: San Francisco
Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 11:13:11 MST Print View

I dislike the cylinder shape of bear cans. When vertical in my pack, it presses right down my spine and pushes the bladder to one side leading to a lopsided weight distribution. It would be excellent for frameless packs but for this.

If someone were to make a new bear cannister, what would you think of having a flat side - a cross section like a D rather than a circle? A six inch flat on a 9 inch diameter would decrease the volume by 10% and the circumference by 1/2 inch.

Dena Kelley
(EagleRiverDee) - M

Locale: Eagle River, Alaska
"Bear cannister shape" on 02/12/2013 11:40:47 MST Print View

I think bear canister shape is determined by what will actually hold up to a bear chomp or stomp. A flat side would hold the canister immobile on the ground while a bear stomped on it, and would give a side for a bear to get his teeth into. Every year I see people making suggestions to make bear canisters more comfortable to carry but I've always seen them shot down because the more comfortable shapes compromise the ability of the canister to hold up to a bear.

Link .
(annapurna) - MLife
Re: Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 12:01:03 MST Print View

like this more here

Edited by annapurna on 02/12/2013 12:06:41 MST.

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 12:14:08 MST Print View

There was a guy on here last year working on that. It doesn't seem like it amounted to much:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=68141&skip_to_post=582025#582025

The real problem is weight. Bear canisters are heavy. That is why people are willing to shell out hundreds of extra dollars for a bearikade to save a few ounces (and end up with a canister that can't be used in Grizzly country). An ergonomic design would be nice, but you are giving a leverage point for the bear. That means you have to make it bulkier to resist the additional forces... that means it has to be heavier.

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

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 14:00:31 MST Print View

There are three main ways to orient a bear canister inside a pack, but the best way depends on the dimensions of your particular canister and your particular pack. A round cylinder is the strongest practical shape.

1. You can orient it with the axis straight up and down. This fits a small pack best, but it puts maximum pressure against your spine.
2. You can orient it with the axis right and left horizontally. This fits very poorly in a small pack, although it works OK in a very large pack, and it tends to put the canister weight more on your hips.
3. You can orient it with the axis forward and backward horizontally. This puts the top or bottom flat against the spine, and this works the best for me. However, I use my BearVault 450, which is not a very tall canister.

--B.G.--

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Re: Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 14:02:52 MST Print View

A Bearikade is no good in Grizz country?

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Ben H.
(bzhayes) - F

Locale: So. California
Re: Re: Re: Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 14:39:46 MST Print View

I think there is a better thread somewhere, but:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=60298&startat=80

half way down the page you'll find some photos by g. mihalik

Here are IGBC approved devices: http://www.igbconline.org/images/pdf/130128_certified_products_list.pdf

Edited by bzhayes on 02/12/2013 14:43:24 MST.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Bear canister shape on 02/12/2013 18:26:46 MST Print View

Ben beat me to it.

Edited by kthompson on 02/12/2013 18:27:49 MST.

Nathan Hays
(oroambulant)

Locale: San Francisco
Re: bears on 02/12/2013 19:55:13 MST Print View

ya,ya,ya. I know the bears want in. But would you prefer a flat, or at least flatter side? What if it costs an oz in thickness for strength? 2 oz?

Erik Basil
(EBasil) - M

Locale: Atzlan
Well Rounded on 02/12/2013 22:18:40 MST Print View

I'm fine with the cyclindrical design. My BearVault(s) fit transversely across the top of my pack just fine, putting the weight high and forward where I want it. My frame prevents contact between my back and the packbag, so that's fine (and airy).

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Bear cannister shape on 02/12/2013 23:27:36 MST Print View

Whoa! That sucks about the Bearikade, but that photo has a way of making a point.



HJ
Adventures in Stoving

And E
(LunchANDYnner) - M

Locale: Pacific Northwest
Bearier 700 seems interesting.... but... on 02/13/2013 00:27:31 MST Print View

the Bearier 700 that Anna posted about seems interesting. However... Camp4Outdoors hasn't updated their site since mid 2011. I wonder if they gave up or couldn't get approval?

Definitely like the idea of splitting up the halves and packing them flat, also the expandability for longer trips.

J R
(JRinGeorgia) - F
D-shaped bear can on 02/13/2013 09:03:55 MST Print View

I don't see why a flat side to a bear can should give a bear any more leverage than the flat top and bottom already do. I think could be made so that the curved side and the flat side do not meet at a "corner" but rather round that off to prevent it from becoming a leverage point.

Edited by JRinGeorgia on 02/13/2013 09:07:41 MST.

Max Dilthey
(mdilthey) - M

Locale: MaxTheCyclist.com
Cylinders on 02/13/2013 12:05:59 MST Print View

A cylinder supports itself when stomped because of the nature of the cylinder. The weight of a bear stomp is evenly distributed if it stomps from the top or bottom.

If you have a D-shape, that structural integrity is lost, and the bear canister will fold and crack on the flat side if stomped from the top or bottom.