Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
1 registered (timisimaginary), 8 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3775 Members
10 Forums
5598 Topics
51219 Posts

Max Online: 382 @ 11/07/12 05:45 AM
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#32516 - 07/30/13 08:27 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
I think that everyone in the park community (rangers, etc.) still has bad memories of the way things used to be when the food/bear encounters were completely out of hand (a lot like how the Portal is now) I suppose that in some cases, it could induce an overreaction in the prevention dept.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#32518 - 07/31/13 06:45 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: SierraNevada]
Fishmonger Offline


Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 1033
Loc: Madison, WI
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
As for the Bearikade, I made my investment in BearVaults for size and cost reasons. The BearVault is larger (750 vs 650 cubic inches) and only 10 ounces heavier than the Bearikade. I would really like to upgrade someday, but for $250 it makes poor economic sense as an upgrade.


somewhat off topic, but FYI - I own 3 Bearikades and two Bearvaults. The Weekender Bearikade has more internal volume than the Bearvault. I measured them - Bearikade is larger than advertised, Bearvault BV 500 smaller. I used water to the top of the can to get the values:

Bearvault BV500 advertised to hold 700 cu. in. measured 650 cu. in.
Bearikade Expedition advertised as 900 cu. in. measured 925 cubic inches
Bearikade Weekender - advertised 650 cu in - measured it at 675 cu. in.

Wild Ideas will make any size you want, so you could have a can made that's 750 cubic inches if that is what you need. It won't cost much more, because they just need to cut the carbon tube to a different length.

I can also get you the actual weight in grams for these cans, if interested. The Bearvault's only advantage is price. The clear material is not much help when unloading either, since the narrow neck makes unloading so much more difficult than a Bearikade's wide open top - you need to unload them anyway to get the food from the bottom.

And to talk about economic sense and the Sierras in the same sentence is something I generally try to avoid. I could buy 6 Bearikades for what I am spending on gas alone this year to drive to the Sierra and back. Heading out Friday again, gas being the most expensive part of my summer in the mountains. Two hikers, two Bearikades, free camp chairs, no problems.

Top
#32522 - 07/31/13 11:20 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Bob West]
Marty Offline


Registered: 01/25/10
Posts: 90
Loc: CT
Thanks Bob.

The Ursack website says there are 3 areas in Sequoia/Kings Canyon N.P. where the Ursack is not acceptable.

Do you know which areas these are?

Thanks!

Top
#32523 - 07/31/13 02:33 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Fishmonger]
John P. Offline


Registered: 03/19/10
Posts: 52
Loc: Palmdale
Originally Posted By: Fishmonger
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
As for the Bearikade, I made my investment in BearVaults for size and cost reasons. The BearVault is larger (750 vs 650 cubic inches) and only 10 ounces heavier than the Bearikade. I would really like to upgrade someday, but for $250 it makes poor economic sense as an upgrade.


somewhat off topic, but FYI - I own 3 Bearikades and two Bearvaults. The Weekender Bearikade has more internal volume than the Bearvault. I measured them - Bearikade is larger than advertised, Bearvault BV 500 smaller. I used water to the top of the can to get the values:

Bearvault BV500 advertised to hold 700 cu. in. measured 650 cu. in.
Bearikade Expedition advertised as 900 cu. in. measured 925 cubic inches
Bearikade Weekender - advertised 650 cu in - measured it at 675 cu. in.

Wild Ideas will make any size you want, so you could have a can made that's 750 cubic inches if that is what you need. It won't cost much more, because they just need to cut the carbon tube to a different length.

I can also get you the actual weight in grams for these cans, if interested. The Bearvault's only advantage is price. The clear material is not much help when unloading either, since the narrow neck makes unloading so much more difficult than a Bearikade's wide open top - you need to unload them anyway to get the food from the bottom.

And to talk about economic sense and the Sierras in the same sentence is something I generally try to avoid. I could buy 6 Bearikades for what I am spending on gas alone this year to drive to the Sierra and back. Heading out Friday again, gas being the most expensive part of my summer in the mountains. Two hikers, two Bearikades, free camp chairs, no problems.






I've used both (my buddy owns the Bearvault) and I ponied up the clams for the Bearikade Weekender. Fishmonger is right on with the Bearikade being the bigger AND much easier of the two to use. I hated the screw top on the Bearvault and found it a pain to open and the opening is constricted making packing it a hassle (kinda like a big plastic pickle jar). The screw setup on the Bearikade is straightforward and doesn't make it seem like I'm trying to open a childproof bottle. The interior is big enough for me to stuff my sleeping bag in it while hiking and distribute the weight of the food in a more reasonable manner in my pack. For what it does so well and for the weight it saves it was one of the more wiser gear choices I've made.


Edited by John P. (07/31/13 02:35 PM)
_________________________
"Get Busy Living or Get Busy Dying" Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Top
#32524 - 07/31/13 03:31 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Marty]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA


Edited by Bob West (07/31/13 03:37 PM)

Top
#32526 - 07/31/13 04:10 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Bee]
wazzu Offline


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 319
Loc: Orange County, CA
This blog gives some credibility to Bee's Olde Dude.

From the blog.(The quote is from Caitlin Lee-Roney, a wildlife biologist and expert insider at Yosemite National Park.):

Bears continue to be active in Yosemite’s backcountry. In the wilderness near the Snow Creek footbridge, she reported that “many visitors have reported seeing a bear rolling bear canisters away from campsites.”

“A sow with cubs has been reportedly checking out bear canisters at the Cloud’s Rest junction on the John Muir Trail,” she wrote.

Top
#32529 - 07/31/13 09:56 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: wazzu]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: wazzu
...
From the blog.(The quote is from Caitlin Lee-Roney, a wildlife biologist and expert insider at Yosemite National Park.):

Bears continue to be active in Yosemite’s backcountry. In the wilderness near the Snow Creek footbridge, she reported that “many visitors have reported seeing a bear rolling bear canisters away from campsites.”


As the story goes...

Goldilocks goes into the bear's house and sits on papa bear's Counter Assault Bear Keg stool and says, "This stool is too tall." Then Goldielocks sits on the baby bear's Bear Vault BV450 stool and says, "This stool is too short." And finally, Goldilocks sits on the mama bear's Bear Vault BV500 stool and says, "This stool is juuust riiight!"

Meanwhile ...

The NPS does not allow bears to sit on ursacks in a number of areas because of past reports that sitting on ursacks has rewarded bears with hemorrhoids. The insertion of an aluminum liner to stiffen the ursack has been suggested as a redesign to prevent hemorrhoid rewards while still providing a lighter more portable stool than the rigid alternatives.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#32530 - 07/31/13 11:01 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Fishmonger]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Fishmonger

Bearvault BV500 advertised to hold 700 cu. in. measured 650 cu. in.
Bearikade Expedition advertised as 900 cu. in. measured 925 cubic inches
Bearikade Weekender - advertised 650 cu in - measured it at 675 cu. in.
Confirmed what Fishmonger wrote about BearVault volume discrepancy. I measured 657 cu inches after filling and weighing the water in my BV500. Wow, that's disturbing.

My BV450 came in low also - 399 cu inches instead of 440 cu inches as advertised.

The lid holds about 50 cu inches, perhaps they're counting that, which would be bogus since it provides no additional storage volume when it's screwed onto the canister.

The economics are still an issue since I have to upgrade at this point - sunk cost of the BV, $250 to save 10 ounces and I still go with my Ursack half the time. Tough sell for my wife, but at least she'll believe size matters. shocked I don't see how the cost of gas has anything to do with it, except that you're probably spending a lot driving from Madison. Fun place, I was there back in the day when the first statue of liberty went up on Lake Mendota.

Anyway, I'll have to put this info in my letter to Santa. Looks like some BearVault Elves have been telling lies about their toys.

Here's an interesting product notice from the BearVault website:
"In 2007 one or more bears at Marcy Dam in the Adirondacks learned how to open BearVault models. The bear(s) opened the lids by pressing in the snap on the lid with its canine tooth, unscrewing the lid past the housing lock and then opening the unit." The newest version has not stopped them, so just don't use it in this area they say. And there are issues with the lids on the earlier model if you over-tighten them.


Edited by SierraNevada (07/31/13 11:31 PM)

Top
#32532 - 08/01/13 06:31 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: wazzu]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
Wondering if the clear sides of Bearvaults allow the bears to see the feed items inside and more easily identify it as a possible food source, and then use it as a bowling ball in efforts to break it or steal it? Or see the place on the lid where it can be pressed to open it?

For that reason, I carry my BV500 (or BV450) inside a green nylon carrying case (I think it is a Garcia), so that the food items cannot be seen from the outside. It also has carrying straps, which allow it to be packed outside the backpack. Admittedly, I've never been awake when and if bears come around to see if the carrying case fools them.

Any body have experiences with disguising the containers?

Top
#32535 - 08/01/13 09:35 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Bob West]
Marty Offline


Registered: 01/25/10
Posts: 90
Loc: CT
Bob,

Thanks for your help...much appreciated!

Top
#32550 - 08/01/13 07:05 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: John P.]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: John P.

I've used both (my buddy owns the Bearvault) and I ponied up the clams for the Bearikade Weekender. Fishmonger is right on with the Bearikade being the bigger AND much easier of the two to use...For what it does so well and for the weight it saves it was one of the more wiser gear choices I've made.

Right on, John, good gear choice. Wish I would've done more homework on this purchase before I bought the BVs. Get it right the first time, only Santa can get me an upgrade now.

Top
#32560 - 08/02/13 09:41 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Marty]
George Offline
Woodsy Guy

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 202
Loc: California
Quote:
The Ursack website says there are 3 areas in Sequoia/Kings Canyon N.P. where the Ursack is not acceptable.

Do you know which areas these are?


The thing to remember is that, in areas where food canisters are required, the ursack is not equivalent to a canister. In areas where you can hang, you can hang on ursack just like you can a regular stuff sack -- you just can't leave it on the ground. So, in those areas, it affords you an extra layer of protection.

g.
_________________________
None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.

Top
#35653 - 04/03/14 09:54 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: Fishmonger]
bobpickering Offline


Registered: 02/07/10
Posts: 403
Loc: Reno, Nevada
Originally Posted By: Fishmonger
somewhat off topic, but FYI - I own 3 Bearikades and two Bearvaults. The Weekender Bearikade has more internal volume than the Bearvault. I measured them - Bearikade is larger than advertised, Bearvault BV 500 smaller. I used water to the top of the can to get the values:

Bearvault BV500 advertised to hold 700 cu. in. measured 650 cu. in.
Bearikade Expedition advertised as 900 cu. in. measured 925 cubic inches
Bearikade Weekender - advertised 650 cu in - measured it at 675 cu. in.

Wild Ideas says the Bearikade Weekender is 9” in diameter and 10.5” long. That means it occupies 668 c.i., and the internal volume should be somewhat less. 650 sounds believable, but 675 is impossible unless the advertised dimensions are wrong.

BearVault says the BV500 is 8.7” in diameter and 12.7” long. That would occupy 755 c.i. (minus a little bit because the bottom is rounded and the lid is a bit smaller in diameter). Again, the advertised volume of 700 sounds more believable than 650 unless the advertised dimensions are wrong.

Has anybody measured the external dimensions? Has anybody else measured the volume?


Edited by bobpickering (04/03/14 09:55 PM)

Top
#35655 - 04/04/14 07:09 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Bob, I checked the Bear Vault numbers myself, they are not as large as advertised. This is posted a few up from yours.

Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Confirmed what Fishmonger wrote about BearVault volume discrepancy. I measured 657 cu inches after filling and weighing the water in my BV500. Wow, that's disturbing.

My BV450 came in low also - 399 cu inches instead of 440 cu inches as advertised.

The lid holds about 50 cu inches, perhaps they're counting that, which would be bogus since it provides no additional storage volume when it's screwed onto the canister.

Here's an interesting product notice from the BearVault website:
"In 2007 one or more bears at Marcy Dam in the Adirondacks learned how to open BearVault models. The bear(s) opened the lids by pressing in the snap on the lid with its canine tooth, unscrewing the lid past the housing lock and then opening the unit." The newest version has not stopped them, so just don't use it in this area they say. And there are issues with the lids on the earlier model if you over-tighten them.

Top
#35662 - 04/05/14 11:12 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: SierraNevada]
bobpickering Offline


Registered: 02/07/10
Posts: 403
Loc: Reno, Nevada
I’m planning a five-day trip over Shepherd Pass to the Great Western Divide area this summer. It’ll be my first backpacking trip with a bear canister in six years. My ancient three-pound Garcia is too small, and I can’t justify $274 (shipped) for a Bearikade I might not use for another six years. I used my REI dividend on a BV500. Naturally, I had to check the volume. I weighed it, filled it with water to overflowing, weighed it again, and converted pounds to cubic inches. The volume was … drum roll … 650 cubic inches.

I thought about measuring the volume of the water, rather than the weight, but that seemed like too much trouble. I did pour the water into the old Garcia and then measure the volume of the water that was left over. The difference was 81 cubic inches.

Does anybody want a lightly-used Garcia?

Top
#35663 - 04/05/14 11:35 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: bobpickering]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
So Bob measured his old Garcia at about 570 cubic inches.

REI specs say it should be 614 cubic inches, assuming it's the same internal shape as the latest product.

Top
#35787 - 04/14/14 09:14 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: SierraNevada]
brholler Offline


Registered: 04/09/14
Posts: 55
Loc: New York
Thanks for all the discussion of this before I buy any gear. smile I appreciate the insights!

Looks like the bearikade weekender has a good mix of size and weight - if one can stomach the price. I imagine we'll use it often enough that we can justify amortizing over many trips.


Edited by brholler (04/14/14 09:20 AM)

Top
#35788 - 04/14/14 10:08 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: SierraNevada]
bobpickering Offline


Registered: 02/07/10
Posts: 403
Loc: Reno, Nevada
My old Garcia is not the same exterior dimensions as the current model. The old Garcia is both smaller and heavier than the new one.

I emailed BearVault about the volume of the BV500. They replied “Bob we have verified the volume using measured additions of water and we stand by our claimed volumes. The water was filled to the brim for the volume testing though.

One of these days, I’ll make the time to measure my BV500 more rigorously. When three people on this board (including me) measure much less than 700 cubic inches, I have to suspect that BearVault is engaging in some creative measuring.

Top
#35810 - 04/15/14 08:58 AM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: brholler]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
brholler,

How I justified the purchase of a Bearikade Weekender was by adding up what two Bear Vaults had cost me. I had a solo and a weekender. I replaced both those canisters with on Bearikade. With a Bearikade, I got the size of the BV weekender with the weight of the solo. So, I don't feel bad when I start up the trail with a half full can.

Top
#35824 - 04/15/14 04:30 PM Re: Ursack failure near Mammoth Lakes [Re: wbtravis]
brholler Offline


Registered: 04/09/14
Posts: 55
Loc: New York
wink I like the way you think. Now we'll see if it works on my husband.

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >