cloride taste

How can I get ride of chloride taste from camelbak ?
I used chemical to clean a camelbak bladder last fall before storage.
I want to start using it for the summer, but the water tastes terrible.

In article <[email hidden]>, "yk" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

How can I get ride of chloride taste from camelbak ?
I used chemical to clean a camelbak bladder last fall before storage.
I want to start using it for the summer, but the water tastes terrible.

Perhaps the camelback cleaning tablets will help....??
or HydroPure from Blackburn.

HTH

HAND

Its going 90/90 ( heat/humdidity )

yk said:

How can I get ride of chloride taste from camelbak ?
I used chemical to clean a camelbak bladder last fall before storage.
I want to start using it for the summer, but the water tastes terrible.

I just put about a tablespoon of baking soda in with about 20oz. of
hot, hot water and swish, swish, swish.

It seems the hot water opens up the "pores" of the bladder (I have
absolutely no proof of this, but it sounds good to me). The baking
soda does a nice job of neutralizing acids and foul tastes.

Final rinse in cold water closes those chimerical pores again and
you're back on the road....

Buy a new bladder. And DON'T put chemicals in the new one.

yk said:

How can I get ride of chloride taste from camelbak ?
I used chemical to clean a camelbak bladder last fall before storage.
I want to start using it for the summer, but the water tastes terrible.

The only thing worse than using chlorine to disinfect your camelbak is
*not* using chlorine to disinfect your camelbak.

The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get rid
of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

Quoted message said:

The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get rid
of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

I *live* for the day when it's my camelbak that's slowing me down ;-)

I wonder if a soak with a baking soda solution will help.
Or prop open the bladder with a bent wire coathangar and let it air for
a few days in front of a fan.

:
: The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get rid
: of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
: you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

And, it's obvious you don't live in Texas!

Pat
:

Pat said:

:
: The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get rid
: of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
: you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

And, it's obvious you don't live in Texas!

You're right. I haven't lived there since the late 70s. However, I made
quite a few 60-100 mile rides on the FM roads around Abilene in 90-100
degree weather with only two water bottles. I did stop to refill them
and soak myself at a couple of gas stations along the way. Still, I
didn't have camelbaks as an option then; I'm not sure what I would do
now- probably try to ride at dawn, for one thing. I think I would want
to try to avoid the extra fatigue of carrying the weight of that water
on my back, but it would depend on the availability of watering
stations.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get rid
of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

What do you suggest when you are on a long ride without the ability to
refill water bottles?

If all camelbacks are less aero than water bottles, then why do some pros
use them in TT instead of bottles?

Frank Drackman said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get rid
of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

What do you suggest when you are on a long ride without the ability to
refill water bottles?

Bigger water bottles, but if the situation called for it, I would
consider a camelbak. Like I said, though, in the situation where I was
on a long enough ride to require that much water, the last place I
would want to put it is on my back. My experiences long ago with trying
to use a back pack on a relatively long (for me) back ride taught me
that I don't want to put anything on my back heavy enough to notice its
presence.

Quoted message said:

If all camelbacks are less aero than water bottles, then why do some pros
use them in TT instead of bottles?

I don't know but I will guess. On a pro-level TT bike a water bottle
may not be more aero. There may also be losses associated with drinking
from a water bottle during a TT that are not factors for most riders.
Pros may have had their TT form with camelbak optimized in a wind
tunnel. But for most people, they are less aero than water bottles.

Frank Drackman said:

It sounds like you have realized that your original statment might have been
a little to strong

Not really.

Quoted message said:

and that there are places where a camelback might be a
better solution and more aero.

I think it is extremely improbable that a camelbak will have better
aerodynamics. And, personally, if I had a need for that much water on
long rides, I would find a long term solution that did not involve
strapping 6+ pounds on my back for much of the time, regardless of
aerodynamics. I would use a camelbak for the same reason that I would
use a backpack on a bike- as a stopgap until I found something better.
I won't absolutely say that it never does present the best solution for
carrying water on a bicycle, but if you ask yourself what is special
about your requirements that makes the camelbak the preferred solution,
the answer is probably going to be: nothing. (The concept of
integrating a canteen with a backpack is great for backpacking.)

On 9 Jun 2005 09:05:01 -0700, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Frank Drackman said:

It sounds like you have realized that your original statment might have been
a little to strong

Not really.

Quoted message said:

and that there are places where a camelback might be a
better solution and more aero.

I think it is extremely improbable that a camelbak will have better
aerodynamics. And, personally, if I had a need for that much water on
long rides, I would find a long term solution that did not involve
strapping 6+ pounds on my back for much of the time, regardless of
aerodynamics. I would use a camelbak for the same reason that I would
use a backpack on a bike- as a stopgap until I found something better.
I won't absolutely say that it never does present the best solution for
carrying water on a bicycle, but if you ask yourself what is special
about your requirements that makes the camelbak the preferred solution,
the answer is probably going to be: nothing. (The concept of
integrating a canteen with a backpack is great for backpacking.)

Dear App,

I'm intrigued, but I haven't found anything yet on the
aerodynamics. However, here's a page for a lightweight
Camelback:

http://www.camelback.com/rec/cb_prod.cfm?catid=6&product_id=327

The empty weight is 0.80 lbs (0.36 kg), and you can fill it
with up to 50 ounces of water (1.5 L) for 4.10 lbs (1.86
kg).

The weight difference would be 0.80 lbs versus the weight of
cages and bottles needed to hold 50 ounces of water.

Interestingly, Performance lists weights for cages (33 to 55
grams, but you'd need two to hold 50 ounces), but remains
silent about the weight of the actual bottles.

Anyway, it looks like only 4 lbs for the same amount of
water strapped to the back of a rider, who typically weighs
from 140 to 200 lbs, nicely spread out and cushioned in the
form of water.

The company claims that frequent small sips are somehow
better than occasional big gulps, so you actually do better
drinking steadily from their back-bag; that the water stays
cooler; that the hands-free convenience is nice (and
presumably aerodynamic compared to waving your arms around
to grab bottles and sitting up to guzzle); annd that there's
no sloshing noise (a cruel handicap to sensitive riders who
use water bottles). I don't know if any of this is true, but
it all sounds nice.

http://www.camelback.com/rec/faq.cfm

The FAQ does not mention an advantage that appeals to a
friend with whom I motorcycle--unlike a detachable canteen
or waterbottle, a camelback is so personal that it reduces
the courteous urge to offer a drink to thirsty-looking
companions who should have brought their own damned water.

Carl Fogel

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Nakashima said:

A real washing machine:
http://www.kjcoop.org/~bart/barts%20ccat%20pedal%20power%20web%20pgs/images/washer_demo250.jpg

Leaky ceiling?

It actually flys.

Tom Nakashima said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:36:44 -0600, [email hidden]

Sorry about the name confusion--I do better when not
interrupted by so many phone calls and dying washing
machines.

C.F.

A real washing machine:
http://www.kjcoop.org/~bart/barts%20ccat%20pedal%20power%20web%20pgs/images/washer_demo250.jpg

Dear Tom,

At last we know what Jobst looked like when young and
beautiful in those long-ago Stanford undergraduate days!

(Or maybe it's Sheldon in France?)

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Irrelevant. The real weight is in the water, and the real issue is

whether you would want to carry it on your back using a less aero
system.

I am a bit confused, where do you get your data that water bottles are more
aero than a camelback type system?

On 9 Jun 2005 13:33:10 -0700, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm intrigued, but I haven't found anything yet on the
aerodynamics. However, here's a page for a lightweight
Camelback:

http://www.camelback.com/rec/cb_prod.cfm?catid=6&product_id=327

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(and
presumably aerodynamic compared to waving your arms around
to grab bottles and sitting up to guzzle);

Presumably nothing. If there is a slight difference while actually
drinking, it will not make up for the difference the rest of the time.

[snip]

Dear SS,

Concerning aerodynamics, shouldn't filling in the
low-pressure turbulence area behind the rider's fairly flat
(though sloped) back with a curved Camelback improve
matters?

That is, are you presuming an increase in wind drag from
what looks like a classic method of reducing it?

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank Drackman said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>
The best way to get rid of the bad taste in your camelbak is to get

rid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the camelbak. Water bottles don't have that problem, and they make
you faster, too (aero improvement vs. aero penalty).

What do you suggest when you are on a long ride without the ability to
refill water bottles?

Bigger water bottles, but if the situation called for it, I would
consider a camelbak. Like I said, though, in the situation where I was
on a long enough ride to require that much water, the last place I
would want to put it is on my back. My experiences long ago with trying
to use a back pack on a relatively long (for me) back ride taught me
that I don't want to put anything on my back heavy enough to notice its
presence.

I too hate put a back pack on my back. It causes pain even with my one hour
commute.
Howver, for some reason, camebak doesn't bother me at all. I carried it in
200miles ride
without any back pain. It may be something to do with the weight
distribution.
Another advantage is that you can put ice cubes in it to cool both your body
and water.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If all camelbacks are less aero than water bottles, then why do some

pros

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use them in TT instead of bottles?

Could camelbak actually improve the aero-dynamics if it is properly shaped ?

Quoted message said:

I looked at the 3 liter pack, the weight of which, with water, would be
over six pounds. The principle argument for the camelbak in this thread
has been the ability to carry a significant amount of water on long
rides. 1.5 liters doesn't qualify for me, because that amount can
easily be carried in two frame mounted water bottles. In fact, the max
of 3 liters for the largest camelbak bike pack doesn't seem like enough
to me to make this argument- 100 miles in Texas in the summer will need
more than three liters.

I've done a lot of hot weather distance riding. I've owned a couple of
Camelbaks, both the original & the 100 oz "Hawg". I used both
extensively during both long and short road (& off-road) rides. I
haven't used either in a few years.

The conclusion I reached was when I needed a Camelbak, I didn't want a
Camelbak. When I needed to carry a lot of water, I didn't want it on my
back. My last rationale for the pack was the insulation, when I
discovered insulated water bottles, that became a non-issue. My distance
bike has 3 cages, and I can easily bungee a couple more bottles to the
rear rack, giving me ~120 oz or so. Bottles have many advantages, not
the least of which is storing different liquids.

I think the whole "aero" argument is a bit misleading, on long rides,
solo or pace line, it's the norm to sit up occasionally to drink. The
only time this might have impact would be on a relatively short time
trial event.