Abelo's new hive colours

[ericbeaumont]

You mentioned earlier that you only tried the boxes about 6 years ago.

Could it be they have identified the issue and fixed it, because I've got hundreds that are around 5 years old and not one is showing this sort of damage.

My Swientys are still full of bees and when the the curves get chewed I bodge them with propolis, wax, anything else to hand and duck tape.

Swienty have definitely not fixed it: the pic on C Wynne Jones website shows the boxes still have the curved lip; it's likely that the cost of adapting the mould to square cut the box was not financially viable (I'm guessing). If you put a square-cut box on top of a Swienty the gap at the joint exposes the thinning curve to light, and bees do the rest. The peak of the curve is the point of contact with the box above, and as this weak point is then propolised it fragments when boxes are parted.

 

[BMH]

My Swientys are still full of bees and when the the curves get chewed I bodge them with propolis, wax, anything else to hand and duck tape.

Swienty have definitely not fixed it: the pic on C Wynne Jones website shows the boxes still have the curved lip; it's likely that the cost of adapting the mould to square cut the box was not financially viable (I'm guessing). If you put a square-cut box on top of a Swienty the gap at the joint exposes the thinning curve to light, and bees do the rest. The peak of the curve is the point of contact with the box above, and as this weak point is then propolised it fragments when boxes are parted.

Sorry when I say fixed it, I meant the issue may be something other than the actual curvature of the mould, but rather the manufacturing method, poly mix, pressure etc. Doing something different to stop the curved edges becoming too fragile and open to chewing.

I agree, a simple change of mould would completely resolve it along with rebated base issue.

 

[Millet]

Sorry when I say fixed it, I meant the issue may be something other than the actual curvature of the mould, but rather the manufacturing method, poly mix, pressure etc. Doing something different to stop the curved edges becoming too fragile and open to chewing.

I agree, a simple change of mould would completely resolve it along with rebated base issue.

Why buy mountains of gear if you have a problem with it..personally with me the penny clicks with the first product i try..

 

[BMH]

Why buy mountains of gear if you have a problem with it..personally with me the penny clicks with the first product i try..

I dont have the issue??

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

[Millet]

I dont have the issue??

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

What ya twisting about then..

 

[BMH]

Read the thread!

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

[Millet]

I have..well bits as i find it pointless.

 

[Angry_Mob]

Lyson posted this on FB, they've made some pink up already it seems.

 

[ericbeaumont]

Why buy mountains of gear if you have a problem with it

That more or less sums up the state of play with the UK poly National market, Millet: customers expect a product without design flaws and drawing-board ideas that don't really work, waste heat or material, or need work-arounds. What turns up looks proper, but later turns out to need revision, redesign, and re-moulding. Paynes, Abelo, Swienty: they've all been there, all bar Bee Hive Supplies which, you notice, was designed by a mechanical engineer with a specialisation in materials. If Ross had chosen the smaller National external footprint (rather than the internal) reduced cost may have made the product more competitive.

Yes, mountains of gear have been sold because of the overwhelming benefits of poly for bees and beekeeper, but there's no getting away from the fact that most of that mountain is a work in progress, and expensive progress (for us and them) that ought to have been resolved at the development stage.

 

[Swarm]

That more or less sums up the state of play with the UK poly National market, Millet: customers expect a product without design flaws and drawing-board ideas that don't really work, waste heat or material, or need work-arounds. What turns up looks proper, but later turns out to need revision, redesign, and re-moulding. Paynes, Abelo, Swienty: they've all been there, all bar Bee Hive Supplies which, you notice, was designed by a mechanical engineer with a specialisation in materials. If Ross had chosen the smaller National external footprint (rather than the internal) reduced cost may have made the product more competitive.

Yes, mountains of gear have been sold because of the overwhelming benefits of poly for bees and beekeeper, but there's no getting away from the fact that most of that mountain is a work in progress, and expensive progress (for us and them) that ought to have been resolved at the development stage.

Agreed and each redesign is a backward step. Looking at the boxes above, I'd say there was less poly than the old one with those overly deep hand holds. Swienty did similar when they scalloped out each side.

 

[Ian123]

Imo the thickness of the poly is a bit of a red herring if the hive was a sealed unit it would obviously be a different matter. However it’s not we have mesh floors at best with a loose fitting board and a bloody great hole for a front door!!! I find the most noticeable benefit of poly in nucs and their build up, yet most poly nucs are about half the wall thickness of hive bodies. On polys half the thickness is there to accommodate long frame lugs on bs frames. And there’s no getting away from the fact that bees in wooden hives survive/thrive in far harsher conditions than most get in the U.K. And with a few minor tweaks wood hives can improved very easily. Now I am not arguing 1 is better than the other but we just need to be a little reasonable.

 

[Murox]

That more or less sums up the state of play with the UK poly National market, Millet: customers expect a product without design flaws and drawing-board ideas that don't really work, waste heat or material, or need work-arounds. What turns up looks proper, but later turns out to need revision, redesign, and re-moulding. Paynes, Abelo, Swienty: they've all been there, all bar Bee Hive Supplies which, you notice, was designed by a mechanical engineer with a specialisation in materials. If Ross had chosen the smaller National external footprint (rather than the internal) reduced cost may have made the product more competitive.

Yes, mountains of gear have been sold because of the overwhelming benefits of poly for bees and beekeeper, but there's no getting away from the fact that most of that mountain is a work in progress, and expensive progress (for us and them) that ought to have been resolved at the development stage.

I think you have said that very well. My take on what I have read/heard/seen is that UK keepers are content to spend large amounts of money on goods that are not really fit for purpose. They must be content otherwise the manufacturers would be out of business. Or is it that as a nation we are just scared about complaining and insisting on hives that work properly ?

 

[Beefriendly]

Murox, they are all fit for purpose otherwise bees wouldn't survive, nay thrive, in them. I've used three different makes over several seasons and have decided the Abelo poly hives are what I will be using for several reasons, not least being uniformity of mix and match with wooden hive parts
What is a detraction to one beekeeper is a plus to another depending on their needs as beekeepers. Take the old Abelo crown boards for example.These have been criticised for having 5 holes with plastic grills and loose poly inserts to sit on top of these. I like them, most hate them. A few gimp pins holds the poly inserts in place and they can be easily removed. So you have an insulated crown board....you can Remove the centre hole parts to create room for a rapid feeder or add a rhombus clearer underneath. And for me the big plus is that I can remove all the poly inserts and have an instant travel screen that doesn't need to be added or removed after I've moved my bees. Not everyone is a migratory beekeeper so this feature would be lost on them. As they say you cannot please all of the beekeepers all of the time.
The original idea behind the 5 holes was based on overwintering 4 small 1/4 nucs on top of a hive so they could take advantage of the heat generated by the bees in the main hive below. A technique practised widely on the continent but by few UK beekeepers,l.

I suggest you base your poly hive type on what will suit your beekeeping needs. Reading some of the faults described on here is really nit picking on what overall are decent products.

 

[Murox]

Yes I essentially agree with you Beefriendly, and of course bees can thrive in all sorts of cavities. Naively I would expect that something called a National British standard hive would be just that and not a collection of different sized boxes holding different numbers of frames and of varying qualities. I do get concerned that it is the end user who always seems to foot the bill for issues resulting from poorly tested/untested design.
I also noticed that it was Paynes, Abelo and Swienty that have received the main criticisms. Cost to one side, how do the beehive supplies hives compare ?

 

[Beefriendly]

I also noticed that it was Paynes, Abelo and Swienty that have received the main criticisms. Cost to one side, how do the beehive supplies hives compare ?

Never used them so couldn't comment, but no reason they shouldn't be fine. I don't think the end user can have too many issues with whatever hive type they use. They all work well. But some just don't like this bit of that hive and so on...
I figured a long time ago that there is no "perfect" hive for every beekeeper. Rather pointless trying comparisons or designing a perfect hive. What will suit one beekeeper will be anothers nightmare.
I figure the reason those three manufacturers come in for criticism is they are the most popular poly hives sold today and bee keepers like to either criticise or make lists of things...it's intrinsic.
Plus many don't understand the advanced options that some of the hive types provide...so will criticise them because they have features that their beekeeping doesn't need or use.

 

[Poly Hive]

The problem with the design issues is us. The manufacturers have pandered to whims and so designed out useful features.

Big entrances allowing mice in. Scalloped front of broods making fitting mouse guards difficult, etc etc.

They are great units and certainly up here the bees do better in them than timber. But there are so many flaws now it's really a shame.

PH

 

[Wildyorkshirehone]

Impossible to design the perfect hive. Too many experts and too many opinions.

 

[Ian123]

that’s the truth of it...

 

[BMH]

Impossible to design the perfect hive. Too many experts and too many opinions.

Fully agree with that. We can just work with what weve got!

 

[ericbeaumont]

I would expect that something called a National British standard hive would be just that and not a collection of different sized boxes holding different numbers of frames and of varying qualities.

If only the BS standard had applied to poly, Murox, this thread would have died six pages ago after the chat about colour. Fact is that while wood hive makers still follow BS (makes their life easier, makes our life easier) the poly producers went off-piste: because poly is thicker than wood it gave them free licence to dream up technical quirks and shapes they were sure would be loved by the buyer.

One example: Paynes landing board is a pointless and wasteful use of plastic which has no benefit whatsoever for beekeeper (clunky, awkward in transport, breaks if knocked, pass the saw) or bee (don't need landing board, couldn't care less).

Another: I was taught that form follows function from which I reckon the handhold on a wood National is ideal, giving the beekeeper immediate use of the full length of the rail. Compare that to the pic on post 68 of the new Lyson pink box: the handhold has now shrunk and the beekeeper must fumble for the central section or the remainder either side. That limits the immediate use of the entire handhold and needs accuracy or sight of the slot (both wasting time or energy). As Swarm and PH pointed out, deep scallops on box sides and other fiddly ideas are pointless, but done to either mimic a wood National (bad decision) or satisfy the designer's whim. Result is that simplicity is lost and form definitely does not follow function.

I agree with Ian: too much can be made of what is essentially a box that does a job pretty well, but unlike the BS wood hive, the variable poly designs have a range of significant issues which impact on practical use. Luckily those drawbacks are outvoted by the benefits of the material, but if manufacturers continue to follow every beekeepers' fancy then the tail is definitely wagging the dog. Let's hope that in the next few years it's the other way around, or this conversation will continue.