# Is a Warre Hive right for me?



## gww

You can run a lang hive like you would a warre hive but it is harder to run a warre hive and have the options a lang hive has.

I made a warre but have not run it yet. I did not find the building of the warre to be much easier then just building a lang and the one time I had bees in it, it was harder to manage. 

You sound like me in that you want to be low imput but yet get something for your time. My opinion is that you have a better chance at success if you use a lang cause it is easier to solve issues that may come up and to expand with. I will probably put more bees in my warre at some time. It will be done when I have enough hives that I truly do not have to worry about how the warre does and so if it goes bad, I won't have to spend money. 

There is a difference in my mind having enough hives to be pretty sure they won't all die before spring and I think that is easier in langs. It is just easier to move stuff around if needed. When you get to the point that you do not have to buy stuff to replace things that go wrong, I love the ideal of the warre and its management style. I am a guy that does not like to spend money on bees and think that early in bee keeping, I have a better chance at this with langs.

My bees in my warre are the only hive I have ever had die and I could see it coming and I caused some of it. The whole time I had bees in it, it was just not worth the trouble to try and fix what I could see going on where in a lang it would have been easier due to the movable frames. 

I am only going into my third winter this year and so take what I say with that in mind. I was where you are now and this is my view. 

I will probably eventually still put bees in the warre again.
Good luck
gww


----------



## msl

> Time: I don't have much time work work the hives, and I would rather spend time planting desirable plants for the bees than spend time working the hive.


then don't get bees. You can likely offer a spot in your yard to a local bekeeper to a host a hive.

Across the board I find the ware mangmnet a poor choice for a newbeekeper... the trational "fixed" hive (topbars) is near inposabull to keep workable. The face of modern beekeping is if you can't work you hives (splits, swarm prevention, treatments, etc) you end up buying bees come spring instead of haveing more then you started with. Standard hobiest losses in the US are 43% 
with a framed warre... your looking at about the cost of a lang (or more in some places), so why bother? get a hive you can get local beekeping help/advice with.


----------



## ruthiesbees

I started my beekeeping journey in 2013 with traditional topbar hives (not warre). I love them and keep adding to my apiary. Once you get drawn, straight comb in them, they don't have to be tinkered with, although I do a monthly powder sugar shake on every comb as my mite management strategy. I did finally get to see a Warre hive in action when Sam Comfort came to the Eastern Apiculture Society meeting in Aug of this year. He uses about 14" shallow box Warre hives. Way too tiny for me, but he is using them for queen rearing, so it works in his operation. I'm not sure of the OP location, but in just about every area of the USA, you need to do something to manage the mites.

I'd second the suggestion that you offer your yard to host a hive for another beekeeper to manage. 

I'd also suggest you look at the topbar kit from Beeline Woodenware in MI. It's inexpensive but does provide more than "just a box". I do like to add windows to all of mine, so I can watch the bees at work.


----------



## Oldtimer

Warre hives were designed in pre varroa times, in France, for people who did not want to spend much money, or time, keeping their bees.

At that time the idea was just put new boxes underneath as required, let the bees build the comb themselves, and take the odd box of honey from the top as it's available. If the bees want to swarm, let them.

That was then. Now it's 2018 and bees have health problems such as varroa mites, AFB, etc.. These issue need managing or you will not be in beekeeping very long.

So. Warre hives now have to have moveable framed combs, to allow for disease inspections, same as a lang. They also need the same disease management as a lang. Only difference, the boxes are 1/2 the size volume wise as a lang, so you either got to have a heap more of them, or, have a super small hive that will give you sweet stuff all honey compared to a lang.

Langstroth hives were designed around a century and a half ago and the design has survived almost unchanged since then. They are also the most popular hive in the USA by thousands to one. There is a reason for that.


----------



## JWPalmer

The short answer to your question is no, the warre hive is not right for you.

Why? You ask.

You are a new beekeeper. Setting roadblocks for yourself is not a good idea.Learn to be a beekeper first, then experiment with alternative hive designs.

You stated that all your friends have langs. The ability to share resources the first couple of years is important. If you need a frame of brood to requeen for some reason, your friends won't be able to help out.

You have little time or money to spend. This raises the question as to whether you should become a beekeeper at all. If you cannot devote sufficient time and equipment to this hobby, the bees will die and you will have wasted what little time and money you did spend. I was misled when I attended an introduction to beekeeping seminar several years ago. Numbers bantered about were 10 hours per year and around $500 to get started with a hive and bees. Right. I spend 3 hours each time I inspect my hives and have spent at least 5K on bee stuff, and I build most of my own woodenware so it could be worse. Not to mention $150-200 spent so far on sugar this year. I enjoy beekeeping and consider all of it well spent. Perhaps you will too, but be honest with yourself about your level of committment


----------



## Oldtimer

Ten hours a year. Good one! 

What that ignores is the time a new beekeeper must spend on research. Which when starting out would far outweigh time spent actually working the bees.


----------



## Eikel

This is just more of what everyone else has been commenting/recommending but ….



> What is the time commitment difference between Warre and Langstroth hives?





> Time: I don't have much time work work the hives


 Using any hive style, successfully keeping bees is not a "fire and forget " proposition, it's still requires active animal husbandry and that requires time which will vary by the season. Would love to have you join the hobby but if you don't enjoy and have time to "pop the tops" on the hives and do the reading/research, it may not be a hobby for you. You might buy some protective gear and spend some time helping your friends tend their hives to "get a taste" of beekeeping.



> Money: I don't want to lose money on bees.


 Successful beekeeping requires time, not committing the time when it's needed will cost you money/resources (unfortunately, the bees don't give a good rip about your schedule, trials or tribulations). Using a different style hive from your mentor/friends could also cost some timely help when you desperately need it, then cost you more time and money. 



> people praising the virtues of Warre hives for the sake of leaving Bees natural.


 I've never really understood the keeping bees natural claim when we're keeping them in a man made box and in denser concentrations than their norm in multiple hive apiaries. 

Hopefully all the comment/recommendations do act as a discouragement but does clarify the sort of commitment to successfully keep bees.


----------



## msl

> I've never really understood the keeping bees natural claim when we're keeping them in a man made box and in denser concentrations than their norm in multiple hive apiaries.


yep, not to mention they are a non-native invasive speices in many places:lookout:

"natural" sells, as does anything anti big AG/ Alt to Big AG... 

I love my top bar hives. I feel they fit the low- tech/cost/inputs/returns niche well, but still alow mangment. However if you don't have a bit of drawn comb/experance to start, and or you don't put in the 1/2 or so a week to inspect and move combs/division board around they can become a cross comb mess. So I don't see them as the best for a beginner/some one not wanting to spend time in there hives... Set and forget is what foundation is for.



> Sam Comfort came to the Eastern Apiculture Society meeting in Aug of this year He uses about 14" shallow box Warre hives.


soo jellus, I would love to see him live...I spent some time tracking down his hive specks last year
11" bar (or bamboo barabkue skewer) is the only "hard" number. "about" 1" walls, all pieces cut to "about" 12" and then overlapped on one other piece to give you about 13" on the out side of the box.. 5.5 to 6" deep gives you about a 1/2 lang deep comb volume, often the box is split 4 and 4 combs so is volume is fairly normal range for queen mateing


----------



## little_john

I've always though that there was something a tad 'odd' about Warre's extensive comparative experiments with the following hives:


> Duvauchelle hive.
> Voirnot hive, semi-double, run as two colonies of eight frames.
> 10-frame Voirnot hive.
> Dadant-Blatt hive.
> Layens hive, run as two colonies of 9 frames with a super.
> 12-frame Layens hive with a super.
> 9-frame Layens hive.
> 12-frame Jarry hive, warm-way.
> 30x40, shallow, 10-frame Congrès hive.
> 30x40, shallow, 8-frame Congrès hive.
> 
> List taken from *Beekeeping For All, 12th Ed., Emile Warre, 1946.*


Now at first sight, such a comparative array of beehives looks very impressive ... but look at what's missing ! The Langstroth, in both 8 and 10-frame forms, and the Simplicity Hive from just across the water - the forerunner to the British National, a Langstroth variant.

The rabbit which Warre initially pulled out of the hat to trump this array of beehives was his vertical 9-frame expandable design (5th Ed., 1923), using identical boxes ... the same basic concept as the Langstroth ! Ok, so he generated different tops and bottoms and came up with a novel system of beekeeping - but I wonder if his design would have been so compelling had he included the Langstroth hive within his comparative trials ?

FWIW - I've been running modified Warre's (former Warre boxes made from 1.5" timber, with their length extended to fit 8 National deep frames), and their colonies are flourishing very nicely. Those boxes are a bit heavy to lift though ...
LJ


----------



## JConnolly

I was intrigued by the Warre hive for years. I finally built one. But I wasn't until I ran out of gear that I actually used it. After two years of using it I'm looking to exit that hive. (See my thread on it in this sub forum - first few picture links are broken, scroll down for pictures). The biggest reason is that it doesn't offer any advantages over the Langstroth hive, and has a few disadvantages because of equipment compatibility issues, hive volume, and it doesn't accommodate my mite treatment method without installing a shim. The yield is lower. And you are limited to crush and strain harvesting. My attempt at extracting produced a mess of broken comb and left me with a difficult to clean up mess smeared around the bottom of the extractor. 


Purchased Warre hives tend to run on the expensive side. Unless you have the skills to build your own I wouldn't recommend it. Mine cost me just over six bucks (for a spray can of spar urethane) and a bit of time to make it from an old waterbed frame.

Warre hives are attractive garden hives. But you can make a Langstroth hive that looks nice too. However I recommend rethinking gabled hive roofs. When I made my Warre I made a jig to make the gabled top and produced three more gabled tops for some of my Langstroths with cedar shingles. They do look nice, but after two years of using the gabled tops I'm ready to go back to flat tops. I can turn a flat top over on the ground and stack my hive boxes there as I do my inspection. When I get to the gabled top hives I have to carry a flat top with me. I don't know why I didn't ever think of that until after I built gabled roofs.

My recommendation for a new beekeeper would be to start with Langstroth hives, and after you have gained a couple of years of experience then you can think about whether to do a Warre.


----------



## Riverderwent

Beekeepers without experience should start using Langstroth hives, and beekeepers with experience should keep using Langstroth hives.


----------



## AHudd

Riverderwent said:


> Beekeepers without experience should start using Langstroth hives, and beekeepers with experience should keep using Langstroth hives.


:thumbsup:


----------



## odfrank

Riverderwent said:


> Beekeepers without experience should start using Langstroth hives, and beekeepers with experience should keep using Langstroth hives.


After 40 years of Langstroth hives I made a few Warres. Even topbar hives are better than Warres. You can work a topbar from the ends. 
The frame is a brilliant invention. I go with my helper to harvest 200 hives spread over 30 yards. When we hit the Warre hives we come to a complete standstill. Combs attached to the sidewalls, combs attached to the topbars below. Brood mixed with honey covered with bees. What a mess. If you are lucky enough to hit a box full of honey you have to ruin the combs to get the honey out. And often the honey is in old brood combs. 
If you want to practice Warre principles do it in a Langstroth framed hive.


----------



## Charlie B

A Warre is just not right period!:no:


----------



## odfrank

Charlie B said:


> A Warre is just not right period!:no:



This word of advice coming from a man who of course HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH WARRE HIVES!!! So take it with what it is worth.


----------



## Charlie B

odfrank said:


> This word of advice coming from a man who of course HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH WARRE HIVES!!! So take it with what it is worth.


I’ve heard enough complaining from you to know they’re not a good choice. I learn from others
mistakes!!


----------



## GregB

Forget those Warre toys (or commercial Langs, for that matter).
This is what you want if to "balance time and money", hehe...
Set it and forget it. Cost effective.


----------



## newbeezer

Warre hive is not right for you IMHO. Time is something you better have and also a good dose of patience because of the issues with having a Warre hive. A Warre hive is a great hive for someone that THINKS they'll be able to keep bees and keep their time to a minimum. Truth is, if you can get through the first year without a total loss, you can pat yourself on the back for doing an outstanding job and for having that lucky charm in your pocket. Sadly, I'm willing to bet you will be frustrated and in the hole because your bees left for a better home leaving you with a mess to clean up. But give it a go because experience is something we all have to learn from.

Me,
$800 full first year costs, (1 full 8 frame box of bees) total and lots of time. Bees and 8 frame Lang boxes and everything else you need to get started. Build my own tops SBB and inner covers because I can't buy what I think works for my bees and location. I also do that to save money by using scrap material others throw away. I buy Mann Lake boxes and frames because they have a little more inside room (to accommodate my fat fingers) and I think the frames are well built and the $100 order for free shipping didn't hurt. I also use as little plastic foundation as possible choosing instead to go foundationless for better bee management and also to keep my costs under control. 
2nd year was in the black after more purchases and sales of honey and bees. But huge amount of time spent in the first and second year.
3rd year even better.
4th year even better yet.
Now in my 5th year I'm looking to cut back on the number of full time managed hives because time is an issue. But I have the equipment now to build up my hive numbers through splits to help pay for my hobby. The only thing I buy on a somewhat regular basis is frames because I sell my bees on the frames not including boxes. 5 frame, 8 frame, 10 frame, bring me your box I'll install the bees. Simple!


----------



## JWPalmer

I notice the OP has not chimed back into this discussion. I hope we didn't scare him or her off. I would encourage anyone who has an interest in beekeeping to try it. But, I would also encourage that person to take the advice, freely offered, that would help ensure that their first year has every chance of success. So jellyghost, what do you say?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, I was rather surprised, that this being the Warre section, there were no voices in support of Warre hives.

But anyway the OP asked the question, and they got answers.


----------



## johnsof

I run mostly Warré hives and far prefer them to Langs as I find them much, much easier to handle. A Warré box stuffed full of honey weighs 35 lbs and I can lift that all day long; a medium Lang 10-frame weighs 50-something lbs and they are long and awkward and I really don't care for them. I can build my own equipment and get 90 or so lbs a hive on average and for a hobbyist that's enough; as someone with back problems it is just so, so much easier to manage them.
But if you read "the book" and think you're not going to have to actively manage then forget it; you need movable frames and to manage like you would a Lang. Or don't bother; and forget about top bars, that's for experts not rookies.
7 Warré hives and 1 stupid Lang (there, I said it)...


----------



## GregB

johnsof said:


> ..... A Warré box stuffed full of honey weighs 35 lbs and I can lift that all day long; .....
> 7 Warré hives and 1 stupid Lang (there, I said it)...


What you really have is not a proper-Warre.
If I recall, you have so called alpine-style multi-body hives (LJ mentioned this many times too; very popular in Europe).
So, you maybe confusing the OP in that regard (the Warre ideas in N. America still very much mean the classic Warre - low maintenance, etc, etc).

I myself kind of wanted to do what you have - but that requires further customizations (and time spent from me).
Instead, I am testing this design for myself.


----------



## little_john

Oldtimer said:


> Yes, I was rather surprised, that this being the Warre section, there were no voices in support of Warre hives.


My own experience with a couple of Russian 'Álpine' Hives (108mm quarter-height boxes; sealed hive tops (with no quilts) as per Roger Delon's Climate-Stable principle) was positive from the bees' point-of-view - that is, the bees did exceptionally well housed in that narrow chimney-style hive format. 

However, from a beekeeping point-of-view they weren't so good. The main problem was a lack of interchangeability with existing equipment - so that these Warre variants didn't fit into 'the system'. I've since modified those boxes to accommodate standard deep frames, and the bees are yet again flourishing very well indeed.

The 'Alpine' Hive frames were made of thick wire (2.5mm dia) attached to a wooden top bar, and although Roger Delon spoke well of them, as did the Russians, I found that my bees simply ignored the wire, and attached their combs directly to the box sides, incorporating the wire as they did so. Those combs then had to be cut away - so in practice there was zero benefit in using the wire-frame system. 

In the 5th Edition of Beekeeping For All, Emile Warre describes a 9-comb Framed Hive, and should that design be adopted, I see no reason why such hives couldn't be used for queen-rearing and just about every other purpose that beehives are used for. But - if interchangeability is an important requirement, then I'd say use 8-frame Langstroth boxes - just as if they were Warre boxes - and enjoy the benefits of swapping frames with those of a popular and thus commonly used system.

The height of a Warre stack (as with the 8-frame Langstroth) is something to take into account if you happen to have a prolific type of bee.
LJ


----------



## gww

johnof
Since I am the one writing this, it reflects my definition of what a warre is. Abby in his book was clear on his position of movable frames. It was one of the things he used to say his way was better and seemed clear to me. So any one using movable frames is keeping a modified warre which abby talked about also. So when the subject of warre keeping comes up, it is in my mind that we are talking about fixed top bars. I agree with LJ that having mixed equipment makes it harder to keep bees. I don't consider it warre bee keeping per abby warre's plan if using movable frames. That does not make me right but I do think reflects abby warre. For the weight issues you mention, you could keep 8 frame mediums or five frame deep nucs and end up in the same place as a single warre box. I found the fixed frame warre bee keeping to be harder to fix problims but not impossible.

If I decide to, I can run lang hives just like I would a warre from a management perspective. So why run a warre unless you think the cavity gives enough merrit and that is changed if I change what is used in the cavity like movable frames.

I will probably put more bees in my warre at some point and may even build more but already know that I will not work them like I do the langs and so will be a bee haver with those hives, which will be ok too in my mind. I reconize that I will only be playing and not trying to max out my bee keeping potential when I use them. I might even end up likeing it better but to this question of this thread, If I was just starting and wanted to have the best chance of getting something back from any bees I got, I would go lang. Just easier to get help and to address problems that come up. When I put bees in my warre, I will not have an investment that I want to profit from, I will just be playing and what happens will happen. I will work harder on the langs to keep stuff to play with and believe they give the best chance of success in that. 

I do love the ideal of just putting bees in a warre and adding boxes to the bottom and taking from the top if there is something to take. I would not love it so much if I was buying bees and needed success. 

I am not against the ideal of warre and will do some and probably like it but I have had bees in both and have more control in the langs. I did more work with the langs and could have did more with the warre but had the langs and so did not feel compelled to do all that was needed to the warre. I could have did more but it was not worth it cause I had easier stuff to work with. Fixed frame and nothing to interchange with is a little harder.
If I discount the question that was ask for this thread. There is nothing wrong with keeping warre.

Cheers
gww


----------



## johnsof

Why? Because the lighter weight allows building the boxes with a simple lap joint rather than a very complicated and not-so-reliable finger joint. Because the roughly "square" internal dimensions allow the bees to simply move up in the winter and not have to move "sideways". Because the quilt box does an excellent job of controlling winter moisture.
Consider that a winter cluster is roughly the size of a volleyball and a volleyball drops down into a Warré box quite nicely. I live in a fairly rough winter climate (Zone 4a) and I don't have to mess around with wrapping the hives in additional insulation, I just try to have a box and a half of stored honey and then ignore the bees until the end of January maybe. My overwintering results are generally excellent - not every winter but most of them - and for me it's a good way to go. For me Lang hives are awkward as a get-out and I really don't care for them. But I also consider that 95%-plus of the hives in North America are Langs, managed the way that Langs are, and Warré hives were developed in a time without Varroa mites and other issues that we have to deal with - so it makes little sense to try to run them the way that they were run 100 years ago. To do it that way leads to frustration and failure....


----------



## GregB

johnsof said:


> Why? ...


Unsure what "why" is aimed at, but..

Back to OP:


> Here are my general questions:
> What is the time commitment difference between Warre and Langstroth hives?
> What is the production difference between Warre and Langstroth hives?


The modern Warre designs (while VERY MUCH ergonomic - and I like it just for that) can not be called "low maintenance". 
When I get a bit older and maybe retire (and have not much else to do, hopefully), I might just build and run few of these and have all kinds of fun while at it.


----------



## GregB

This is how one modern version of "warre" looks like.
If it works for you - great. 
I really like it in theory; be great as a retirement project.
Just jump to 1:30 and watch from there.
Technically, these are multi-body nucs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYrkr2hp0Ow


----------



## little_john

GregV said:


> When I get a bit older and maybe retire (*and have not much else to do, hopefully*), I might just build and run few of these and have all kinds of fun while at it.


LOL ! If your retirement is anything like mine, it's completely the reverse ...

... because: now you have 'time on your hands', and - rather than having your face pressed up hard against the grindstone - you are now able to look around at leisure and find stuff to become curious about, or get involved with in some way. 

Since giving up 'work', I've never been so busy.  (currently working on a OA vapouriser design - like nothing else currently in use - crazy or what ?)
LJ


----------



## GregB

little_john said:


> LOL ! If your retirement is anything like mine, it's completely the reverse ... LJ


I am sure this will be about me too.

Just unlike now (bored to death by keeping track of the "latest and greatest" IT noise - so to pay the bills), I'd much rather keep myself busy building wooden-ware from scraps and breeding/selling low maintenance bees. 
So, I am totally interested in building and maintaining *ergonomic *vertical system where working "by the box" is the way. 
Ergonomic for both the bees and the keeper.

Well, I also collect and graft heirloom apple varieties, most are totally unsuitable for commercial-scale production (of course, just like those un-cultured, primitive bees I am ranting about).
(I now own several old English apple varieties too - tada!) 
People are really missing out on the real apples and they don't know any better. 
All the most consumers know are - red apples/yellow apples/green apples. 
Those three kinds offered by the corporate commerce.
Sad.


----------



## GregB

Pretty cool video of another Warre variant.
The video is titled "Beekeeping in the hive of Roger Delon (unsure of the spelling)".
I like the frame size and box size.
The box/frames are equivalent to 8 Lang mediums (but more ergonomic for both the keeper and the bees).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isoJyQCZrgA


----------



## little_john

'Morning Greg ...

Interesting video, thanks. 

Delon spelling spot on - if you haven't already read it, there's a useful article at: https://warre.biobees.com/delon.pdf There's another at: http://www.users.callnetuk.com/~heaf/delon_ruche_climatstable.pdf but written in French.

I've always had positive comments to make about the Warre 'chimney' format - but negative ones with regard to interchangeability of combs and Delon's wire frames. However, with 'by the box' rather than 'by the comb' thinking, I've just figured out how I could operate with both formats in the same apiary. Not 100% ideal, but still workable - with the answer (for me) lying in the use of conventional wooden frames.

I've already converted my original Warre 'Alpine' boxes into full-depth boxes dimensioned to fit 8 British National frames lengthwise, with the internal width left - as before - at 300mm. So - I can now retro-fit rebates (rabbets in the US) to the sides, and run either standard frames lengthwise, or Warre frames cross-wise.  That will provide interchangeability using those particular boxes.

In order to provide interchangeability with the rest of the circus, I've come up with yet another ruse - this being quite simply a Warre Box housed within a standard British National Deep box, thusly:



To be pedantic, this will actually be a National feeder shell made from (say) 15mm timber/lumber with outside dimensions 460x460mm (c.18"x18"). Inside it will be a Warre box of 300x300mm (internal), made from the same stuff. The voids could either be filled with insulation or left empty - with strips of thin plywood covering them. The depth of this adapter box will be whatever depth is chosen for the Warre frames - it looks like 225mm is favourite right now.

I think with these two different methods of providing box-wise interchangeability between the two formats, co-existence could well become feasible - not perfect, perhaps - but workable.
LJ


----------



## GregB

little_john said:


> 'Morning Greg ...
> 
> .......run either standard frames lengthwise, or Warre frames cross-wise.  That will provide interchangeability using those particular boxes.
> ...... simply a Warre Box housed within a standard British National Deep box, thusly:
> ........the two formats, co-existence could well become feasible - not perfect, perhaps - but workable.
> LJ


Evening, LJ... 

Yep, totally - what you are doing should work.

~300mm (plus/minus) custom frames do work fine for me in the standard Lang boxes (which I have a high stack of).
Just using my 300's "cross-wise" and very minor mods to the existing Lang boxes.

I really like the looks of it AND how I can build Warre-type chimney configuration for winter just by using the dummy frames right inside the Lang wooden-ware.
The benefit of this - in summer I can easily expand the brood next up to 14 frames - about perfect brood-nest size.

Anyways, I now want to make all bunch of ~300mm wide frames out of 435mm Lang frames/Dadant frames I have a big pile of.
Gonna have to shorten the top bars/bottom bars somehow - I think johnsof (just above) does exactly this, pretty sure, need to review john's writings.

For non-commercial beeks, the ~300mm frames are the way to go IMO (allows for ergonomic/efficient equipment, especially looking forward to the long retirement years - might as well get setup now, not later).


----------



## GregB

While on topic, here is an excellent video discussing different frame designs for Warre-variants.
This guy also runs Warre-variants (sort of Delon). 
I really like his work.

Jump to 3:19 and watch the author's favorite and final frame design after his experimentation.
This is my favorite frame too (in theory) when made from scratch (almost unfortunately, I got lots of Lang frames to retro-fit IF to get any use out of them).
This frame:
- looks stupid simple to make, 
- very efficient in material, no waste (can be made even from junk cuts), 
- no silly Hoffman separators - just simple straight cuts, 
- no wires and the like non-sense (notice the narrow, OFF-CENTER, 1/2 inch top bar - this IS the guide for foundation OR foundation-less comb starter), 
- and yet plenty strong given the small size.

You can watch prior to that point too if want. 
You will see the other frame designs he tried (including the classic Delon wire frame).

Non-English, but there is plenty of material to see as-is. 
Audio is not required if you know your stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ-papk9tMk


----------



## Hunajavelho

GregV said:


> While on topic, here is an excellent video discussing different frame designs for Warre-variants.
> This guy also runs Warre-variants (sort of Delon).
> I really like his work.
> 
> Jump to 3:19 and watch the author's favorite and final frame design after his experimentation.
> This is my favorite frame too (in theory) when made from scratch (almost unfortunately, I got lots of Lang frames to retro-fit IF to get any use out of them).
> This frame:
> - looks stupid simple to make,
> - very efficient in material, no waste (can be made even from junk cuts),
> - no silly Hoffman separators - just simple straight cuts,
> - no wires and the like non-sense (notice the narrow, OFF-CENTER, 1/2 inch top bar - this IS the guide for foundation OR foundation-less comb starter),
> - and yet plenty strong given the small size.
> 
> You can watch prior to that point too if want.
> You will see the other frame designs he tried (including the classic Delon wire frame).
> 
> Non-English, but there is plenty of material to see as-is.
> Audio is not required if you know your stuff.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ-papk9tMk


Great stuff! Thanks GregV, very good find!
Lots of good stuff on his channel!


----------



## GregB

Hunajavelho said:


> Great stuff! Thanks GregV, very good find!
> Lots of good stuff on his channel!


Right.
I really like the ideas of the "low technology" frames.
Why, exactly, *any curve cuts* are even needed when making the bee hive frames of all things?
Just nonsense.


----------



## GregB

This is how you install foundation (if use foundation) onto the "low tech" frames with asymmetric top/bottom bars.
5 second job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rTJqDDyYqY


----------



## little_john

little_john said:


> I've already converted my original Warre 'Alpine' boxes into full-depth boxes dimensioned to fit 8 British National frames lengthwise, with the internal width left - as before - at 300mm. So - *I can now retro-fit rebates (rabbets in the US) to the sides*, and run either standard frames lengthwise, or Warre frames cross-wise.  That will provide interchangeability using those particular boxes.


Weather was kind today, so I was able to get a jig knocked-up and routered the first box - shown with a couple of my old Warre (Delon) frame top-bars in place, now with their wire frames removed - upside down (or course):



Will be attacking more boxes tomorrow - one down, eleven more to go ...
LJ


----------



## GregB

little_john said:


> Weather was kind today, so I was able to get a jig knocked-up and routered the first box - shown with a couple of my old Warre (Delon) frame top-bars in place, now with their wire frames removed - upside down (or course):
> 
> 
> 
> Will be attacking more boxes tomorrow - one down, eleven more to go ...
> LJ


Cool, LJ.
This is exactly the way I mean to run my experimentals too.
You can trivially create a 300x300 (or smaller) volume using the dummy frames for wintering.
You can expand the fill the entire box wall-to-wall - say in summer time.
You can run 2-3 boxes vertically BUT each only *partially *full (essentially creating a narrow-vertical setup inside the same boxes) to attempt at harvesting early flow - my goal.
This setup is more powerful than just the square 300x300 box.
It is also better for mobile settings - more stable due to larger foot print (compared to 300x300 - too easy to fall sideways).

Here is what I really want - multi-configuration hive boxes to handle both wide/short frames - Lang/Dadant (if have to) and narrow/deep frames - Ukrainian/Lewicki/Gallup (preferred)
Jump to 4:25 and watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEFwIdaD_AU


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

jellyghost said:


> What is the time commitment difference between Warre and Langstroth hives?


That depends on a lot of things. I would say half the time you spend on a Langstroth.



jellyghost said:


> What is the production difference between Warre and Langstroth hives?


Only half of what you can make in a Langstroth, in my experience. 



jellyghost said:


> I have read people praising the virtues of Warre hives for the sake of leaving Bees natural. I like that idea, but it is not really motivating my decision.


Ha, then you better choose Langstroth. 

For all those natural beekeepers here are some thoughts by Tom Seeley: https://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/darwinian-beekeeping


----------



## little_john

little_john said:


> In order to provide interchangeability with the rest of the circus, I've come up with yet another ruse - this being quite simply a Warre Box housed within a standard British National Deep box, thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> To be pedantic, this will actually be a National feeder shell made from (say) 15mm timber/lumber with outside dimensions 460x460mm (c.18"x18"). Inside it will be a Warre box of 300x300mm (internal), made from the same stuff.


Well - that was the plan - and here's the reality:



Still needs filler and paint, and thin plywood cladding adding to both top and bottom of course, but it should be usable in around 10 days or so ... 
LJ


----------



## GregB

little_john said:


> Well - that was the plan - and here's the reality:
> 
> 
> 
> Still needs filler and paint, and thin plywood cladding adding to both top and bottom of course, but it should be usable in around 10 days or so ...
> LJ


Nice, LJ.


----------

