开云体育

Bears Ears pack from Nunatak

#gear

Byron Nevins All Messages By This Member #75575 I bought a "Bears Ears" pack from Nunatak (nunatakusa.com) and I'm impressed with it.? It's reasonably light -- 27 oz but can be stripped to 25 oz.?? It's designed to carry a bear can on the OUTSIDE.? It has 35 liters of space in the main pack which is gigantic.? It also has a huge wrap-around pocket.? The bottle holder is the best I've seen -- and I've tried plenty!? You don't need to be a contortionist to get the bottle out.? It is rated for 35 pounds.? It is sturdy - unlike many ultralight packs. I put my Bearikade Expedition on it, loaded it up with some weight and did a 5 mile hike and it was GREAT!? My main concern was that the can would dig into my back or flop around.? Not at all.? It was held very solidly about 4" away from my back. I absolutely hate trying to cram gear into a rectangular pack around a huge cylindrical bear can taking up most of the pack space.? Another useful application is putting waterproof food inside the pack and turning the bearcan into your "sanctum santorum" (cf: Colin Fletcher) while hiking -- i.e. all your down, electronics, etc. $330 ?? -- Byron Nevins Lead Moderator of JMT at groups.io
john mcdonald All Messages By This Member #75585 开云体育 Byron, I agree with your impressions of the Bears Ears. This past August I hiked with mine between Sonora Pass and Tuolumne Meadows. It's so convenient to set the pack down on its side and spin off the Bear Vault lid! --John McDonnell On 3/17/22 09:26, Byron Nevins wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text I bought a "Bears Ears" pack from Nunatak (nunatakusa.com) and I'm impressed with it.? It's reasonably light -- 27 oz but can be stripped to 25 oz.?? It's designed to carry a bear can on the OUTSIDE.? It has 35 liters of space in the main pack which is gigantic.? It also has a huge wrap-around pocket.? The bottle holder is the best I've seen -- and I've tried plenty!? You don't need to be a contortionist to get the bottle out.? It is rated for 35 pounds.? It is sturdy - unlike many ultralight packs. I put my Bearikade Expedition on it, loaded it up with some weight and did a 5 mile hike and it was GREAT!? My main concern was that the can would dig into my back or flop around.? Not at all.? It was held very solidly about 4" away from my back. I absolutely hate trying to cram gear into a rectangular pack around a huge cylindrical bear can taking up most of the pack space.? Another useful application is putting waterproof food inside the pack and turning the bearcan into your "sanctum santorum" (cf: Colin Fletcher) while hiking -- i.e. all your down, electronics, etc. $330 ?? -- Byron Nevins Lead Moderator of JMT at groups.io
Lange Jorstad All Messages By This Member #75589 This pack design has always seemed like the most sensible way to carry a bear canister. There is nothing convenient about ramming your canister in your pack and shoving everything else in the little voids around it - that's just a terrible design solution. I hiked the JMT with a ULA Ohm, which would not accommodate a BV500 inside, so during the day I carried my food in a DCF bag in my pack and shoved my sleeping bag in the canister and lashed it to the top of my pack (tried doing this on Day 1 with the food still in it and it was hopelessly top heavy, but would have worked if there was an option on the bottom of the pack). I'm surprised more pack manufacturers haven't adopted some variation of the Bears Ears design, or at least have a bottom flap with long enough straps that you could choose to strap your canister to the bottom, outside the pack.?
ravi_jmt2013 All Messages By This Member #75592 What I'd be concerned about with the canister at the very bottom is weight distribution. With my ULA Circuit, I put my sleeping bag at the very bottom, then the canister goes on top of the sleeping bag centered along my back, with other gear placed around the canister, and all food for the day outside the canister in the hip belt pockets or back pocket so I don't have to access the canister until getting to camp. ?Packed this way, the heaviest weight, the canister, is placed well. If the heaviest weight is at the very bottom outside the pack, I'm not sure how it would carry. But I've never tried this particular pack and people seem happy with it.
Richard Zoraster All Messages By This Member #75612 I have this pack, and for some reason it did not work well for me. ?Even with the waist belt tight, the shoulder straps were uncomfortable. I think maybe it put the center of gravity a bit back of where it is comfortable. ?Or maybe my posture sucks. It is is pristine shape, a few scuff, but only used for 4 nights. $200 shipped Large belt (34 inch waist) Richard
Dwight Waknitz All Messages By This Member #75613 开云体育 What size is the length of pack. I probably need a large(19 to 20.5 inch) The hip belt might be too small but I could order larger one if the length is right. size. I have talked myself into buying it if is a large.? Dwight Waknitz Port Angeles, WA 98362 You can text me at 360 460 4532.? toggle quoted message Show quoted text On Mar 25, 2022, at 10:02 AM, Richard Zoraster via <rzoraster@...> wrote: I have this pack, and for some reason it did not work well for me. ?Even with the waist belt tight, the shoulder straps were uncomfortable. I think maybe it put the center of gravity a bit back of where it is comfortable. ?Or maybe my posture sucks. It is is pristine shape, a few scuff, but only used for 4 nights. $200 shipped Large belt (34 inch waist) Richard
Lange Jorstad All Messages By This Member #75625 开云体育 I read the pack review on Backpacking Light and was surprised to learn it was a frameless pack. Given that the low canister position would have the effect of pulling the pack down and away from your back, it just seems like this pack would benefit from at least a basic frame so load lifters could be added to the pack straps and the whole arrangement would carry a little better. I suspect that could be part of the reason the shoulder straps are uncomfortable. toggle quoted message Show quoted text On 26 Mar 2022, at 4:02 am, Richard Zoraster via groups.io <rzoraster@...> wrote: ?I have this pack, and for some reason it did not work well for me. ?Even with the waist belt tight, the shoulder straps were uncomfortable. I think maybe it put the center of gravity a bit back of where it is comfortable. ?Or maybe my posture sucks. It is is pristine shape, a few scuff, but only used for 4 nights. $200 shipped Large belt (34 inch waist) Richard
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #75630 I designed this pack, and available for questions.
Lange Jorstad All Messages By This Member #75643 Hello Jan - I've been passively looking at packs with decent canister compatibility for a while, and yours seemed like an obvious design solution that no one else has adopted (or at least, sold commercially). Have you ever considered a framed version of this pack? Some of the comments I've read suggested that having that much weight that low on the pack, with no frame system to help distribute the load between hip and shoulders, made it a little uncomfortable to carry. I definitely understand the frameless pack philosophy, but personally I wouldn't have considered a traditional frameless pack for canister trips.? I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards, Lange On Sunday, 27 March 2022, 01:42:23 pm AEDT, <jan@...> wrote: I designed this pack, and available for questions.
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #75644 It doesn't work for everyone, like one would expect. Currently we are aware of a 7% return/resell rate. There's a framed version ready to go, but we are too busy to list it. It could, however, be handed out in limited numbers to interested parties. See a collage here:??Ask for more info, if it looks okay to you. Most of our experienced long running testers notice a small increase in comfort at peak loads with the framed vs frameless, but at the cost of almost 10 ounces most concluded it was not worth it.? Contrary to what you allude to, the low center of gravity almost makes frames superfluous. It's like a giant fanny pack with a super beefy hipbelt and suspenders. Remember Wingnut? Kinda building on that concept. That's the unique aspect of this, and only becomes clear when trying it, but to achieve success?one needs not going too small in torso length. The shoulder straps cannot follow the curvature of the shoulders down the back more than a short distance before undue cinching is needed to prevent a backwards pivot of the pack. But this is a well know fit aspect of popular packs with very supportive hipbelts but no load lifters, such as HMG. The sizing, for this reason, jumps in only 1.5" increments, probably the closest you can find in a production pack.? The framed Bears Ears is far more forgiving, thus only projected in three sizes. I am 6'1", 21" torso, 175lbs, 34 inseam and can use both the M/L and L/XL. This makes it much less tricky to sell - the hard part only trying to convince our weight weenie customer base to eat the 10 ounces.
[email protected] #75727 Hi Jan,? I am an ounce weenie and was very interested in the bear ears until I found out it is frameless.? I would love to try out the framed pack for you and offer feedback.? I am an experienced hiker and will be hiking the JMT starting 6/22/22.?

Previous Topic Next Topic