nanok -10 owners

[Aragorn]

i'm trying to change my dpm kit, so am looking for a new sack, i know it's been covered several times before i'v done a search but am too tired to take the info in (nights last night, off to bobo land in a bit)
so the question, what size volume sack is best, i currently have a short back bergan, think the main compartment is 80lts, that looks about right, but it has an extendable skirt and i don't know if the 80lts is with or without this, hope that makes sence (dosn'e to me )

night night.

[PJMCBear]

Sorry, what are you asking?

I think you're asking which rucksack will the -10 fit in to.

PLCE bergan, 100ltr. It's a perfect fit, but I bet there are other, lighter, sacks that it will fit into.

[TheGreenMan]

Mornin’

Didn’t have any information on hand as to the volume of the bags in the compession sacks, but having measured them and done some calculations based on the dimensions I can now give the volume in litres:

Endurance SF 0ºC: Bag in compression sack (bag uncompressed) 42cm x 19cm dia / 1790g / 11.9 litres (approx)

Endurance SF -10ºC: Bag in compression sack (bag uncompressed) 42cm x 23cm dia / 2340g / 17.5 litres (approx)

Radius (cm) * Length (cm) ÷ 1000 = volume in litres

I can’t really provide any better answer, as even you state, you’re not sure what it is that you’re asking (man, that must have been a tough night shift!) Hope this helps, if only a little

Best regards,
Paul.

[Zammo]

I have a 45 litre Sabre ruck sack and for me to put my -10 Nanok in the main compartment would leave little room for anything else.

[TheGreenMan]

Did any of us get close to answering the question(s) you were asking, Aragorn?

It was the reference to the Nanok bag in the thread title, but no mention of how that related to a new non-DPM rucksack that 'threw me a curve'

I guessed that you wanted to know what would be the best rucksack to carry an Endurance SF -10 in. But that's a bit of a weird question anyway, because it largely depends on what else you want to carry at the same time. So I figured if you didn't already own a -10, if I gave you the volume in litres of the sleeping bag in its compression sack , you could make your own decision about what size rucksack you needed to carry it, and your other gear.

My head hurts!

Best regards,
Paul.

EDIT: Ah yes, I've just seen your post here:
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/community...t=17185&page=2
...now I'm really confused

[Aragorn]

forgot all about this post, your sort of right, i currently own both a nanok -10 and a DPM short back bergan, i want to swap the bergan, gone off the DPM kit, i was thinking about a highlander forces bag, a few people on here have them and have given them a fair review, but i wsn't sure which size to go for, either the highlander forces 88 or 99, think the 66 would be too small for the nanok, plus my other kit.

the short back bergan i think is 80lts main compartment, but there is a "skirt" at the top which extents the height of the sac and drawstrings closed, i wsn't sure if this made up part of the 80lts, the nanok takes up about half the space of the sack without the skirt bit extended

[TheGreenMan]

forgot all about this post, your sort of right, i currently own both a nanok -10 and a DPM short back bergan, i want to swap the bergan, gone off the DPM kit, i was thinking about a highlander bag, a few people on here have them and have given them a fair review, but i wsn't sure which size to go for, either the 88 or 99, think the 66 would be too small for the nanok, plus my other kit.

the short back bergan i think is 80lts main compartment, but there is a "skirt" at the top which extents the height of the sac and drawstrings closed, i wsn't sure if this made up part of the 80lts

OK, it's all becoming clearer, Aragorn. Thanks

As you probably need the -10 for cold weather in the UK, I would say that the size of your rucksack should be governed mainly by how long you plan to stay out. Obviously, an over-nighter, will require less kit that a week long jaunt.

Anyway, I'd be interested on what sack you decide upon.

Best regards,
Paul.

[Aragorn]

cheers, i'll keep you posted

[TheGreenMan]

Thanks, it’s always interesting to hear why people bought what they did, and why.

Being pretty new to the rough camping/bushcraft thing, I’m still in the kit gathering phase (does that ever really stop? ). I still don’t have some of the basics. I’ve got a Swedish army LK35 rucksack (35litres) which is superb, both in price and utility (used the detachable external frame as a load-carrier the other week to bring back a piece of log to my apartment to use a firewood chopping block for the hatchet. The piece of log is some sort of hardwood, 40cm dia and 30cm long, it was saturated with rain water, and weighed a ‘ton’. The rucksack frame held-up a lot better than I did! ).

With a bit of luck, I’m hoping to get an LK70 (70 litre version) soon. I’ve been trying to get one for about a year, now. 70 litres is about as large as I want to go, as an unfit 49 year old, I really don’t fancy carrying a loaded rucksack much larger than that. I know that a fellow forum member uses an LK70 to camp out in Scandinavian extreme sub-zero temperatures, so I imagine that the LK70 would do me just fine, at least for my intended uses at the moment.

I really can’t imagine myself being able to carry a rucksack/bergan of 100 litres at my level of fitness and at my age. I can only envisage using a rucksack of this size for an extended jaunt to sub-arctic or arctic conditions, which if it’s likely to happen at all, isn’t going to happen in the near future.

So, it’s simple and essential kit only for me, and preferably inexpensive too, thought it still needs to be of high quality and highly dependable.

Sourcing this kind of kit provides me with a great deal of fun.

Cheers,
Paul.

[Aragorn]

you make a good point about the size of the bergan, that was another reason i want to get rid of mine, it's just too big

i'm proberbly at about the same stage as you regarding kit, (no it never, ever ends ) there are some things i've made a mistake with, first sleeping bag for one, but that's all part of the learning curve i suppose, i am happy with the nanok for now anyway.

i think i am leaning more towards the forces 88 sac (88lts) that should be more than big enought even with a big sac like the nanok

the "lk" sac's seem very popular with a few guys on here

Alan

[TheGreenMan]

...(no it never, ever ends )...

I know, it’s great, isn’t it? (bloke heaven!)

...there are some things i've made a mistake with, first sleeping bag for one, but that's all part of the learning curve i suppose, i am happy with the nanok for now anyway...

There is no reason to suppose that the Endurance SF -10 is a mistake. It’s one of the finest synthetic fibre bags around, and great for the damp conditions here in the UK (It’ll never rot, whatever the air humidity/temp).

...i think i am leaning more towards the forces 88 sac (88lts) that should be more than big enought even with a big sac like the nanok...

If you need to reduce the volume of the bag in your rucksack/bergan then down is the way to go. If cost is an issue, then the down bags that Alpkit offer are tough to beat on price.

I’ve got an Alpkit AlpineDream 500 and following my (not exactly mine) formula for calculating volume in litres, it packs down to 0.22 litres in its compression sack (according to Alpkit’s data (I’ve not yet tried to put the bag in its compression sack): 21cm divided by 10.5 cm (Radius of 21cm) multiplied by (*) length (21cm) = 220.5cm² ÷ 1000 = 0.22.5 litres). If some real mathematician wants to shoot me down in flames, please go ahead, as I feel I must have got this wrong!

http://www.alpkit.com/shop/cart.php?...ategory_id=253

Well hey, if 88 litres minus the 18 litres of the Nanok -10 (approx) leaves you with 70 litres for everything else that you need for your intended stay out, then I say ‘go for it’. I mean, if you need something bigger, or smaller, then that just provides you with another excuse to buy yet another rucksack (bloke heaven, or what?)

...the "lk" sac's seem very popular with a few guys on here...

What the heck is ‘IK’(wanting to learn, here)?

Best regards,
Paul.

[Aaron]

Yeah, reckon you'd have a problem fitting the -10 into the highlander '66 - I've got one and can just about get my patern '58 sleeping bag in along with my other kit but its a bit of a squeeze. Go for a larger one.

[TheGreenMan]

Just for the record, Aaron, using the formula: Radius (cm) * length (cm) ÷ 1000 = volume in litres, what would be the volume of the 58 pattern sleeping bag be?

Best regards,
Paul.

[bikething]

I thought volume of a cylinder was the radius squared x Pi x height ???

and I think the 'lk' refers to the swedish LK-35 and LK-70 rucksacks (35 litres and 70 litres respectively)

HTH
Steve

[TheGreenMan]

I thought volume of a cylinder was the radius squared x Pi x height ???...

C*ck, that sounds right to me! More Internet research to be done!

...and I think the 'lk' refers to the swedish LK-35 and LK-70 rucksacks (35 litres and 70 litres respectively)...

.

Damn, that sounds right to me, Steve!

......HTH...

Indeed!

Cheers,
Paul.

[TheGreenMan]

I think wot you said, Steve, and wot I said are the same thing:
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mmts/geomet...Cylinder1.html

Anyone under the age of 25years, feel free to wade in!

Best regards,
Paul.

[bikething]

or for comparison - think about the size of a 2litre bottle of coke for example

is your Alpkit AlpineDream 500 bigger when packed?

If the pack size is 21cm x 21cm... the radius is 10.5cm... so

volume = 10.5 x 10.5 x 3.14 x 21 = 7,273 ccs or 7.3 litres or three and a half 2 litre bottles worth

as for the nanok -10 , in the back of my car at the moment i've got a sabre 45 with a nanok -10, bivy bag, down jacket and pair of issue bivvy trousers in it, and that's the main compartment pretty much full, though i could squash it down a little bit more using the lid straps and side compression straps.

err, what was the original question again

[Aragorn]

There is no reason to suppose that the Endurance SF -10 is a mistake. It’s one of the finest synthetic fibre bags around, and great for the damp conditions here in the UK (It’ll never rot, whatever the air humidity/temp).

the nanok bag was the answer to the mistake the first bag i bought was one of those german sniper bags, about twice the size when packed but with half the insulation, I think the nanok is a great bag and can see me using it a lot (misses depending )

[TheGreenMan]

I’m sure you’re right and I’m wrong (which is embarrassing to admit at the best of times)

or for comparison - think about the size of a 2litre bottle of coke for example

is your Alpkit AlpineDream 500 bigger when packed?......

Yep.

Well, it’s weird that you should mention the Coke bottle thing, because the other night I had one on the kitchen work surface, and I was thinking that the Nanok Endurance -10 couldn’t be much more than a 2 litre Coke bottle * 4, so I reckoned that my calcs were about right.

...If the pack size is 21cm x 21cm... the radius is 10.5cm... so

volume = 10.5 x 10.5 x 3.14 x 21 = 7,273 ccs or 7.3 litres or three and a half 2 litre bottles worth ...

Don't you just hate it when a calculator makes a decent fellow, who's trying to help, look like a complete w*nker!? (I mean me).

OK, I've figure it out. The 21cm * 21cm dimensions were taken from the Alpkit site. It appears that this would be their dimesions of bag in its compressed state (which I quoted in the calculations). The actual (correct) volume in litres of the bag (in its uncompressed state) should be 10.5 (Radius) * 37cm (Length) ÷ 1000 .

This gives the volume as 12820.499999999989 cm³.

This is 12.820499999999988 litres for the Alpkit AlpDream 500, or 12.8 litres for normal folks.

...as for the nanok -10 , in the back of my car at the moment i've got a sabre 45 with a nanok -10, bivy bag, down jacket and pair of issue bivvy trousers in it, and that's the main compartment pretty much full, though i could squash it down a little bit more using the lid straps and side compression straps...

The Nanok Endurance SF -10 is 11.5cm (Radius) * 42cm (Length) = 17456.999999999985cm³ ÷ 1000 = 17.46 litres (approx).

...err, what was the original question again

Sc*ewed if I know

Best regards,
Paul.

PS: this way too late in the day, and the wrong day for this kind of thing

[David Morgan]

This is all assuming you need to have your sleeping bag inside your pack. I've gone for a forty four litre sack on the basis that it is a good size for a large day sack in it's own right, and for more extended trips bulky items such as sleeping bag, mat, tarp and water bottles can be mounted on the outside.

[TheGreenMan]

Well, it’s a new day, and it looks like humble pie is on the breakfast menu for me.

To cut a long story, short, what I have done in the above posts is to write the equations incorrectly, as Bikething has rightly pointed out in post #17.

It seems I owe everyone an apology, and thanks to Bikthing for pointing out my error.

The volumes of the Nanok Endurance -10 and the AlpineDream 500, are correct, however.

My foray into basic maths makes arguing the merits of knife grinds over in Edged Tools, almost worthwhile.

My belated New Year’s Resolution is to ‘stop thinking I can help’.

I think it’s time for a holiday.

Best regards,
Paul.

[TheGreenMan]

This is all assuming you need to have your sleeping bag inside your pack. I've gone for a forty four litre sack on the basis that it is a good size for a large day sack in it's own right, and for more extended trips bulky items such as sleeping bag, mat, tarp and water bottles can be mounted on the outside.

An excellent point, David. Wishing I'd stated the above, several posts ago

Best regards,
Paul.

[Drakeshoot]

http://www.uktactical.com/acatalog/T...ian_Tiger.html

Even cheaper than outdoorcode.

I've not ordered from them mind, so caveat emptor.

[Aragorn]

but not as cheap as where i got mine cheap as chips