Bearbonesnorm post_id=249264 wrote:
Sorry Gian but you've added an awful lot of caveats to that, which I'm afraid still don't alter the fact that the statement 'the lightest stove system ever made' is wrong and misleading. They didn't say, this is the lightest system 'if' and 'but'.
I agree, an awful lot of caveats for you, but others often go on longer trips than just a few days, were the Jetboil is likely going to offer the lighter kitchen then you beloved meths, which is the point I'm trying to make.
You suggested that going with eg. the meths stove option, you can reduce weight even further, which is as misleading as the Jetboil ad.
I know you're not a North American backpacker (as all or almost all on here) and thus don't fit into the main target group, nor do I, yet I believe I'm much closer to it and this different view point seems interesting as it makes the claim 'more realistic'. But more on that later.
Real weights from Gearjunkie's review:
Here’s the weight breakdown by component:
Titanium burner: 2.1 oz.0.8L aluminum pot: 4.5 oz. (5 oz. with lid)Fuel canister stand: 1 oz.
Stove: 59.5 g
Pot: 127.6 g
Lid: 14.2 g
Stand: 28.3 g
201.3 g for the Jetboil Stash w/o stand.
I was wrong when I guessed that the stands were included and the lid (alu) is already quite light. When I had a glance at the Jetboil, I mistook the lid for being plastic. Not much to be done, 201 g, no way it can be cut down to 150 g, which makes the margin to be the lightest option very, very small and realistic only for long self-sufficient trips, very unusually long for backpacking.
My gas 'system' with a 39 g gas stove, similar sized Toaks ti pot (0.7 L, 115 mm diam, so the flame has more catch) and lid:
Stove: 39 g
Pot: 62 g
Lid: 25 g
126 g for my system. Sometimes I use a selfmade alu lid, which drops another 21 g, but sincw this could be done to the Jetboil, I leave it as is. So, I get...
75 g difference.
I agree Stu, with a 100 g or 200 g canister, the difference of fuel efficiency isn't high enough – well not in my case I'm quite sure.
I've not tested the Jetboil Stash, but the first gen Jetboil (I have a stripped down version of it – since 2004, thanks to a fun party at the "European Outdoor" exhibition) is about 20 % more efficient compared to my setup. I'd have to be on a 35 day solo trip in warm climate or 17.5 d trip in cool climate to get to the same initial weight. Since eg 'my' (example of) North American backpacker very, very rarely goes self-sufficient trips of such duration and the weight will be equal (anyhow, a 400 g canister would be needed), the claim indeed seems like marketing bs.
Just as much bs as saying that meths stove is lighter. Hands up, who has done it?
Asposium post_id=249266 wrote:
To be fair, I don’t see the stash as a stove system.
Merely an open burner stove with a pan.
I consider all my stoves and pans and windshield as a system, since I use them together and since I want them to work well together. In an extreme case I've modified a XGK II stove and made a tight windshield for a special pot et voilà, 40 % more fuel effective(!), fantastic for really long trips or shorter trip in winter, when the only water I have access to is in solid form. Bot pot and stove will work in different combinations, just less effective (albeit perhaps better for short trips since lighter). Same goes for the Jetboil, it's not going to explode if you use it with other pots or the pot with another stove.
Asposium post_id=249265 wrote:
I’m sold on the windburner.
Yes, it’s bigger and heavier than the standard stove.
But
So much more gas efficient.
As said above, burn time equals gas.
Gas equals weight.
Exactly, a heavier stove system can actually lead to a lower total weight.
RIP post_id=249274 wrote:
go again and again
Sure you want to go that route? Sometimes I don't know when to stop…
RIP post_id=249274 wrote:
Pretty much an expedition.
Or, just a multiday hike with no resupply option in my books. And what makes it any different if it was an expedition (vy my definition)?
When my girlfriend and I hiked the Great Divide Trail through the Canadian Rockies from the US border at Waterton to N of Mt. Robson, we met other backpackers on the more famous routes in National Parks like Jasper NP, Banff NP, Waterton NP, Kootenay NP and Yoho NP, where many of them (routes) are long enough, like the Brazeau Loop (80 km), that most backpackers will be out for 3 - 5 days. There are many other famous routes, which would be called an expedition in GB. As a teenager I accompanied the leaders during a bunch of DoE trips (Hulme Grammar School, Oldham), since a good friend was involved as one of the leaders and learned about how differently expedition is defined in GB.
What is a regular hiking holiday (eg the Brazeau Loop, John Muir Trail, Rockwall Trail) for many in North America, is often called an expedition in GB.
It's these 'expeditions' where down right lightness doesn't mean an overall lighter rucksack, since fuel economy comes into play.
RIP post_id=249274 wrote:
Your facts don't become false, no. But their "fact" is totally separate from yours. What they meant is different from what they said: "the lightest stove system ever made".
I'm not sure what they meant. How can you be sure?
[quote="lune ranger" post_id=249390 time=1612693807 user_id=4302]
Doesn’t a pressurised petrol/white gas stove win in this situation - I mean over extended trips. Especially if used with a heat exchanger and wind shield.
An MSR Simmerlite is only 240g (stove/pump) and burns a 1000ml fuel over a about 235 minutes. Considering you can boil 500ml of water in 2 minutes you can easily get 2 weeks of cooking for 1 or 2 people out of that amount of fuel. Solo I’ve done almost 4 weeks.
With butane you are carrying a lot of metal in the form of the fuel cans and the can looses efficiency as it empties. A pressurised petrol stove if kept clean never drops efficiency and you can carry large amounts of fuel in light containers eg. pop bottles.
As far as I’ve ever seen most long wilderness expeditions go with something like an MSR petrol stove rather than gas. It’s certainly been my choice in the past and it would be in future even if I’ve switched to a tiny meths stove for trips of a few days.
[/quote]
It depends on how much water you want/need to heat and how light and efficient the two systems (gas and petrol) are. You can do all the same with any stove system that has fuel you need to carry.
I very rarely (almost never) use petrol apart from "snow melting" trips, since my gas "systems" (oohhh… naughty word!) are so much lighter and require less fuel, that my most efficient petrol system only wins after … well… it's 69 days… (for a solo trip with 1.5 L hot water/day, no snow melting).
We've had this before:
[quote="lune ranger" post_id=222639 time=1593174065 user_id=4302]
As far as cooking is concerned for extended trips without resupply you are going to be best off with a pressurised petrol stove
[/quote]
Remember? My answer:
Very true. I went with a modified XGK and 1.7 L Reactor pot. I went with a large pot since I could/had to melt snow for water for about 1/3 of the trip duration. The XGK may be the loudest, but in my experience the most reliable and efficient stove of the three (Whisperlite, Dragonfly and XGK).
During some tests melting ice (always with some water in the pot), I was happy to find my stove was able to melt and boil 1 L of water with only 25 g of fuel. That's close to half of what usually has to be expected for suxch stoves. Some may find this a lot, but remember it takes twice the amount of fuel to melt and boil ice/snow.
Whilst my kitchen seems heavy, it saves so much weight with its efficiency (and the ability of transporting fuel in PET bottles), that I indeed save a few kg's compared to any efficient gas or alcohol stove (given I'd be stupid enough to use an alcohol stove at 6000 m, at - 18 °C, to melt ice and snow). Also running it half powered, not waiting 'till a proper boil and soaking my food in pouches all adds up to saved weight and volume.
Finally, the lighter fuel options:
I too have argued before that wood is lighter,
but for many/often it's not an option (treeless environment, National Parks/other areas
where making a fire is illegal, areas and circumstances where making a fire is down right stupid etc.) and then there's the lightest of light – crotch cooking. Sounds worse than it is and works astonishingly well.
There you go, lightest stove system; put water in a sealable pouch with food to rehydrate ("cook"), shove it down your croth, give it half an hour, enjoy.
.
