I've been playing the "how much fuel should I take on my trip game". Anybody else want to play? It would be interesting to compare the different ways people figure it out with different fuels - liquid gas, alcohol, isopro canisters - stoves, usage patterns. If so, here are the numbers to use:

Fuel for 17 meals and 39 coffees . . .

Since the usage varies some with ambient temperature/wind, the time frame is mid-Sept. to the end of Sept. It can also vary slightly among fuel blends.

I calculate I'll need 215 grams of isopro fuel for my JetBoil to do that based on 30 minutes of burn time for 100 grams of fuel and 1.5 minutes to boil the cup +/- of water for a meal and 1 minute for the coffees. Total = 64.5 minutes, 215 grams of fuel.

The question now is how much extra "margin for error" . . .

Two years of actual usage I tracked:

2015 used 1 100 gram canister for 9 dinners and 19 coffees.

2016 used 3.75 oz./108 grams for 11 dinners and 20 coffees.

Assuming similar weather conditions to the previous trips listed, I would go with a single 230 gram canister. That may seem to be cutting close, but I've always managed to play it conservative enough to never run out of fuel on any trip. I've forgotten the fuel before, but never ran out. If the forecast looked to be colder or wetter than expected, I would consider adding a 100 gram canister to my kit.

Just a bit compulsive???

Naw, I just figure on a simpler basis, it's my way. For your need at 215g, 1-8oz canister or 2-4oz would do. If you take 2 smaller cans you can adjust during the trip better. Or if you worry about running out 1-8oz and 1-4oz.

For my use I get almost equal cooking time oz per oz of either canister or liquid fuel. Boiling 16oz of water 2 times a day I can get by on 8oz of either for a week. Really close to your use boonie. I have no trouble with open fire cooking and use that as a backup as needed. Never needed it though and when I cook over a fire extra fuel goes home. I do use a remote tank fueled stove with a good windscreen. This reduces the temp and wind effects a lot and does save fuel.
My Simmerlites and Windpro stoves will boil 16oz of water in less than 2 minutes using a Trillium base and tight windscreen with an aluminum 5 1/2 inch diameter 1 liter pot/cover.

Far as alky cooking I only fart around with that, not using on packed trips. The home made FF stoves I've made will boil 16 oz with 1 1/2 oz of methanol stove fuel, Sunnyside or KleenStrip.


butthead

This is helpful info since I only use my stove for boiling 5 cups of water a day.

Me, compulsive? Naw, never been called that - a lot of other things though ;). Thanks for the reply and information, butthead.

Actually, it's just an extension of the whole not carrying food you never eat, clothes you never wear, gadgets you never use . . . At some point, I just wanted to get a good general idea, so I wouldn't carry two canisters when I was only using half of one.

All of these reductions have been aimed at longer trips; this one will be my longest. Food weight adds up on longer trips. What I didn't mention was that this trip will be 18 days; that adds up to a lot of food weight. All the breakfasts are cold, only the dinners are hot, and the coffees.

I think one 230 gram canister would be enough as you and bct said. I'm reluctant to use the JetBoil pot over fire though because of reports of damaged (melted) heat exchanger fins. So I may take a small one, especially if I take a Thermacell Backpacker, which runs on the canisters. They say it runs 90 hours on a small canister and I'm sure I wouldn't use it anywhere near that much. I could even just take a partial one with about 50 grams of fuel, saving almost 2 ounces! and reducing my pack weight from 60 lbs. to 59 lbs. 14.23 oz.! :) Probably just take a full one. I'm not that compulsive. So there. :)

I'm hoping to hear from someone who uses an alcohol stove on a long trip (at least this long or longer) or a combo alcohol, twig burner setup. The numbers I keep hearing on alcohol stoves seem to add up to quite a lot of fuel weight that just doesn't seem to make sense for a longer trip. I haven't used my alcohol stove in so long, I don't have any idea how much it used, but I don't remember it being much different. How much alcohol would it take to boil a cup of water 17X and heat a cup 39X? I have no idea . . .

Blatz: "This is helpful info since I only use my stove for boiling 5 cups of water a day. "

Yeah, it should give you an idea, but don't cut it too close without tracking your real usage, which isn't really that hard to do.

A couple of things to keep in mind (what I think bct meant about playing it conservative) -

I don't turn my stove up full blast; they're more efficient at less than that, maybe 1/2 to 3/4.

I'm also pretty conscious of not letting it just burn, say lighting it and letting it burn for a minute (or?) while I go get the water and measure into the pot. Or not monitoring it to turn it off as soon as the water boils or is hot enough in the case of coffee. It's not like 60-90 seconds is really long enough to do much else anyway ;).

The JetBoil is more efficient than some others, so your usage may be a little different.

As described not much of an alcohol user for cooking, but home use and anecdotal references are 2 to 3 ounces of alky to cook/boil as much as 1 ounce of petrol gas or liquid. Seems close to my experimenting use.

Light weight and no waste good!!!! Right there with ya. Got my wet and fueled weight down to 38 pounds total last year for an 11 day trip, and that with 2 Maple Core framed GG Nimbus packs. Keep at it boonie and have a great trip!

butthead

PS: Pretty sure you'd burn off the neopreme cozy outside of the pot before melting any metal part. I did on my Alocs HE pot. bh

I never thought about burning the neoprene cozy off, butthead - I figured there'd be an easier way. Did it smell bad? :)

So far the best fuel numbers I've seen for an alcohol stove are for the new Caldera Cone system (as reviewed recently on the Andrew Skurka and Adventure Alan blogs) with the new stove that you can store unused fuel in rather than just burning the excess off, like with my old stove. Even at their numbers, I'd need a minimum of 20 ounces, plus some margin for variability and spillage. I just can't find much advantage there even though the stove, cone, pot, etc. would be somewhere between 3-6 ounces lighter than my JetBoil.

Now Caldera does make a "tri" system that burns twigs and solid fuel, adds a few ounces. It could save some weight on a long trip maybe, but is it enough to make it worthwhile? probably not to me, but . . . I don't know. It's not cheap either.

You don't seem to be much of a fan of the alcohol stoves for tripping either. Twig stoves? I haven't tried one yet.

Yes it smelled bad, that's what caught my attention!
I do like a faster cooking time and have stayed with petrol fuels. Weight can be very competitive between all the systems with the exception of wood fuel, and for that I always sided on a campfire (small), instead of a dedicated wood burner. My thinking and style. I do some real cooking though on each trip, some fresh batter or dough to bake is a welcome change especially with some dried sausage or beef mixed with a thick gravy. A nice small bed of coals works best for this stuff. whipped this up on a drippy day for a buddy and I on Irma.

butthead

Yes, I think they can all be pretty competitive weightwise, unless weight is the only thing you're concerned about, because they all have advantages and disadvantages, which mean more or less to individual users. I'm pretty much about simplicity, speed, efficiency in a relatively light and compact package, especially solo. I'm not really bothered by the "noise" of my canister stove, one of those things touted as an advantage of alcohol stoves, since I can always take out my hearing aids for the 60-90 seconds it runs :). Nor do I find all the "partial canisters" complaint to be a problem now that I know how much fuel is left in them and how long that will last. I took a partial last time that I knew had plenty of fuel left.

But I can understand the allure of some of them in certain circumstances, and like to stay abreast of things and keep an open mind. I have a stove of every type except the "twig burner". A lot of the stoves I have are not the best available today however. I'm thinking I may build one of the "coffee can" twig burners like gkimball has and try it on some shorter trips. I'll have to take a different pot than the JetBoil pot obviously, which would be a problem if I took one as a backup to the JetBoil.

The thing I keep coming back to that interests me the most for an extended trip is the alcohol/twig burner combo, but . . .

Boonie - your diligence at trying to introduce precision into this part of soloing is inspiring! An 18 day trip is a challenge few of us will ever do.

I have a couple of pictures and lessons learned I can send if you decide to make a coffee can stove. If I were to make another I would change a few things based on what I have learned from a well-made, but heavy, commercial stick stove (FireBox) I recently bought and have been playing with. It allows many uses as opposed to the KISS design of my coffee can unit. Some of its features would certainly improve my first (and only) run at making a stick stove.

For an 18 day trip I think I would try to find (or make) a light weight stick stove that allows different burning methods for different jobs such as a hot fast burn to heat water vs a slower, more controlled burn for cooking. My coffee can model does not allow a slow, controlled burn for cooking. When I have good fuel it burns in one mode - hot and fast - too hot for cooking anything but water.

This in combination with a well-made alcohol stove would make it possible to choose which stove you use based on how much heat and how fast you need it based on the task at hand. I would add that the alcohol stove I have (a Trangia) is becoming easier to use and control, thus conserving fuel, the more I use it. The main thing to learn is to not over fill it. It burns best when you light it about 3/4 full. More and it takes time to get to full heat output. It has a lid with a sliding panel that does a good job of slowing down the burn rate.

For reference I cook a big breakfast (pancakes, eggs, bacon, oatmeal, hash browns - stuff like that) with 1-2 cups of caffeine 4 mornings on a six day trip. This always requires topping up the Trangia, say 1.5 fuel fillings per breakfast. On days when I am in camp during the day (usually 2 per trip) I have more caffeine at least once - a partial fill of the stove. One or two bannocks per 6 day trip with the Trangia (one fuel filling does it), and heat water for freeze dried suppers and hot drinks typically on 4 out of the 5 night (one partial fuel fill per evening.) Never anything heated for lunch. For a 6 day trip I start with the Trangia full, carrying a quart bottle of fuel, and have always brought some fuel home.

If I were to do this for 18 days without a stick stove appropriate for cooking I think I would take along 2.5 quarts of stove fuel and see what happens.

As you can see a lot of this could be done with a well-made, controllable stick stove, saving a lot of fuel weight.

Boonie, If I were going for 18 days, I'd really be thinking about the twig burner -- not only for reduced fuel weight, but because they seem quite robust. Not much to go wrong. Would need a Plan B if it looked like conditions were right for a fire ban.

It's all just dreaming for me, though, because I neither own a twig burner or see an 18-day trip in my near future. Can't wait to hear how it goes for you, whatever you decide.

Dave

"18 days without a stick stove appropriate for cooking I think I would take along 2.5 quarts of stove fuel"

Don't take this wrong Gordon, but this type of statment always makes me wonder the stated lite weight of an alcohol system.

The stove may be very lite but you're taking 70 ounce of fuel.

I'd substitute, a Dragonfly, windscreen, Trillium base, 2 fuel bottles, 20 oz Coleman fuel.
Total 45 oz. all up.
31oz base stove set
2nd bottle with spare pump and 10 oz fuel, 15oz

This is simply reduced with a Simmerlite stove and 22 oz fuel bottle, or a WindPro and 2 8oz canisters, 35oz total.

I know I can do 10 days solo meal prep on 10 oz Coleman fuel, real experience.
Last fall did a 11 day solo with a canister Alocs stove and 2, 4 oz cans.
I do cook on a stove not just boil water.

Far as I can discern the longer the trip the less attractive the alcohol stove, considering weight. They may have other personal advantages to cover reasoning, I have not justified using one on any extended trip myself.

butthead

As with most things outdoors the final decision turns out to be a compromise. Personally I value simplicity and reliability, for which complex stoves don't qualify. I would rather start out carrying a little extra weight in fuel, which will disappear as the trip goes on, than risk using a more complex, heavier stove that can cause problems.

Actually this thread is causing me to explore stick stoves in depth. There are some gasifier models out there now that look good for cooking that I didn't think about before. Some interesting ones appear to weigh in at 10 - 16 oz.

For a long trip like Boonie's I am wondering if I might use the gasifier stick stove as my primary cooking/water heating unit and carry along a Trangia with a small amount of fuel just as a back up.

Wouldn't need to scrounge up as much wood as a real campfire, still be able to cook/heat with wood, but not be completely hosed if you absolutely could find dry fuel - which in my experience would be quite rare.

Everyone justifies their own----------
No trouble with that just like clarity on comparisons and terms. Something I'm a bit-O-stickler about. Someone claims their hammock is lighter and smaller packing than any tent, I just need to contradict them. Best/better/most/ultimate terminology for one is not the same as all.
Great reasoning is personal, as your preference for simplicity, dependability.
Mine leans to tinkering and performance, kinda an old racers/motorhead mentality.

butthead

I've used my trangia on a 10 day, and in my opinion they are comparative fuel hogs. However, it is still my preference. I have had the pump on my MSR Dragonfly crack mid trip, and while MSR was quite gracious in providing a new pump after my return, it was something to deal with during the trip. My feeling is that it would take a mighty catastrophe to render the trangia unusable. The unexpected benefit is the near silent operation. I never realized how tranquil camp cooking could be until I left the afterburner at home.

Interesting and useful thread. So far, I think I'll buy a spare pump for my Dragonfly and probably still carry too much fuel, like I do every trip. At least I no longer bring home 2 or 3 - 20 ounce bottles untouched - usually just 1 these days.

I just can't abide the soot of the twig stoves, though I have a unusual fascination with Kelly Kettle, which obviously has similar soot issues.

To each their own.

butthead: "Everyone justifies their own----------
No trouble with that just like clarity on comparisons and terms. Something I'm a bit-O-stickler about. Someone claims their hammock is lighter and smaller packing than any tent, I just need to contradict them. Best/better/most/ultimate terminology for one is not the same as all.
Great reasoning is personal, as your preference for simplicity, dependability.
Mine leans to tinkering and performance, kinda an old racers/motorhead mentality.


butthead"

You would be a great guy to have along on a trip if something malfunctions!

Gordon,

Thanks for the information and offer. I don't know that I'll make one, but if it's not too much trouble, please send it.

I only burn water, so I don't have the same concerns as some of you regarding cooking and simmering. I only boil water for one meal a day - dinner - so that only leaves the caffeine, usually 2 a day, maybe three on layover days. I actually came up with the 39 by figuring 1 each for the first and last day, 2 each on other travel days, 3 each on 5 layover days (1+1+22=15=39). Hmm, maybe butthead's right . . .

I'll take a moment to thank butthead (compulsive?) and you (diligent and inspiring!?) for adding to my collection of "things I've been called" . . . :)

Like butthead, I've never been able to get the alcohol thing to work out. They have improved in several ways compared to my old "pop can" stove and eliminated many of the disadvantages of those early alcohol stoves.

The "Cadillac" alcohol system is generally considered to be the Trail Designs (TD) Caldera Cone, which is generally considered to be much more efficient. The basic unit with essential items weighs around 7 oz. depending on the particular pot paired with it, which is 5.25 oz. less than my JetBoil Sol. The TD Koijin stove is light, fast, and allows unburned fuel to be stored in the stove, which overcomes a major disadvantage of my "pop can" alcohol stove. It also reportedly has a fiber fill material that "captures" the fuel so it will not spill out - a safety factor as well. You do have to be careful not to overfill it - apparently made trickier by the fiber fill - and lose fuel that way! Something I don't have to worry with when using canisters.

Nonetheless, as near as I can tell from Skurka's blog, it would require about .5 ounce of fuel to make my dinner and .3 ounce for the coffees in my example, or 20.2 ounces of alcohol (not including additional weight of fuel container) . That's 27.2 ounces vs. my Jetboil and a 230 gram canister 24.75 ounces.

Alcohol stoves are primarily touted for their light weight - and there is an advantage on shorter trips. The shorter the trip the greater that advantage, and vice versa. An advantage of alcohol stoves that keeps bringing me back to looking at them is the simplicity of design that gkimball mentioned - there are no moving parts and nothing really to break. Canister stoves aren't that simple in design, but not that much more complicated and undependable either. Alcohol stoves are also touted as quiet, which is meaningless to me (I don't think my JetBoil "roars"), although it seems to be very desirable to some. People also complain about "partial canisters" and what do you do with them? I use them up and recycle the canisters; I don't find it too difficult or complicated.

BUT . . . you can get a Caldera Cone that burns wood and solid fuels, too. Plus you can get an insert that turns the woodburner into a "gasifier"! Now things are getting more interesting. To be continued . . .

NotSoFast: "Boonie, If I were going for 18 days, I'd really be thinking about the twig burner -- not only for reduced fuel weight, but because they seem quite robust. Not much to go wrong. Would need a Plan B if it looked like conditions were right for a fire ban.


It's all just dreaming for me, though, because I neither own a twig burner or see an 18-day trip in my near future. Can't wait to hear how it goes for you, whatever you decide.


Dave"

NotSoFast, Dave -

Even if you don't see that long trip in your future, you need to start planning for it now so you'll be prepared when the opportunity arises;) Besides, if you start working towards it, the opportunity is more likely to come - "opportunity favors the prepared" or something like that. So we'll be expecting regular updates on your plan . . . :)

I would want to have more experience with one before I relied on it for a long remote solo. Some are very robust it seems, but some may also have less robust attachment pieces (?) to put them together.

Yeah, there's the fire ban thing. If I was going to go with the canister stove as the back up, why not just go with it to begin with? Given that I've reduced my fuel usage to a pretty low amount, would I save enough weight in the grand scheme of things to make it worthwhile?

I also wonder if it would just be one of those things whose disadvantage is greatest when you least want to deal with it? In other words, during a long very wet spell . . .

Like you, my 30-day trip is just a pipe-dream at the moment, BUT . . . even if it doesn't happen, Dave, at least we'll be prepared for the apocalypse ;).

boonie: "

NotSoFast: "Boonie, If I were going for 18 days, I'd really be thinking about the twig burner -- not only for reduced fuel weight, but because they seem quite robust. Not much to go wrong. Would need a Plan B if it looked like conditions were right for a fire ban.



It's all just dreaming for me, though, because I neither own a twig burner or see an 18-day trip in my near future. Can't wait to hear how it goes for you, whatever you decide.



Dave"

Like you, my 30-day trip is just a pipe-dream at the moment, BUT . . . even if it doesn't happen, Dave, at least we'll be prepared for the apocalypse ;).
"

I've used the "robot apocalypse / grid-collapse" argument before to support gear acquisition. Sounds like a good reason to buy a twig burner this spring. :)

Fun topic and great discussion!
I do get semi-ridiculed for my choices at times, no biggy, we all do what we do. One quick explanation that many do not believe about my choices. Competitive weight, size, efficiency If a person does some research.
Original style PocketRocket, 900ml SnowPeak pot and pan, full 80z fuel canister, aluminum wind screen. 23.7 oz.

Same set but with an Alocs WindPro clone stove to utilize a fully enclosed windscreen remote fuel tank. 27.4 oz.

Between these I have no reason to go with a PCS system. Yet keep the versatility I like.

Or real old school, MSR Simmerlite, 11 oz. fuel bottle Alocks 1L aluminum pot, windscreen. 25.9 oz.

Each of these will boil 16 oz. of water in 2 minutes or less. Cook for me, 10 days.

Tinkering with other methods just adds to my hobby! Want a long burning meth stove? Home made Starlite style but 4 inches in diameter almost an inch deep. Probably holds 6 0z fuel and with a pint paint can lid blocking the center of the burner who knows how long a burn time (will investigate this in the future along with a DIY wood gassifyer).

butthead

I absolutely agree, butthead, which is kind of ultimately where I've been headed with these posts. There's no great reason for any of us to switch for a few ounces (or even quite a few more), especially if you take into account what you're giving up to do that - and what it costs. You'd give up your preference for versatility, Gordon his for simplicity/dependability, me mine for speed and simplicity of use.

Most of the talk about these systems on the ultralight blogs is almost totally about pure weight. There's also the assumption of relatively short trips (3-5 days), even for AT through hikes, where it's assumed you'll just carry a small amount of fuel and resupply frequently.

When I get done traveling, I just like to screw the burner on, light it up, boil my water (60-90 sec.). It's fairly compact, quick and easy to pack/unpack, I don't have to measure fuel, gather and prepare fuel, I can't spill fuel, I can't just knock the pan off - losing water or food and fuel too. I don't have to worry about fire restriction/bans, I'd be a lot more comfortable using it in a vestibule or in/under the awning of my Lean, in which case I might save the weight of a separate tarp, which would be greater than the savings I could get from switching to a lighter stove/pot/fuel combo. Learning and using one is a relatively short learning curve compared to the others.

Every time I look at these different stoves and combos, I keep coming back to the same conclusion - there's not enough gain to make it worthwhile to me. Everybody has a different perspective and preference though.

boonie: "I absolutely agree, butthead, which is kind of ultimately where I've been headed with these posts. There's no great reason for any of us to switch for a few ounces (or even quite a few more), especially if you take into account what you're giving up to do that - and what it costs. You'd give up your preference for versatility, Gordon his for simplicity/dependability, me mine for speed and simplicity of use.


Most of the talk about these systems on the ultralight blogs is almost totally about pure weight. There's also the assumption of relatively short trips (3-5 days), even for AT through hikes, where it's assumed you'll just carry a small amount of fuel and resupply frequently.


When I get done traveling, I just like to screw the burner on, light it up, boil my water (60-90 sec.). It's fairly compact, quick and easy to pack/unpack, I don't have to measure fuel, gather and prepare fuel, I can't spill fuel, I can't just knock the pan off - losing water or food and fuel too. I don't have to worry about fire restriction/bans, I'd be a lot more comfortable using it in a vestibule or in/under the awning of my Lean, in which case I might save the weight of a separate tarp, which would be greater than the savings I could get from switching to a lighter stove/pot/fuel combo. Learning and using one is a relatively short learning curve compared to the others.


Every time I look at these different stoves and combos, I keep coming back to the same conclusion - there's not enough gain to make it worthwhile to me. Everybody has a different perspective and preference though.





"

Well said. The most important thing is to get out there and come back refreshed and rejuvenated without wrecking the place. How you do it only adds to the fun!