High Sierra Topix

rlown wrote:... a remote can with options. How much fuel does it suck?

Two of us, doing real cooking... fish, dinners, hot breakfasts too - about 5 days @10,000' on one medium sized can of fuel. One big canister lasted 10 + days.

Been using a Windpro for 5+ years now and all those pocket-rocket/ flame over canister type stoves (IMHO), do not compare.
Once again, stable, windscreen, 6.7 oz., simmers or blast-hot, no burning off the butane first and hence a constant flame all the way through the canister, a wide flame pattern (think fish)...works pretty well if going high Sierra where the cold temps matter.

rlown wrote: I love my pot.

I like pot too.
Mark

rlown wrote:HJ,

just saw your review on MSR WindPro II. I think it's yours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTD1WI-vSTE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very nice!

and a remote can with options. How much fuel does it suck?

Russ,

Yes, that's my (ahem) "professional grade" video (not). Hopefully it gets the point across despite the fact that it's all one take with no editing.

The stove in the video is an MSR Windpro II. That should be the same stove that markskor was using (although his might be an older version). As in most things, there are trade offs. On the plus side, the Windpro has:
-Better wind protection (you can use a full windscreen without worrying about overheating the canister)
-Better pot stability, particularly with larger pots.
-Better cold weather performance (with the canister inverted).

On the minus side:
-It's heavier than upright canister stoves
-It's bulkier than upright canister stoves
-It's more expensive than upright canister stoves.

It kind of depends on what is important to a given individual as to whether or not a Windpro would be a desirable stove. One thing I will say is that one could conceivably buy just one stove if one bought a Windpro and be able to use it year round. There would be some challenges in very cold weather, but it could be done if one had the proper techniques and preparation.

HJ

markskor wrote:Been using a Windpro for 5+ years now and all those pocket-rocket/ flame over canister type stoves (IMHO), do not compare.

Sure it compares. In your experience it always compares favorably. Jim thinks it's a tradeoff. From my perspective there is never any need for the added weight/bulk of a remote stove in the Sierra.

longri wrote: From my perspective there is never any need for the added weight/bulk of a remote stove in the Sierra.

Respectfully disagree.
What extra bulk? The stove fits safe and easily inside of my cooking pot which is large enough to feed two adults (pot also holds my reel, extra spools, scrubby, bics, etc.)
That "extra" 3 oz of weight for the Windpro allows me to go higher, deeper, and longer for extended fishing trips, all year long...and cook fish and real food...simmers nicely too...stable, with a safe windscreen.

Show me all the pretty 3-color graphs and charts you have , but...IMHO too many variables between the various canister stoves available and pot size used to be explained by any straight line graphs (so far presented here). There is more to it than just comparing the gas mix used and the time it takes to boil water...Pot size, humidity, temperature, valve-opening size, windscreen used, altitude, wind, amount of gas (butane) remaining in the canister, type of cooking/simmering. At +12,000', using an unstable frypan (fish), going out for 2+ weeks at a time - May to October, my experience says a remote canister works better than a pocket rocket.
From my limited Sierra experience, any other stove-over-canister set-up just does not work as efficiently for my type of backpacking regularly done. YMMV.

Maybe I just go higher or go out longer than you do...and do more than boil water?

markskor wrote:

longri wrote: From my perspective there is never any need for the added weight/bulk of a remote stove in the Sierra.

Respectfully disagree.

How can you "disagree" with what I experience? It's subjective, personal. It isn't open to debate. We can debate facts but not personal preference.

markskor wrote:What extra bulk? The stove fits safe and easily inside of my cooking pot which is large enough to feed two adults (pot also holds my reel, extra spools, scrubby, bics, etc.)

It is bulkier. Anyone can see that. In my pot I fit a 220g canister, windscreen, pot holder, scrubbie, a small towel, a lighter, usually some food and of course the stove too.

markskor wrote:That "extra" 3 oz of weight for the Windpro allows me to go higher, deeper, and longer for extended fishing trips, all year long...and cook fish and real food...simmers nicely too...stable, with a safe windscreen.

That's a difference worth mentioning. You cook fish on a regular basis and so carry a wide diameter fry pan. I only rarely take a small fry pan. If I took a larger one I'd look for a stove that is more stable -- but not necessarily a remote stove.

markskor wrote:Maybe I just go higher or go out longer than you do...and do more than boil water?

Yeah, maybe that's it. I only boil water on overnight trips at 4000 feet. LOL

I have a remote canister stove. I'd carry it if it were worth it for me. But aside from better pot stability that I don't need and easier operation at temperatures I almost never encounter, for me it's just a bulkier, heavier stove.

should probably return to can stove fuel consumption issue.

Not sure how to do that unless we line up the stoves and compare. Appears that intended usage comes into play, but, how does one factor that into the mix?

Swung by my usual outdoor store, and lo, they are phasing out Optimus and now carry Olicamp 4 season mix. Got some for Point Reyes next week. I was all ready to get a can of Optimus to weigh and compare brands and they didn't have the small ones, just the 8 oz versions I only carry for a very long trip. Hmmm, wonder if it is a supply issue, or others were complaining?

rlown wrote:should probably return to can stove fuel consumption issue.

Not sure how to do that unless we line up the stoves and compare. Appears that intended usage comes into play, but, how does one factor that into the mix?

Side by side comparisons with everything carefully controlled and measured gives a baseline. With that approach it becomes clear that an integrated stove like the Jetboil is inherently more fuel efficient than non-integrated stoves. Using this same methodology, MSR rates their Pocket Rocket as slightly more fuel efficient than their Windpro II. I wonder why?

What counts is outside where wind and cold can play havoc with efficiency. The choice of pot size and shape, how high you turn up the stove and the type of cooking are additional variables to consider. People tend to rely upon their own experiences or anecdotal reports. That often leaves us lacking the information to really know what the differences are due to.

For example, Mark says he and a friend got 5 days out of a 220g canister using his Windpro II. My wife and I typically get about 3 1/2 days using our Snowpeak Gigapower. So can we conclude that the Windpro II is 40% more efficient than a Gigapower?

It may be that the Windpro II is more fuel efficient, at least with how Mark uses his. But from these examples there's no way to determine that.

Wow, gone for a few days and my question gets four pages of responses!! Reading the responses, it appears my stove's fuel consumption is about the same as others experience who cook in a similar fashion. A properly designed foil windscreen, that directs heat towards the pot and not the canister, could help my fuel last a little longer. Maybe enough for two meals. I should also keep using the snow peak or msr fuels and stay away from Optimus since some have had worse fuel consumption results.

Thank you all for the valuable information.

Glad you got something useful out of our yakking.

Now I have a question for you: Why do want to conserve fuel?
I'm not joking, it's a serious question.