High Sierra Topix

I like to use large rocks to crush empties in the backcountry. It's fun and dramatic and it means more space in the pack. Try that with your MSR. When I'm not in the mood for that sort of exercise I take the empties home and pop them open with a church key or a screw driver and then deliver them to the "blue bin".

Partially used canisters go car camping. I have toyed with the idea of topping them up but so far it just hasn't seemed worth the bother.

I have done much internet searching on stove fuel consumption and came across this chart. I found it very useful for stove comparison and fuel usage. Here is the website http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin ... d_id=20499" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Scroll down and you will see the chart.
Thanks for all your insight. I picked the Olicamp Xcelerator and XTS combo stove pot. This cut 2 lbs. of kitchen weight from my pack! My Whisperlite gave me many hassle free meals, but it had to go.
Thanks again Scouter9
Alpine high

Interesting tables but without a subscription to BPL you can't know what assumptions they made. What they are saying is that top mount canister stoves are more fuel efficent than remote canister stoves and that all canister stoves use a LOT less fuel in terms of weight than white gas stoves. Their numbers do not match the specs from MSR about their own stoves so you have to wonder.

I also came across this graph to show comparisons for different stoves and fuel types http://zenstoves.net/StoveChoices.htm#BottomLine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I was reluctant to give up my MSR Whisperlite because it has been so good for so long, but the total weight comparison vs. the remote canister stoves plus the feedback from people on this site convinced me that I will save weight (my main concern) they are a lot more user friendly and they fit into a smaller space. Yes the fuel costs more per ounce in canisters and yes they are certainly not "green" and yes white gas is more fuel efficient on longer trips such as my 9 day trip, but the total weight savings is 2 lbs. and I can't see hauling around 2 extra pounds because I simply like my old stove.
However, I too did not understand how a remote stove is less efficient than an upright stove, since you have the ability to use a windscreen and some can be inverted but I did not look at their numbers either. Are MSR's numbers less or more fuel efficient than that website?

I don't undertand why a remote canister stove would use more fuel either. I think there are factors not being properly included in the analysis.

From the BPL table, fuel burned per liter boiled:
24g - white gas
16g - remote canister
13g - top mount canister

I assumed white gas has a density of 0.7 g/ml. As you can see the white gas stove numbers really suck according to that table at BPL.

But MSR says something different:
14g - white gas (Whisperlight)
15g - remote canister (Windpro II)
14g - top mount (Pocket Rocket)

The Zen guy says:
15g - white gas (MSR Simmerlight)
13g - top mount (Snow Peak Gigapower)

Who are you going to believe?

For a summer Sierra trip like you're planning a remote canister stove will be lighter and more compact than a Whisperlight. A top mount canister would be even lighter and more compact. The main reason for having a remote stove is for winter use or if you're clumsy since a top mount is less stable.

White gas stoves aren't green either but it doesn't matter very much.

The fire ban that started in Sequoia NF and will likely be instituted in other Sierra jurisdictions means we'll all be using stoves with regulated flame - alcohol will be included in the ban along with wood stoves and campfires.

So, yeah. Canisters. Not getting a white gas any time soon. Some of them are workable to cook with, not that I do that too often.

I recycle them when they are used up.

Hey, white gas is getting squeezed out, anyway: many local jurisdictions and Scout camps now restrict against liquid fuel stoves and lanterns. This gores my ox for car camping, as I still use a well-maintained Coleman stove and lantern set that works as well as when new, 60 years ago. I own a badass LED lantern and I can tell you that I prefer the light of the Coleman even though it's harder to fire and I have to be careful with the mantles.

Anyway, enough of that, but white gas just might get regulated out. Canister fuel for the win, again.

If you're a member at Backpacking Light, check out their recent article on "Frybake cooking". It includes a video with Alpine High's new stove in action.

Scouter9 wrote:Hey, white gas is getting squeezed out, anyway: many local jurisdictions and Scout camps now restrict against liquid fuel stoves and lanterns.

Getting off topic here but you've piqued my curiosity. What local jurisdictions have banned white gas stoves? And I'll readily admit I know nothing about the how the Boy Scouts of America sets its rules, but their official national policy document lists white gas first in the list of recommended stove fuels.

?

I guess I'll have to check out the video since my stove hasn't arrived yet, thanks for the update, now back to the Giants game

i still stand with the white gas crowd. I love my stove, and fire is fire, regardless of the fuel. heck, the 151 i carry is as flammable. not like granite stone is gonna burst into flames.

Think that we actually cook.