General discussion subject:

Going over the postings and net pages on differing stoves, fuel comparisons, cookware reviews.

I noticed the tendancy to do comparisons of these items as if they were to be used on trying to climb mount Everest or the Alps. Hence the "survival" label is often the guage of choice.

However is it realy a good choice in guages for the general hiker?

Granted that important things like being able to work well in windy conditions.

Is it realy necessary (not including emergencies) to have a stove that boils water to make coffee or hot chocolate in 3 mins time? Usualy a hike is ment to enjoyable, not an on the job "your boss needs you to finish the job .. yesterday" type of RUSH.

Some stoves designed to be tough (survival) are not paticularly fuel efficient, then again the oposite can also be true.

A simple stove such as the trangia are fantastic. However it requires preheating when cold -Deg C.

Thanks for the chat

yt

Northernflame

I think you are mostly right. The facts and figures presented in those reviews are there either as a marketing tool or to give the reviewer something to write. BUT if you have two similar products then choosing between them is probably aided by some sort of quantitative measure.

Fair comparisons might be boil times or fuel efficiency for two similar stoves. You can't compare Alcohol to Petrol - well you can but people choose the different types for differnet reasons. Those who can't wait on their tea choose petrol and want boil time comparisons. Those who choose meths want simplicity don't care how long it takes and perhaps want to know about fuel efficiency. Those with high class tastes moving in lofty circles - the poets and scholars, naturally choose brass and paraffin. They really don't give a stuff about any of it and only want to read metal polish reviews and waffle recipes.

Actually I've seen more facts and figures presented about home made tin can stoves than anything else. Most of those with wildly optimistic boil times. Lots of these reviews claim better boil times than the classic Trangia none of them ever mention wind. They mention wind shields but I know from hard won experience that with foil in anything other than a light breeze you are buggered.

I wouldn't really think of any stove as a survival tool - some way to start a fire is an essential piece of kit. A stove is for the users convenience. It's more convenient to light the Trangia than go looking for firewood when it's pouring with rain. It's easier to find shelter and light your Primus than make a fire out in a hurricane.

Finally I think for me the journey is the thing not the destination so maybe the longer it takes to make the tea the better!

Hello,
I recently came back to hiking and packpacking after a long break. I have found that the gear is more comfortable, lighter and designed with the hiker in mind.
As far as stoves go. I enjoy burning anyone of them. The varity of a collection allows me to adapt to the weather. If it is going to be hot and I am hauling everything on my back I want the lighest and easiest to use. My homemade soda can stove is good for boiling that is really it's sole purpose to be light and boil. (cold, rainy weekends are for another choice) Rain or cold requires something with a little more of a punch so the Optimus 8r, 99 or 80 might be used. Since I don't climb mountains and hike above 10,000 ft. I don't have to worry about fuel burning at the different altitudes.
Pretty much I just select a stove that will keep me in my pack weight range and I usually take a different stove each time to enjoy in the outdoors. Every journey has a memory, each stove gets to be part of that particular memory.
Chuck

I have to agree with Northernflame that the Trangia is excellent & to me is the epitomy of laid back hiking/backpacking. Simple, no noise, no maintainence, no fiddling - it does what it's supposed to & all you have to do is light the meths! As he says, what is the rush! I can relax while the kettle boils & contemplate the sky or enjoy the crack with my mates without having to fuss over the stove.
To a point I do care about speed - I don't want to be still waiting for the lunchtime brew while everyone else has finished & ready to go or fall asleep while waiting for my evening meal to cook. Anyway, the Trangia isn't that slow whereas some of these soda can meths stoves need a little too much TLC for my liking to get a reasonable performance out of them.

On the other hand I like the old, mainly brass classics. I like the design, the noise, the history, the fiddling & fettling required to get the best out of them & if I was a scholar or poet I could probably wax far more lyrical about why I feel the way I do about them, why I collect them & why I do this website but I'm not so this will have to do! Peter Watchorn has summed it up eloquently elsewhere on the forum.

I can also be impressed with speed - I've used a fair range of the modern stoves & have been impressed & when melting snow for food & drink, grateful for the btu's cranked out by them.
I try & enjoy them all in the right context for me - Trangia when backpacking; fast,high output stoves on trips requiring snow melting & the old classic stoves at home, car camping, static camping etc.

Will. When you state "Petrol" Hoping that the web page translation is correct. Petrol is automobile gassoline, such as unleaded, super, super unleaded, and all the other flashy names that go with it.

Is this what you consider petrol as ?

I know that in Britain Parafin is Kerosene here.

Here and in the USA diesel and home heating oil furnace fuel (same as diesel except it has red colouring in it).

Also oil furnace fuel is not all that good even in parafin stoves. It burns perhaps twice as dirty as kerosene and requires far more than the usual presure and a generator that can spiral air mix and force it out into the burner.

Also. What is your take on the heat efficientcy of petrol over coleman fuel?

Thank you.

yt

Northernflame.

Petroleum, Petrol, Gasoline are to my way of thinking all the same thing.

My experience of petrol stoves is limited I'm just plain scared of them. I saw a 3 foot jet of flame exit the safety valve of an 8R and set fire to a cooking shelter. I've seen spurting flames from other places too. I guess they are safe enough when used properly but theres always that one time when tired or cold when the user does something stupid.

I guess that's another way to test stoves X is more idiot proof than Y (Trangia wins again!)

I think Coleman Fuel and petrol are pretty similar in heat output but I haven't done any tests.

I've used 1 ltr of Coleman fuel in my entire life! It came free with my Primus Himalaya MFS ( now selling on ebay!). Then I switched to unleaded and then paraffin. I didn't see much difference although priming with Coleman was cleaner than with unleaded and might have been marginally quicker than unleaded or paraffin.

In practical terms I don't think outside in the wind and rain theres much difference between using petrol and paraffin. You're cold when you start and glad when when the hot vittles are ready!

Actually when taking priming and pre-cooking fiddling about into account the Trangia isn't much slower than anything else I've got. In a real good blow it's nearly the only way you can get a hot drink.

Anyway my point was that speed tests don't matter much but might help you choose between two or more stoves of the same type.

Finally:
Speed test people seem to either ignore priming or time from the moment they light up. I always wonder how long it takes them to get fuel into the priming dish and how long to get themselves organised for the fastest possible start!

By custom here we've usually come to refer to kerosene for paraffin and petrol for gasoline. This has two advantages: the non-Brits get one term and the Brits get the other.
It also simplifies things. To a Yank, paraffin means the wax; familiar to most of us as the wax grandma used to seal her jars of homemade jam and jelly with.
To the larger world "gas", the North American shorthand for gasoline, means vapor. Of course, it means that in North American English too, but creates endless confusion when you're talking about fuels internationally. Camping Gaz, after all.
"Petrol" includes, but is not limited to, automobile gasoline. It includes Coleman fuel, and other forms of "white gas"; ie, gasoline free of any additives. So I burn Coleman in petrol stoves, Coleman fuel being very cheap here. Not the case in Britain, where it costs a fortune; a lot of auto petrol burned in petrolburners there.

Ross, you mention Peter's prose poetry in praise of the Primus stove; I think this bears reprinting once in awhile for those who haven't seen it:
"For me, the zenith of production for both Primus and Optimus was the 1920's - a fully developed and sophisticated product, with no hint of the decline and obsolescence which lay just ahead. What looks more impressive (or functions more perfectly) than a well-preserved Primus No. 5 from around 1925, with its magnificent burner, ornately stamped tank and intricately beautiful cast-iron trivet? Or an Optimus No. 1 from the same period, with the almost combative filler-cap, its Optimus "Globe" logo trumpeting the concept of Optimus as "best", as an effective counter to Primus' claim to be "first". Or, as an alternative to either, the classic lines of Radius stoves (products of the great "Primus rebellion" of 1911), with their wonderful, experimental burners, including the prototype of today's familiar adjustable/self cleaning model. The supremacy of these little miracles becomes evident when you peruse the old catalogues and realise that each of the multiplicity of models was allocated its own telegraphic nickname to facilitate identification. For me, these were the glory days, when the Primus-type stoves reigned supreme, and the diversity of models bespoke a flourishing industry devoted to an invention stupendous in its simplicity and practability: perhaps the most perfect expression of 19th century Swedish/Northern Germanic ingenuity. A product of genius, in fact. Where in the modern world does one find utilitarian products cast in the guise of such non-utilitarian grace and beauty?"

This has always summed it up well for me; I show my sceptical friends this text!

I say, use whichever stove you enjoy using. Whether it be petrol, Coleman fuel, kero, meths, whatever, the key point is to enjoy.

I have more stoves than I can possibly use all at once, unless I plan to cook for an expedition, so I let my stoves take turns going with me on camping trips.

Each stove has a specialization and depending on what I plan to do, I will take a few of these or a couple of those with me and have a fun time.

I am afraid to get into the kero side of antique stoves, "that's all I need is yet another hobby". So at least for the time being I use Petrol/Coleman fuel, butane, propane, alcohol and even charcoal stoves. I enjoy every one of them. I have one kero stove but it is a "modern" multi fuel Coleman Peak.

The biggest problem with any stove is deciding which ones to take with me on my next outing, which will be Sept 26-28 for a scout campout. I find teaching my young scouts the basics of stoves/lantern safety is quite rewarding and the kids love using stoves they can't find in the store.

Jim Henderson

Actually, kero stoves fall within the parameters of the same hobby, classic campstoves, so it wouldn't be a new hobby if you picked up a brass keroburner or two.
My guess is that the lads would be especially interested in those great stoves.

Granted.

Notably I usualy hike alone, or with one other person.

I'm never in a rush (I enjoy the solitude and nature far too much to rush things). Therefore 3 min boil times is not all that impressive ot me. If i'm clearing the trail the the camp or doing some work and
have a slow cooking meal. I use my 8r or clone on low heat. It's safe and reliable.

In all honesty I've limited my fuels to coleman (naptha), and Meths (methyl Hydrate).

I've never had good results with automobile gassoline (petrol), and as Ed stated I too have had several very bad expierneces with flareups when using gassoline.

So far with a few good tweaks the 8r stove does not smell much after the preheat is done where Naptha is concerned. Most notably becase it's a roarer burner with fast evaporation.

Meths are still my first choice...

You are an evil person tempting the weak willed.

I have used a kero Petromax with the scouts and the usual response is "what the heck is that and how does it work?" Oh I am wavering on using a kero stove at our snow camp later this year.

Jim Henderson

In my eyes, I can only see Gasoline being an explosive...

I've grown fond of the kero burner stoves and use the petrol when I'm in need of a boil!

Otherwise, I have time and I like to fettle.

Parrafin and White Gas ( Coleman fuel) are my two top choices. I use a metholated gel to prime either when/if needed.

I don't own a Trangia, but, I've been looking!

The funny thing about times though?, It seems that any of the newest, most impressive and by far more expensive stoves can and will just keep up with some of the classics!?

Ross says it well as does Ed, Chuck, and Will in earlier and later posts. We backpacked into the Alpine Lakes this past weekend and even though it was 10 miles each day, I took a 1959 Primus 96 and we cooked meals and heated water to wash up with (hate to crawl into my down bag covered with sweat, bug dope, dust, and horse poo.)

Kath, not trusting my old stove and still wanting ambiance of a hot meal and clean partner in the tent carried a MSR just in case....never had to use it.

Anyway,,the gentle rumble of the Primus was heard across the lake by two young boys and their father who the next morning came by to see what kind of stove I had that made such a different sound than their canister stove. The father recognized the sound as he was carrying an older Kelty and had grown up using older brass stoves...the two boys had their first encounter that morning.

The Primus does make a comforting sound....If I could just get Kath to light it and start hot water for cocoa while I'm still in the sack it would even be more comforting I guess.
Cheers,
Randall Nelson
Seattle

Hi Ed,

I'm hoping that I actually used the word "practicality", three lines from the end of your quotation. "Practability" sounds more like something George W. Bush might come out with (or Australia's late-lamented Prime Minister, Billy McMahon - Albert and Laurence will remember him, I'm sure!).

Here's hoping,

PW, Unofficial Primus Laureate

Probably he was waiting to be tempted so he could tell the missus it was somebody elses fault:

A big stove user did it and ran away..........