Svea 123R or Primus 96? Which would you choose?

Many years ago, 42 to be precise, a good friend and I were planning a pass level walk across the Swiss Alps. So no true mountaineering, just challenging walking with a bit of scrambling. We walked in September and met some snow, most camps were in valleys but a few were wild camps at altitude.
During the planning we debated every piece of kit to carry as we had a fair bit between us. One of those decisions was what stove to take. We both had an Alp 7000 gas stove but we wanted a back up stove with an alternative fuel source.
My choice was my Svea 123R , my friend's his Primus 96. I lost this debate as my friend wasn't keen on carrying petrol and besides we were taking my tent not his.
I have to say I enjoyed using the 96 but I wondered what would your choice have been? I'm especially keen to know the opinion of those from Europe who might know which fuel would be most easily sourced back in the early 1980s. It's not that I'm at all bitter I lost that argument 42 years ago.

 

How did those perform Rob? At altitude, better than at sea level presumably thanks to the impact of reduced atmospheric pressure on gas cart vapour pressure.

John

 

@presscall, Ooh that's a beauty John, ours were just plain aluminium. They performed reasonably well but then the highest pass was below 3000m so perhaps 'altitude' is an exaggeration, hardly the Himalayas! Just as well as there were no fancy gas mixes back then that I recall.
I'm sure you recall there was a mountaineering version of the stove with a large preheat tube. I forget the number but I seem to remember the gas canister attached directly to it so presumably the gas entered as a liquid.

 

Well, I was in my pre-teens back in the 80's. I'm 43 at time of writing, so I wasn't really into stoves and fuel back then.
What I do know is that petrol was less diluted back then, at least the non-leaded petrol, and paraffin/petroleum was more readily available. Both need need pre-heating. So the only argue I can make is to take the 123, since it doesn't have a pump...

But you say you encountered snow, so then you want to have a mini-pump, which you can lose...
Hmmm though call

 

Maybe this ALP 8100?

 

@presscall ha ha, seconds before you posted a reply I found your article. Yes, that's the one! I seem to remember it was quite a bit more expensive than the 7000 and I didn't feel my type of backpacking warranted it.

 

The Alp 7000 was just so neat and easy, it was a great design for backpacking.

 

Less parts to lose than with a 96 though, although of course we took the storage tin.

 

@presscall John's question got me thinking, about the various parameters that would influence a gas stove as altitude increased. It's not surprising to find it's been throughly researched.

 

These days, if travelling light, the easiest fuel to find in appropriate small quantities would be naphta lighter fluid which many (most?)petrol stations and off-licences stock. Expensive but a container of Aspen or panel wipe won't cut it in a rucksack! Not sure if the availability was the same where you were when you were.

So that means 123 (I'd take an 8R Or 71 as I like them more ).

Meths would be the next most available in practical 500ml bottles from hardware shops... paraffin now hard to find other than in 4l prepack, unless it's barbecue lighting fluid season in supermarkets. Maybe by the 80s paraffin at the pump was getting scare at garages over there as well as here?

I'd still rather have a well serviced 96 despite fuel availability issues.... and needing two fuels and the more moving parts... even better would be a 1 pint stove, barely any extra weight and far less faff refuelling, and fewer burner parts to lose. If you made friends with locals maybe they'd have let you dip their central heating oil tank.... if such things were common there?

 

Hi @Robert Radcliffe, first of all Robert great interesting thread, if i had to choose between the 96 and the 123R it would be a hard decision to make, They are two fantastic little stoves each having advantages and disadvantages over each other.

The 123r has less parts that could get lost, it's not impossible for instance a spanner prickers or even a leg items that could be left behind.
The 123r comes with it's own pot for boiling that stored on top of the stove making it all nice and compact, the 123R is easy and quick to prime and can be primed the traditional way with its on fuel with out any wicking material.

The 96 i must admit is my favourite of the two, for it's size a powerful little stove and great performer yet small and compact, and much cheaper to run I am sure back in the early 80's Paraffin was around about £1.00 a gallon.

But for your trip my ideal stove would either a Radius43 or a Optimus 111b or the 8R, all are compact have no loose parts like legs/pot rests all built in.
they all are powerful and have great control not fiddly and pack away nicely

 

I'm not a huge fan of the B versions of the 111 or 22, but had I known about the 8r back then that would have been a great choice. I have to say the 96 performed brilliantly and I came back with a real respect for that stove.

 

A pity I didn't know about the 8r back then, I often recommend the 71 to people wanting a 123r, as secondhand prices are usually far more reasonable for a 71.

 

I think the 123r was a small scale seller back then, mainly the preserve of climbers and mountaineers, and of course small light gassies soon came along to compete. Certainly compared to how well they sold overseas, where they seem to be the most common small petrol stove...

 

My own juxtaposition in like circumstances would be the 123 and a one-pinter, such as the 00 or 210. I don’t like the 96s in the backcountry; nine separate- and separable- parts. (Except the Manaslu version.)
I’d take the petrolburner.

 

Consider using automotive gasoline, if weight is critical. Many Svea enthusiasts have used it for years with no issue. Naptha is best for a few reasons, that’s what I like to use, but a few tanks of car gas won’t turn it into a pumpkin. Tetraethyl Lead was removed from automotive gasoline decades ago.

 

The issue here is buying it in small enough quantities... many pumps now have a minimum delivery of 5 litres (some are still 2 litres, even that is a bit much!), and petrol can only be dispensed into approved containers... so you'd be needing to lug a 5l can around with you!

 

Back in the 80s everyone drove petrol cars. Fill the car short length of hose pipe and a bad taste in mouth would easily see your stove and reserve bottle filled. I was given a stove (Radius 42) that ran exclusively on car gas since new. Still runs fine

 

I would've taken the Svea because it's a known quantity. I have zero experience with Kerosene GPAs.
What the logistics of getting clean naptha [Coleman gas] would have been in the Alps in the Mid- '80s were, I cannot imagine.
In 1970, while hitchhiking around the Rockies, I had my 123. If I needed Coleman fuel, I'd buy the gallon can, fill my stove and a pint-size Cavog can, and give the rest away. Other campers were glad to take it.
One driver that gave me a ride, happily tipped it into the gas tank of his '67 C/20 truck.

 

We'd consider 3,000m 'altitude' here, for sure.

Generally my approach is that if conditions are rough, or cold, or such, petrol is preferable because of the higher volatility and thus ease of ignition in fraught circumstances.

My guess is that is why the Svea 123 was widely marketed in the US in the days of my youth as a 'climbers' stove', while keroburners were common enough at low altitudes; the Optimus 00 in particular.