Lightweight Integrated Canister Fuel Cooking Systems State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Overview and Performance Evaluation

Roger is certainly correct in saying the laws of physics can't be violated. An automatic pressure regulator is a convenience. With a good one, the same valve setting will put out the same heat from a full canister to a nearly depleted one. That capability should save fuel because the user doesn't need to do (or forget to do) the regulating manually.

Perhaps I missed it, but nowhere in this article did I see the weight(s) of those thick-walled steel canisters included. Something I find a bit odd at a publication named "Backpacking LIGHT". Alcohol can be carried in a thin-walled plastic bottle, and a soda can stove can weigh as little as half an ounce, but you make the comparison difficult by not giving a weight range for canisters.

While I found the test data informative, I thought the data presentation was unnecessarily complicated. After a few seconds to heat the bottom of the pot, the temperature curves are essentially straight lines. I've tested a lot of stoves and found this to be the case generally. Given that, most of what this long article said could be summed up by a simple table or two giving "Power to the Pot" figures under the wind and ambient temperature conditions you tested.

This number allows the user to easily estimate boil times for different volumes of water at different starting temperatures. It gets really easy if the power is given in calories and the temperatures are in degrees C instead of the significantly more arcane BTU's per Hour. (each 1000 calories heats a liter 1 degree C)

I extracted the calories/sec to the pot from your plot and was able to synthesize your efficiency numbers and boil times to reasonable accuracy. If I'd had access to the original data, the accuracy would have been even better.

I think the weight of the canister is relevant when it comes to the big picture. This article is outstanding. It compares apples to apples. It also does a great job in addressing the big picture, in that it suggests that you can often save weight by carrying a heavy system like this (if you need to boil enough water). The "gas mileage" section is an excellent way to look at that.

I think it be great if there was a followup article comparing a few stove systems, and the fuel needed to heat water. The gas mileage section is a good start. At what point, though, does a canister fuel stove save weight (over an alcohol stove)? Two gallons, five gallons, ten gallons? At what point does an integrated canister system save weight over that? A chart with a few graphs would give a good idea of when it makes sense to carry alcohol, and when it makes sense to carry a canister (from a weight perspective). At this point, I think all that is needed is just crunching the numbers (assuming the numbers on alcohol stoves is sitting around).

"The weights of the canisters are assumed fixed. The weights of the stoves are variable, which is what needs to be compared.

Why would you bring up alcohol when this is a canister stover review?"

The canister weight is very important to someone who's trying to decide if one of these stoves is a better choice than an some other type of stove. You're assuming that anyone reading this article should be doing so only to decide which of these stoves is best. That isn't the case. I read it to decide if I should consider any of them over the other choices out there.

Ross,
Will did a great comparison back in 2006 of 6 systems and as I remember alcohol beat out a top mount canister up to a trip length of 7 days.

You can find it here

David,
my scales say an empty MSR canister is 4.8 oz. and a Snowpeak is 5.3

ya gotta luv it when all these hidden jetboilers come out of the closet ;)

that said, ive been noticing a bit more of a trend on BPL less about absolute weight and more about function and convenience/comfort … ie value IMO …

jeboils, "framed" (or at least with stays) packs, double wall tents (or single wall with add ons), neo airs, etc …

At least now, Eric, we don't need to go in disguise when we take our jetboils to the back country. The weight of that false beard was killing me.
In general I think you're right; there's a kind of pendulum swing, where you look at how absolutely light can you go, and then consider what you might gain by "spending" a few ounces–use a 9 oz Neoair vs. a 3 oz piece of foam, avoid back surgery, that kind of thing.

Clayton–I've also had problems with the igniter on my Snow Peak GigaPower GST-100a. For long periods of time the igniter won't work, then one day it will start working again, for no obvious reason. So, like you, I have to carry a back-up Bic.

David,
sorry I was talking about 8 oz. canisters, didn't think about the 4 oz. ones.

Boy, I would love to see a repeat of the snow-melting test in 20 degree temperatures instead of 45, and just for fun with a Simmerlite and an inverted canister stove thrown in there. That would answer all my questions about the most efficient system for melting and boiling for my backcountry ski tours.
Oh, and the test needs to be run until each stove has used up a full 220 gm canister, so we see how much performance tails off.
How 'bout it, Will?

Article says:

> A conventional top-mount stove is simply not as fuel efficient as an integrated stove

I understand this is all quite complicated as the variables are many but I must say I consistently get these results from a conventional top-mount:

52 pints heated / 8 oz canister

Burner is a Coleman F1 UL (77 gr)
Pot is the most common Titan kettle (90 gr without the lid)
Lid is the usual aluminum foil (aprox. 3 gr)
Windscreen is made out of a pie baking pan (aprox. 8 gr)

For a total of 178 gr or 6.3 oz

Water is heated, not boiled (hot enough for the typical meal rehydrated in a bag). Moderate/low flame. All pints were heated on the field in the summer mountains so it's as representative of real conditions as it can get.

This is quite as good as the best integrated stove in the review for 1+ oz less weight. I never noted (or cared about) the heating time, it was acceptable; one minute more or less won't usually make a difference to me. I know the comparison with the report tests may not be fair though. I just wanted to show what can be made with a most conventional, simple burner.

In my limited experience, I think a good windscreen is key even in calm conditions. That and a low flame, a properly sized pot and some discipline to keep an eye on the operation to turn the stove off when the water is hot enough. And I like the simplicity and low bulk of the whole arrangement (even the shabby looking windscreen) over the more polished and colourful Jetboil.

It's still good to see Jetboil tried to make it light and efficient.

Great report, as usual.

The integrated stove is good for that really long trip vs. an Esbit stove which is good for week-long trips and much lighter, especially at an near the end of a trip. It has no empty canister to carry back home. But the Esbit is slower to heat the water, though it has never bothered me.

With the kind of progress noted in these integrated stoves, it may not take too many more years where they are competitive on a shorter trip basis. (though five days is long for me, for sure. Its neat to see the improvement and the convience.

Will and Janet, monumental effort. What BPL should be all about.

-PS please don't spank me cause' I brought up Esbit in a gas stove discussion. It's relevant just like Ross' alchohol comments.

"PS please don't spank me cause' I brought up Esbit in a gas stove discussion. It's relevant just like Ross' alchohol comments."

I won't spank you but no, the alchohol commentary was not relevant in a discussion about CANISTER STOVES.

By the way, I'm puzzled by Ryan's results:

> We boiled 30 pots of water on a single 100g fuel canister in conditions that averaged 45 degrees, windy, and rainy
…
> for 30×0.7L pots of water

That'd make about 42 one-pint boils. This is almost twice as efficient as stated in the test results (50+ one-pint boils for a 8 oz canister). Am I missing something?